5 ms·
Interesting read. But I'll wait for what Sabine has to say about it. :D
by esarbe 5y ago
Interesting read. But I'll wait for what Sabine has to say about it. :D
- tux3 5y agoSuperdeterminism predicts that it was always pre-determined I wouldn't really understand this article, and the universe left me no choice, so I have nothing to feel bad about. Sabine's blog exists in an interesting superposition of comforting and existential dread =]
- Mizza 5y agoI like Sabine, but I found her "takedown" of the multiverse/MWI ignored the most compelling argument for it, the computational argument proposed by Deutsch, and that was enough to make me skeptical of her other positions. Anybody know if she's ever addressed that anywhere?
- naasking 5y agoWhat is the computational argument?
- spullara 5y agohttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/02/dream-machine https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/02/dream-machine
- naasking 5y agoI figured this might be the "quantum computation is computation done on parallel worlds". It just isn't that compelling [1], and is in fact arguably false [2]. That's probably why Sabine didn't touch on it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219803000388 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13552... [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2514 https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2514
- Mizza 5y agoBoth of those papers, and others like it, are by single authors in philosophy journals, not physics journals. I don't think they are 'serious' in the same way. That Arxiv one is particularly bad.
- naasking 5y ago"Particularly bad" in what sense? The notion that quantum computation happens in parallel universes is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, so of course philosophers of science are evaluating it.
- Mizza 5y agoIt introduces the fundamental question but never answers it. He quotes Deutsch partially, "explain how Shor’s algorithm works" - but doesn't answer this question. He also leaves out the important part of the quote: "To those who still cling to a single-universe world-view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor’s algorithm works. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor’s algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources than can be seen to be present, where was the number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minuscule number compared with 10^500. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?" Computation is real - it requires matter and energy. If Shor's algorithm can factor a number so large that it would require more matter than there is available in the universe: _where is the computation occurring_? I have never seen this plainly addressed. I'm a layman, of course, which I why I would hope she'd break this argument down in her MWI video.
- jessaustin 5y agoThere are only about 1080 atoms in the entire visible universe... Should this be read as 10^80? The way it's written is confusing.
- leephillips 5y agoWell, you should be skeptical in general, no? What’s the alternative, just adopting some other person’s opinions? If this is about Sabine Hossenfelder, she has opinions and she has arguments. Sometimes she’s right, sometimes she’s wrong. Like everyone. Sometimes her opinions are well supported, sometimes I think not. Some of her explanations are sound, others contain mistakes.
- cmeacham98 5y agoI've never read Sabine Hossenfelder, so I can't comment specifically on her. However, life is about trusting other people and adopting their opinions. I do not have the time or energy to be an expert on every subject, so naturally I will have to read the opinions of other people who have spent time in that particular subject. Someone's previous record of factual accuracy as well as considering reasonable opposition to their points obviously will affect how much I trust them to influence my worldview, and how likely I am to believe what they say is true.
- ryan93 5y agoweird that people love to fanboy/fangirl anyone who has a reputation for criticism.
- Koshkin 5y agoWhy is it weird? Criticism draws attention.
- ryan93 5y agoShe’s not even an expert in this subject but she has name recognition so OP wants her opinion. Just weird.
- esarbe 5y agoOP is not a physicist and Sabine is able to break down the problems and issues with many of the scientific and unscientific theories that are thrown around so that even a layperson can follow the rational. So, I get the drift of the article. Do I have enough knowledge to make any reasonable assumptions about the validity of the findings it presents? Nope, not at all. That's why I cherish Sabine. She's down to earth and has an understanding of science that suits me. She's definitely more than enough physics under her belt[0] to be qualified to talk about these topics. Go away with your 'She not an expert'. Have you seen her qualifications? "Naw," I hear you say "she's a theoretical physicist, not a particle physicist." Yeah, well. I'm a Software Engineer. I can still tell if a Network Engineer tells bullshit. I do understand why some people hate on her; she's abrasive and irreverent. Some people don't like their ivory towers to be besmirched. [0] https://portal.dnb.de/opac/simpleSearch?reset=true&cqlMode=true&query=auRef%3D128372664&selectedCategory=any https://portal.dnb.de/opac/simpleSearch?reset=true&cqlMode=t...