I wrote this essay nearly five years ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9MgWvi9mywhNHVPQWlUU0VaTnNwbEk0TlVBdlU2ZUZfajU0/view
It is about the role of semantics and interpretation in the measurement interactions of Quantum Mechanics. And I am quite sure I will be able to explain the application of the same ideas of semantics, information and representation in computation and communications in terms of quantum mechanics, so that another way to think about the security properties of the protocols I am proposing here:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=141298399931901&w=2
is to explain them in terms of Quantum Cryptography. This will probably make it even less likely that OpenBSD developers will take me seriously.
The problem for some people seems to be that because they've never heard of these ideas before, the ideas must be wrong. So how can there ever be any new ideas? I suppose we have to just wait until the really clever people say the ideas are right before we hear about them. Who are the really clever people though? The people at Cambridge? A security expert at Cambridge who apparently has nothing to say about these ideas, just told me yesterday, though not in so many words of course, because the people at Cambridge are all so frightfully polite, you know, that I am psychotic because Herman Hesse wrote Steppenwolf.
So if we want someone really clever to say these ideas are right we will have to look elsewhere. Let's try Bruce.
No comments:
Post a Comment