On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb <[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.
OK, but nobody pretended the contrary. You can still extract N bits
depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
computations have to occur in *some* sense.
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. :-)
Hmm... I already told you about the (lucid) dream of an Indian master,
who enjoyed feeling superior to his dreamed disciples.
But one day (well one night), one of the dreamed people in the
audience stood up, and told him "well, if you believe that we are not
existing because you dream us, explain me who is waking you up right
now, and he stroke him with some wood until ... he woke up!" Kicking
back is not an absolute criteria for reality.
But I agree with you, solipsism, perhaps even in dream, does not work
too well. Note, though, that the first person is factually solipsist,
even if not doctrinally so, as she can *bet* on others and 3p things,
fortunately.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
