On 12/29/2013 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [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.
