Artificial intelligence algorithms, fueled by continuous technological development and increased computing power, have proven effective across a variety of tasks. Concurrently, quantum computers have shown promise in solving problems beyond the reach of classical computers. These advancements have contributed to a misconception that quantum computers enable hypercomputation, sparking speculation about quantum supremacy leading to an intelligence explosion and the creation of superintelligent agents. We challenge this notion, arguing that current evidence does not support the idea that quantum technologies enable hypercomputation. (...) Fundamental limitations on information storage within finite spaces and the accessibility of information from quantum states constrain quantum computers from surpassing the Turing computing barrier. While quantum technologies may offer exponential speed-ups in specific computing cases, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that focusing solely on quantum-related problems will lead to technological singularity and the emergence of superintelligence. Subsequently, there is no premise suggesting that general intelligence depends on quantum effects or that accelerating existing algorithms through quantum means will replicate true intelligence. We propose that if superintelligence is to be achieved, it will not be solely through quantum technologies. Instead, the attainment of superintelligence remains a conceptual challenge that humanity has yet to overcome, with quantum technologies showing no clear path toward its resolution. (shrink)

For infinite machines that are free from the classical Thomson’s lamp paradox, we show that they are not free from its inverted-in-time version. We provide a program for infinite machines and an infinite mechanism that demonstrate this paradox. While their finite analogs work predictably, the program and the infinite mechanism demonstrate an undefined behavior. As in the case of infinite Davies machines :671–682, 2001), our examples are free from infinite masses, infinite velocities, infinite forces, etc. Only infinite divisibility of space (...) and time is assumed. Thus, the infinite devices considered are possible in a Newtonian Universe and they do not conflict with Newtonian mechanics. Note that the classical Thomson’s lamp paradox leads to infinite velocities which may not be producible in acceptable models of Newtonian mechanics. Finally, it is shown that the “paradox of predictability” is similar to the inverted Thomson’s lamp paradox. (shrink)

The ‘Turing barrier’ is an evocative image for 0′, the degree of the unsolvability of the halting problem for Turing machines—equivalently, of the undecidability of Peano Arithmetic. The ‘barrier’ metaphor conveys the idea that effective computability is impaired by restrictions that could be removed by infinite methods. Assuming that the undecidability of PA is essentially depending on the finite nature of its computational means, decidability would be restored by the ω-rule. Hypercomputation, the hypothetical realization of infinitary machines through relativistic and (...) quantium models, would thus be capable of breaking the Turing barrier. The speculation is unfounded in principle, apart from issues of physical realizability: The point is that the ω-rule does not cope with all objects entailing the undecidability of PA. As long as the system is consistent, the computational boundary can be established by paradox-like constructions, such as Gödel-Rosser’s and Yablo’s, which are refractory to infinite induction, and do stand as the barrier’s buttresses. (shrink)