Quantum computer solves problem, without running...

Well, this is bizarre in the extreme. Quantum mechanics/theory never ceases to amaze.
"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynmann
Never has this appeared more appropriate a comment. For a computation to provide an answer prior to/without actually taking place seems to be counter-intuitive in the extreme. However, our intuitions are bred out of experience of the macroscopic, classical, world of cause and effect. Interactions and 'events' (if we may call them such) at a quantum level are something else entirely. Quantum theory deals in probabilities rather than 'definite' predictions or observations for, in a sense, anything and everything can and does happen in this world. Furthermore, as a result of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (or, rather, as the principle describes) one can never know both the position and the momentum of a particle at any one time. Thus, there is a 'fuzziness' inherent within quantum theory. It is this fuzziness of state, alongside the very much related concept of wave-particle duality (and here), which makes the above computation possible. I don't propose to explore the mechanics of the process further (because I'm a layman...and can't), rather I intend to explore some of the initial philosophical implications as they occur to me.
Clearly the possibility of obtaining a solution without running a program has ramifications. Most obviously concerning the nature of truth. A full discussion would leave me without enough time to actually do a degree. I will therefore give a brief treatment:
Observation & Truth
What do we consider 'truth' to be? If, for the sake of this discussion, we define truth as the accurate reflection of a state-of-affairs, I.e. as the 'fact of the matter', we can continue in a discussion of physical verisimilitude. (I am aware that this is not a wholly satisfactory definition of truth, by any means. However, for our purposes, (a discussion of implications) it will serve).
In what way has a state-of-affairs been established in this event? Can we truly say that a photonic non-investigation of probabilistic phase space has established anything? Well, the question is more concerned with whether our concepts of truth, derived from observation, can truly be applied to the microscopic and thus whether anything meaningful can come from such quantum interactions. Scientific minds are unsure as to the meaning of our models of the quantum world as it is. Can we, from such models, derive a truth the foundation of which we are at a loss to understand? 'Quantum conjecture' might be a better answer than 'solution'. I am not disputing in any way the value of such work or the inference-based techniques utilised. What I am asking is whether we should rethink our model of meaning, fact, in the light of it.
If one can obtain a solution by inference from a theoretical non-event as a result of quantum superposition does one then accept a model of truth derived from probabilities, phase-space, rather than concrete value. Do we lose absolute truth on such a model? I don't propose to answer this, I'm still thinking it through myself. What I do propose is that it is a live issue. Truth as 'the way of things' does not seem to cover what we have here.

Right, now I'm going to bed...

© Alan Bowden, 2005