@

katastrofa

These are very physiky questions and I'm just a very poor businessman now. The viability of Bayesforge does not depend on my ramblings about Bayesian networks. But let me give some brief answers

Your presentation mentions physical concepts which have rigorous definitions - maybe except the picture of apes jumping around Josephson junctions(?)

I wanted to know how exactly they are related to your project. Is someone helping you with the physiky part? If there's no hard core quantum physicist on board, who's doing the entanglement project? You didn't answer if my interpretation of what "calculating entanglement" means is correct, but assuming it is, experts in the field struggle with that problem - not to mention noncognoscenti.

"

how do you model causality? "
I like to define Judea Pearl's "do" operations using entropies. Such a definition can be generalized to quantum mechanics by replacing the joint probability distributions by density matrices. I have written only one paper on this, so i am just an amateur about this topic. https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5837 This is obviously not the only way to go about this. There is much to learn yet about this topic. On the software front, there already exist programs (for example in the CRAN repository, and Bayesialab) that do Judea Pearl do calculus calculations. So I can see a day when someone will generalize that software to quantum bayesian networks.

Joint probabilities or density matrices won't model causality/Pearl's "do". You need something more for directional correlations... Anyway, you will have some "quantum" model with lots of degrees of freedom (possibly not measurable ones) - where would you apply it? would you be able to calibrate it? That's why I've been asking you several times where's the need for your model. Whatever I can think of doesn't hold. There indeed are many ways to build more expressive neural networks, but will it be of any practical or scientific value or just for an umpteenth arxiv paper?

BTW, I believe a natural candidate for such alrgorithms is quantum molecular dynamics (maybe even already running on D-waves).

"Do I understand correctly that you calculate the measure of entanglement? Which one?"

I want to keep that secret for now. My "Q Entanglement Lab" is already finished in its first version. And it works nicely. But I still haven't written docs or jupyter notebooks for it. It will be open source "eventually" (I haven't decided yet when), but I want others to write their own Entanglement labs. I'm afraid that if they see what I have done before writing their own, they might be less original when writing their own.

If you don't mind staying poor, I think the easiest way for you to get funding would be to go back to academia and suck up to some influential professor, who will back your proposal as a grant application. I knew completely clueless people who got degrees from top unis and hefty grants for research on "quantum" nonsense in this way. Just make it sound complex and mysterious - as I was once told by an official advisor when applying a fellowship at a British uni, "you need to learn to bullshit"

I'm not saying your project is bad - I don't understand it enough to criticise.

Have fun and good luck!