5 ms·
Aaronson seems to be arriving at an understanding that is similar to what cross-compilers do in practice. By understanding other people’s interpretations you c
by ukj 6y ago
Aaronson seems to be arriving at an understanding that is similar to what cross-compilers do in practice.
By understanding other people’s interpretations you can translate between the “assembly languages” for their minds.
You know what they will say, you know how they will react, you know what counter-arguments they will produce.
You know how to paraphrase your words so they agree or disagree with you. You know how they think.
He has predictive models for other minds.
There is nothing to “understand” about QM at face value. Because “understanding” is always about prediction.
- drran 6y ago"Understanding" is always about reproduction. Reproduce quantum effects at human scale, so I will be able to watch them with my own eyes. IF I will be able to reproduce these effects in human scale experiments by myself AND derive my own formulas from these experiments, which will closely describe the results of quantum experiments, THEN we both will trust each other that we understand QM. Otherwise, it's a religion with rituals in math, not a science. 40+ years without much progress clearly demonstrates that.
- ukj 6y agoI mean, sure. If you believe scale invariance holds.
- drran 6y agoScale effects are non-linear (sinusoidal, x^2, x^3, x^4). Some effects will not work at human scale, of course. IMHO, we can deal with them, or try to deal with them, at least, by adjusting of formulas. We can reproduce some 3D effects in 2D already, for better understanding of them, for example.