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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
