On 12/29/2013 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That is the only way to make progress. Propose theories, and falsify them. Ockham says between theories that make equal predictions, simpler ones are better, and it for theories of equal simplicity, ones that can explain more are also better. Anti-realist interpretations of QM have no adequate explanation for quantum computers.

There's nothing "anti-realist" about relational or Bayesian subjective interpretations, they just don't reify the wave function as you would like them to. Bohm used to make the same complaint that other theories weren't "realistic". Fuchs et al have as good an explanation of quantum computers as any dynamic quantum system, there's nothing special about computers - it's just not one that appeals to you.

They say "don't ask" on fundamental questions, which is never a good attitude to have in science.

That's your straw man attribution. You've apparently stopped asking and decided you have the answer.

Brent
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
    --—John von Neumann

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to