4 ms·

> There's a wave function, it obeys the Schrödinger equation." Or perhaps more precisely: "There is no wave function. The wave-function we talk about is just a

> There's a wave function, it obeys the Schrödinger equation." Or perhaps more precisely: "There is no wave function. The wave-function we talk about is just a mathematical recipe for computing the expected test-observations". Functions are abstract things, they don't exist in the physical world. They only describe the physical world, at best. So that really leaves the question why do our measurement results follow the predictions of the wave-function unanswered. I think we would like to come up with some theory of why the wave-function so closely predicts our observations.

jakear 4y ago
How can you know there's not a Universal Quantum Turing Machine that has encoded precisely the functions we've discovered based on the test-observations we've conducted? And if there is, would the question "why" anything occurs be well defined? It does what it does because it was constructed to do so.
- resource0x 4y ago
  What hardware does this Turing Machine run on?
  - jakear 4y ago
    It's all in your head.
BadThink6655321 4y ago
Earlier today I came across this on Scott Aaronson's site: "Also, are the ultimate equations that govern the universe “real,” while tables and chairs are “unreal” (in the sense of being no more than fuzzy approximate descriptions of certain solutions to the equations)? Or are the tables and chairs “real,” while the equations are “unreal” (in the sense of being tools invented by humans to predict the behavior of tables and chairs and whatever else, while extraterrestrials might use other tools)? Which level of reality do you care about / want to load with positive affect, and which level do you want to denigrate?" https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3628 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3628
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  I think Scott Aarons' statement is misguided . It is not about what is "better" or "worse" . It is about the difference between concrete vs. abstract. Abstract things are representations of many different concrete things, they are abstractions of concrete things. Abstractions are "real" but they exist on a different ontological level than concrete things. They only exist in our head, and therefore many say they don't "really" exist by which we commonly mean that they don't exist in the physical world. There is clearly a big difference between what exists in the physical world, and what we SAY or write about it. The latter are descriptions, which are often abstractions. Like say "redness" is an abstraction of the common properties of all red objects.
alar44 4y ago
[dead]

jakear 4y ago

How can you know there's not a Universal Quantum Turing Machine that has encoded precisely the functions we've discovered based on the test-observations we've conducted? And if there is, would the question "why" anything occurs be well defined? It does what it does because it was constructed to do so.

resource0x 4y ago
What hardware does this Turing Machine run on?
- jakear 4y ago
  It's all in your head.

BadThink6655321 4y ago

Earlier today I came across this on Scott Aaronson's site: "Also, are the ultimate equations that govern the universe “real,” while tables and chairs are “unreal” (in the sense of being no more than fuzzy approximate descriptions of certain solutions to the equations)? Or are the tables and chairs “real,” while the equations are “unreal” (in the sense of being tools invented by humans to predict the behavior of tables and chairs and whatever else, while extraterrestrials might use other tools)? Which level of reality do you care about / want to load with positive affect, and which level do you want to denigrate?" https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3628 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3628

galaxyLogic 4y ago
I think Scott Aarons' statement is misguided . It is not about what is "better" or "worse" . It is about the difference between concrete vs. abstract. Abstract things are representations of many different concrete things, they are abstractions of concrete things. Abstractions are "real" but they exist on a different ontological level than concrete things. They only exist in our head, and therefore many say they don't "really" exist by which we commonly mean that they don't exist in the physical world. There is clearly a big difference between what exists in the physical world, and what we SAY or write about it. The latter are descriptions, which are often abstractions. Like say "redness" is an abstraction of the common properties of all red objects.

alar44 4y ago

[dead]