On 12/29/2013 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto: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.

But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) quantum. But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem). So it doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.



    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.

But it could be.  You only know the observations - you don't know the reality 
in itself.


If we identify reality only with observed phenomena, what is to prevent us from falling into solipsism or idealism?

Solipism doesn't seem to work well.  When I kick people they kick back.  :-)

Brent
"I'm a Solipist, and I must say I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
      -- letter to Bertrand Russell

--
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