54 ms·
> My favorite from David Deutsch, a main creator of the idea of quantum computing: It's interesting, but this "I challenge you to answer a philosophical (not s
by JadeNB 9y ago
> My favorite from David Deutsch, a main creator of the idea of quantum computing:
It's interesting, but this "I challenge you to answer a philosophical (not scientific) question in a way that I find acceptable" approach surely skirts uncomfortably close to dogmatically creationist arguments.
(For the record, my answer, which certainly wouldn't satisfy Deutsch, is: it works because the math proves it works; there's no more "how" about it than there is in "how does the computation 10^(250)*10^(250) = 10^(500) work?")
- opportune 9y agoI agree with you. I think the need for philosophical justification stems from our desire to reconcile quantum computing with our classical computing/physics models. But just because we desire such a thing doesn't mean there exists a reasonable one. What I think the truth really is, is that we don't encounter quantum superpositions in an obvious way in our day to day lives. So it's inherently "weird" for us, especially since it seems to violate our notion of object permanence. But that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that one of our evolved instincts isn't applicable on a quantum scale.
- JadeNB 9y ago> But that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that one of our evolved instincts isn't applicable on a quantum scale. I think that this puts it very well. If a theory doesn't fit with our intuition, then it might mean that the theory is wrong; but it's at least plausible that our intuition is wrong, and goes from plausible to overwhelmingly likely once the theory is backed up by experimental data. (Anyone, even or especially a scientist, who dogmatically trusts his or her intuition over science probably could do with a quick refresher in cognitive biases.)
- ridewinter 9y agoMath is used to explain the universe. It isn't an explanation in of itself. We never progressed anywhere by saying "something just works" and leaving it at that. Challenge yourself.
- mikeash 9y agoSeems like it's the opposite to me. We never progressed anywhere with "explanations." Progress comes when those explanations are condensed to testable mathematics. I'm curious as to what you think consists of "an explanation" that's more useful than mathematics. Let's take a simple classical phenomenon to keep it easy, such as kinetic energy. The mathematical statement is E_k = 1/2 m v^2. What non-math explanation works better?
- whyever 9y agoJust the math is not enough, you need some connection to reality. For instance, your formula does not describe reality for large v. This can be tested.
- gnaritas 9y agoMaths are models of reality which may or may not be correct and can only be verified by comparing them to reality. While they serve as the most simple way to explain reality, don't confuse them with reality. The map is not the territory.
- mikeash 9y agoWhat prompts this reply? I'm not saying that math is reality, merely that solid mathematical models have been the foundation of progress in science, not "explanations."
- gnaritas 9y agoI just don't agree with what you're saying, progress comes from understanding reality via some intuition, understanding and intuition lead to the development of testable models. Testable mathematical models are the result of progress in science, not the foundation of it.
- JadeNB 9y ago> Testable mathematical models are the result of progress in science, not the foundation of it. I think that the information can flow either way. For example, the existence of anti-matter, and portions of quantum mechanics (and, let's say, much of Witten's scientific work—though here I am tossing out a bit of folk knowledge, and couldn't point to anything in particular), are examples of letting the math guide the physics.