3 ms·
From the article linked by parent: «To summarize, I think that arguing with skeptics is not only amusing but extremely useful. It could be that quantum computi
by nier 3y ago
From the article linked by parent:
«To summarize, I think that arguing with skeptics is not only amusing but extremely useful. It could be that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. So far, though, I haven't seen an argument that's engaged me in a really nontrivial way.»
«Very little of what we do in theoretical computer science is directly connected to a practical application. That's just not what we're trying to do. Of course, what we do has applications, but indirectly. We're trying to understand computation. If you take that as our goal, then it seems clear that starting from the best physical theories we have is a valuable activity. If you want to ask a different question, such as what we can do in the next five to ten years, then, that's fine. Just make it clear that's what you're doing.»
- refulgentis 3y agoThis shouldn't leave anyone with the impression they are cranks. Scott's claim in this lecture is he hasn't yet found making a counter argument "really nontrivial" To wit, the article names Leonid Levin and Oded Goldreich as the primary skeptics. Leonid has 10K citations, 2012 Knuth Prize, 37 h-index. Oded has 63K citations, 2017 Knuth Prize, 95 h-index. What Scott Aaronson considers "really nontrivial" is far beyond our comprehension, and he's making a claim about synthesizing an counterargument, not settling the entire argument.