> Given that quantum effects do exist, does this mean that the result of quantum activity is still just another physical input into the UAN
Yeah, it could be a spurious input though. My understanding is that quantum mechanics doesn't really matter at biological scale, and that kinda makes sense right? Like, if this whole claim about biology being reducible to the topology of the components of the network is true, then the first thing you'd do is try to evolve components that are robust to quantum noise or leverage it for some result (ie: one can imagine some binding site constructed in such a way that it requires a rare event that none-the-less actually has a very specific probability of occurring).
> and does not change the analysis of what the UAN computes? It seems difficult to think that what a UAN computes is not impacted by those lower level details (meaning specifically quantum effects, I'm not thinking of just alternate implementations).
What the UAN computes is impacted by those lower level details, but it is abstractable given enough simulation data.
ie, imagine if you had a perfect molecular scan of a modern CPU that detailed the position of every atom. While it would be neat to simulate it physically, for the purpose of analysis, you'd likely want to at least abstract it to the transistor level. The 'critical topology' is I guess, the highest possible level of abstraction before a CPU tester can tell your simulation from an atom-level simulation.
Now for CPUs, we designed that model first and then built the CPU. In biology, it evolved on the physical level, but still maps to a 'critical topology'.
Yeah, it could be a spurious input though. My understanding is that quantum mechanics doesn't really matter at biological scale, and that kinda makes sense right? Like, if this whole claim about biology being reducible to the topology of the components of the network is true, then the first thing you'd do is try to evolve components that are robust to quantum noise or leverage it for some result (ie: one can imagine some binding site constructed in such a way that it requires a rare event that none-the-less actually has a very specific probability of occurring).
> and does not change the analysis of what the UAN computes? It seems difficult to think that what a UAN computes is not impacted by those lower level details (meaning specifically quantum effects, I'm not thinking of just alternate implementations).
What the UAN computes is impacted by those lower level details, but it is abstractable given enough simulation data.
ie, imagine if you had a perfect molecular scan of a modern CPU that detailed the position of every atom. While it would be neat to simulate it physically, for the purpose of analysis, you'd likely want to at least abstract it to the transistor level. The 'critical topology' is I guess, the highest possible level of abstraction before a CPU tester can tell your simulation from an atom-level simulation.
Now for CPUs, we designed that model first and then built the CPU. In biology, it evolved on the physical level, but still maps to a 'critical topology'.