On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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. > Computers in particular, while not special, are good examples because they illustrate that nothing known in our universe (aside from the superposition) has the necessarily complexity to produce answers to certain complex problems. > > > 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. > I would rather choose a speculative interpretation that turns out to be wrong then say QM needs no interpretation, nor should we look for one, as the paper you recently cited suggested. > > 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 > If Fuchs et al operated according to this quote, they would see that a model is not the same thing as the description/predictions of observed phenomena that it makes. If we identify reality only with observed phenomena, what is to prevent us from falling into solipsism or idealism? Jason -- 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.