35 ms·

Quantum Mechanics, the Chinese Room Experiment and the Limits of Understanding

12 points by hacksilver 6y ago

RHSman2 6y ago
I think a lot about the implication of QM. I don't need to understand the mathematical depth, just like I don't need to understand how a computer processes at the lowest level to do computer science. The point the author makes is VERY interesting in that many, many people really only see the concepts at face value. And that extends into many domains. But I get that not everyone is a dreamer ;)
- defterGoose 6y ago
  What's most interesting to me is that I never grok a piece of physics without understanding the math (maybe Newtonian mechanics is a gimme because of the way our brains are built), but the math is also rarely part of the "intuition" of things, which is what i strive for in learning. I think this is where people really get into trouble with QM. The physical reality of it is so strange and counterintuitive, that maybe the average brain intuits that the math can't possibly make sense either. When i took quantum in college, i knew i wasnt really "getting it" like others in my class. Yes, i could describe the results of a slit experiment, or in what ways wave-particle duality is a thing, but my brain never opened that "Aha!" gate that it had so many times before. In retrospect, I can say that my unfamiliarity with more advanced algebra and a lack of understanding of math in a more set-theoretical way held me back. As i would move into calculation, i understood in theory how to do the calculus and such, but my brain kept nagging at me with "yeah, but you dont understand why the integral is this way", which would stymie further progress. I found that a big "aha" moment came when i finally understood the relationship between matrices, vector spaces, operators, and functions in the infinite-dimensional case (or even the finite one really). I think i understand now that my difficulty in learning it before was based on my misunderstanding of the difference between representing functions as a formula vs their representation as a vector. I was confused about why you'd need infinite information in a vector to describe something like y=cos(x) which is clearly a finite representation. The answer is that the 'named' functions and simple polynomials you're used to dealing with are represented by infinite vectors...with almost all coefficients as zero. I think was only able to get to this place of (still limited) understanding by putting the QM book down and immersing myself in set theory. In my opinion, we do kids a disservice by not introducing abstract algebra earlier. It would be helpful i think to maybe throw some of that into Precalc, even if its only some basics about the concepts of sets and maps between them.
EMM_386 6y ago
There is no way you disprove solipsism. I could be typing this into the void, believing that there are actual conscious human beings on the other side who are going to read this. But then again, there might not be and I have no way of knowing. It's a disturbing thought that it's all just in my mind. > But lately I’ve been haunted by the ubiquity of competence without comprehension. Even without comprehension, there would be consciousness. The examples of brushing ones teeth or driving a car, which allow people to "zone out" without comprehension, doesn't mean they are suddenly unconscious.
- wildermuthn 6y ago
  I disagree. Disproving solipsism is the same task as proving that a Philosophical Zombie (a non-conscious human that behaves no different than a conscious version of itself) is a logical impossibility. This proof only requires demonstrating a single scenario where it would be logically impossible for a p-zombie to behave in the same way as a non-p-zombie. It comes down to data. A conscious entity has data about “what it is like to have consciousness.” A p-zombie doesn’t. A p-zombie’s mind lacks the data that enables it to comprehend the very idea of solipsism. We can replicate this here. Tell me, what is it like to have a yargabizad? Do you think you might be the only person on earth to have a yargabizad? What if they are just pretending to have a yargabizad, and are just going through the motions of having a yargabizad without really having the experience of a having a yargabizad?
  - EMM_386 6y ago
    > A conscious entity has data about “what it is like to have consciousness.” A p-zombie doesn’t. A p-zombie’s mind lacks the data that enables it to comprehend the very idea of solipsism. What about a computer that can pass the Turing Test and can make you believe it knows all about experiencing consciousness? I can tell you whatever you might want to hear about my experience of consciousness, but how do you know I'm actually conscious? What if it is just an elaborate ruse?
    - wildermuthn 6y ago

12 points by hacksilver 6y ago

I think a lot about the implication of QM. I don't need to understand the mathematical depth, just like I don't need to understand how a computer processes at the lowest level to do computer science. The point the author makes is VERY interesting in that many, many people really only see the concepts at face value. And that extends into many domains. But I get that not everyone is a dreamer ;)

defterGoose 6y ago
What's most interesting to me is that I never grok a piece of physics without understanding the math (maybe Newtonian mechanics is a gimme because of the way our brains are built), but the math is also rarely part of the "intuition" of things, which is what i strive for in learning. I think this is where people really get into trouble with QM. The physical reality of it is so strange and counterintuitive, that maybe the average brain intuits that the math can't possibly make sense either. When i took quantum in college, i knew i wasnt really "getting it" like others in my class. Yes, i could describe the results of a slit experiment, or in what ways wave-particle duality is a thing, but my brain never opened that "Aha!" gate that it had so many times before. In retrospect, I can say that my unfamiliarity with more advanced algebra and a lack of understanding of math in a more set-theoretical way held me back. As i would move into calculation, i understood in theory how to do the calculus and such, but my brain kept nagging at me with "yeah, but you dont understand why the integral is this way", which would stymie further progress. I found that a big "aha" moment came when i finally understood the relationship between matrices, vector spaces, operators, and functions in the infinite-dimensional case (or even the finite one really). I think i understand now that my difficulty in learning it before was based on my misunderstanding of the difference between representing functions as a formula vs their representation as a vector. I was confused about why you'd need infinite information in a vector to describe something like y=cos(x) which is clearly a finite representation. The answer is that the 'named' functions and simple polynomials you're used to dealing with are represented by infinite vectors...with almost all coefficients as zero. I think was only able to get to this place of (still limited) understanding by putting the QM book down and immersing myself in set theory. In my opinion, we do kids a disservice by not introducing abstract algebra earlier. It would be helpful i think to maybe throw some of that into Precalc, even if its only some basics about the concepts of sets and maps between them.

EMM_386 6y ago

There is no way you disprove solipsism. I could be typing this into the void, believing that there are actual conscious human beings on the other side who are going to read this. But then again, there might not be and I have no way of knowing. It's a disturbing thought that it's all just in my mind. > But lately I’ve been haunted by the ubiquity of competence without comprehension. Even without comprehension, there would be consciousness. The examples of brushing ones teeth or driving a car, which allow people to "zone out" without comprehension, doesn't mean they are suddenly unconscious.

wildermuthn 6y ago
I disagree. Disproving solipsism is the same task as proving that a Philosophical Zombie (a non-conscious human that behaves no different than a conscious version of itself) is a logical impossibility. This proof only requires demonstrating a single scenario where it would be logically impossible for a p-zombie to behave in the same way as a non-p-zombie. It comes down to data. A conscious entity has data about “what it is like to have consciousness.” A p-zombie doesn’t. A p-zombie’s mind lacks the data that enables it to comprehend the very idea of solipsism. We can replicate this here. Tell me, what is it like to have a yargabizad? Do you think you might be the only person on earth to have a yargabizad? What if they are just pretending to have a yargabizad, and are just going through the motions of having a yargabizad without really having the experience of a having a yargabizad?
- EMM_386 6y ago
  > A conscious entity has data about “what it is like to have consciousness.” A p-zombie doesn’t. A p-zombie’s mind lacks the data that enables it to comprehend the very idea of solipsism. What about a computer that can pass the Turing Test and can make you believe it knows all about experiencing consciousness? I can tell you whatever you might want to hear about my experience of consciousness, but how do you know I'm actually conscious? What if it is just an elaborate ruse?
  - wildermuthn 6y ago