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 <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.


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 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.

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 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