4 ms·

>a dog will never stumble upon quantum mechanics i'm always amazed by such blatant anthropo-glorifing-centric statements which imply as obvious facts the doubt

>a dog will never stumble upon quantum mechanics i'm always amazed by such blatant anthropo-glorifing-centric statements which imply as obvious facts the doubtful things like this: - that dog's brain has much less processing power. The sheer size difference is many times adjusted by efficiency difference (where human's one is less efficient) - that quantum mechanics is a super-achievement, replication of which is a mark of higher intelligence. To me the ugliness of QM is bordering on a shame for human intelligence.

derefr 16y ago
Why is quantum mechanics ugly?
- orangecat 16y ago
  The wavefunction collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation is ugly. Many-worlds is elegant, as long as you're willing to accept googols of unobservable near-duplicates of yourself.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >The wavefunction collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation is ugly thank you. i thought i'm alone here. Personally to me this one is an example of the broader method of accepting postulates as-is. It is an ugly shame that makes science into religion. Another one is doubling-down on dimensions and adding one more on top of it :) I mean it looks pretty logical and reasonably motivated, yet not everything true that is logical. "The sleep of reason produces monsters". Well, active work of human reason seems to produce even bigger monsters :)
Helianthus16 16y ago
I'm always amazed by such blatant anthropo-deprecating-centric (?) statements. -The difference in efficiency should tell you that that power spent is _worth_ something, like astonishingly superior abstraction capabilities and the ability to speak and write. -The ugliness (read; complexity) of QM could easily be interpreted as a tribute. Whether you like it or not, it is the best we have. To paraphrase HHG2G, if it's ugly, then it's the universe that got it wrong, not us. (I'm partially joking, mostly because I don't suspect you really have a firm enough grasp of QM, let alone QFT, to determine its aesthetic beauty.) I mean, I'm all for a little humbling perspective. We are a race of people descended from stupider people unto apehood (and before that, lizards!) that are stuck on a rock in a universe fantastically larger than us. That doesn't mean we should be debbie downers.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >The difference in efficiency should tell you that that power spent is _worth_ something nope. It is just that we didn't have strong enough competition from other predator species to force the efficiency increase. Instead we use the extensive way of increasing the size, even if it is accompanied by decreased efficiency. Like going cheap low-tech V8 instead of efficiently increasing horsepower of a V6 engine. >astonishingly superior abstraction capabilities yep. that one. The top manifestations of that ability were Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, etc... The astonishing ability of our brain to generate various abstract reasons to kill. This ability is the only qualitative difference between humans and animals. Most people aren't able to handle beyond the simplest physics and mathematics reasoning, yet easy to come up with a set of "other" people and pretty abstract reasons why these "others" should be violently oppressed and killed. The ability to handle mathematics and physics is just a side-effect that is manifested only by a few. If you look into the history of human species, it is a continuous blood-shed, and whenever there is a patch of technological progress it is most visibly expressed through new technological means of violence. > and the ability to speak and write tools to help communicate and organize around the above mentioned main human ability to come up with reasons to and actually perform the killings. >mostly because I don't suspect you really have a firm enough grasp of QM, let alone QFT, to determine its aesthetic beauty I have an MS in Math, and spent enough time on QM to get a "grasp". It is not about aesthetic. It is about method and our level of understanding (or lack of it) that i consider ugly. Vs. complexity - where it is in QM? The mathematical machinery there is pretty simple compare to the state of the art in mathematics.
  - Helianthus16 16y ago
    >nope. It is just that we didn't have strong enough competition from other predator species to force the efficiency increase. Instead we use the extensive way of increasing the size, even if it is accompanied by decreased efficiency. Like going cheap low-tech V8 instead of efficiently increasing horsepower of a V6 engine. ok, sure. point is our engine beats the pants off a dogs no matter how you slice it. >yep. that one. The top manifestations of that ability were Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, etc... like I said, debbie downer. you have this absurd fixation on killings. >I have an MS in Math, and spent enough time on QM to get a "grasp". In other words you are not a physicist. The saying that no one understands QM is not a joke. Mathematics is useless without reality; it's like literary analysis without story-telling. I've been joking and condescending in my responses to you, but I'm going to get a little serious now: >If you look into the history of human species, it is a continuous blood-shed Yes, it's continuous bloodshed. You know what? It's not your right to determine that what people fought for was meaningless, or too "violent" for your modern middle-class tastes. It's not your right to prissily look down on the human race from your ivory tower of Math and grumble about killing. What I see when I look upon our history is a series of people taking their actions seriously. I see a series of people that slowly, agonizingly, painstakingly turned away from violence in order to serve those 'side-effects' that you think we killers disregard. And that's the crux of it. Do you really think you're any better than the killers you despise? Maybe you don't, maybe you lump yourself in with us savages; if so, though, you must have some self-hatred issues that'll keep your therapist employed well beyond his retirement. If all you see when you look at history is the pain, then all you will _feel_ is pain.

derefr 16y ago

Why is quantum mechanics ugly?

orangecat 16y ago
The wavefunction collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation is ugly. Many-worlds is elegant, as long as you're willing to accept googols of unobservable near-duplicates of yourself.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >The wavefunction collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation is ugly thank you. i thought i'm alone here. Personally to me this one is an example of the broader method of accepting postulates as-is. It is an ugly shame that makes science into religion. Another one is doubling-down on dimensions and adding one more on top of it :) I mean it looks pretty logical and reasonably motivated, yet not everything true that is logical. "The sleep of reason produces monsters". Well, active work of human reason seems to produce even bigger monsters :)

Helianthus16 16y ago

I'm always amazed by such blatant anthropo-deprecating-centric (?) statements. -The difference in efficiency should tell you that that power spent is _worth_ something, like astonishingly superior abstraction capabilities and the ability to speak and write. -The ugliness (read; complexity) of QM could easily be interpreted as a tribute. Whether you like it or not, it is the best we have. To paraphrase HHG2G, if it's ugly, then it's the universe that got it wrong, not us. (I'm partially joking, mostly because I don't suspect you really have a firm enough grasp of QM, let alone QFT, to determine its aesthetic beauty.) I mean, I'm all for a little humbling perspective. We are a race of people descended from stupider people unto apehood (and before that, lizards!) that are stuck on a rock in a universe fantastically larger than us. That doesn't mean we should be debbie downers.

VladRussian 16y ago
>The difference in efficiency should tell you that that power spent is _worth_ something nope. It is just that we didn't have strong enough competition from other predator species to force the efficiency increase. Instead we use the extensive way of increasing the size, even if it is accompanied by decreased efficiency. Like going cheap low-tech V8 instead of efficiently increasing horsepower of a V6 engine. >astonishingly superior abstraction capabilities yep. that one. The top manifestations of that ability were Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, etc... The astonishing ability of our brain to generate various abstract reasons to kill. This ability is the only qualitative difference between humans and animals. Most people aren't able to handle beyond the simplest physics and mathematics reasoning, yet easy to come up with a set of "other" people and pretty abstract reasons why these "others" should be violently oppressed and killed. The ability to handle mathematics and physics is just a side-effect that is manifested only by a few. If you look into the history of human species, it is a continuous blood-shed, and whenever there is a patch of technological progress it is most visibly expressed through new technological means of violence. > and the ability to speak and write tools to help communicate and organize around the above mentioned main human ability to come up with reasons to and actually perform the killings. >mostly because I don't suspect you really have a firm enough grasp of QM, let alone QFT, to determine its aesthetic beauty I have an MS in Math, and spent enough time on QM to get a "grasp". It is not about aesthetic. It is about method and our level of understanding (or lack of it) that i consider ugly. Vs. complexity - where it is in QM? The mathematical machinery there is pretty simple compare to the state of the art in mathematics.
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  >nope. It is just that we didn't have strong enough competition from other predator species to force the efficiency increase. Instead we use the extensive way of increasing the size, even if it is accompanied by decreased efficiency. Like going cheap low-tech V8 instead of efficiently increasing horsepower of a V6 engine. ok, sure. point is our engine beats the pants off a dogs no matter how you slice it. >yep. that one. The top manifestations of that ability were Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, etc... like I said, debbie downer. you have this absurd fixation on killings. >I have an MS in Math, and spent enough time on QM to get a "grasp". In other words you are not a physicist. The saying that no one understands QM is not a joke. Mathematics is useless without reality; it's like literary analysis without story-telling. I've been joking and condescending in my responses to you, but I'm going to get a little serious now: >If you look into the history of human species, it is a continuous blood-shed Yes, it's continuous bloodshed. You know what? It's not your right to determine that what people fought for was meaningless, or too "violent" for your modern middle-class tastes. It's not your right to prissily look down on the human race from your ivory tower of Math and grumble about killing. What I see when I look upon our history is a series of people taking their actions seriously. I see a series of people that slowly, agonizingly, painstakingly turned away from violence in order to serve those 'side-effects' that you think we killers disregard. And that's the crux of it. Do you really think you're any better than the killers you despise? Maybe you don't, maybe you lump yourself in with us savages; if so, though, you must have some self-hatred issues that'll keep your therapist employed well beyond his retirement. If all you see when you look at history is the pain, then all you will _feel_ is pain.