3 ms·
Ah, I see that it is time to raise my objection again. As I wrote before [0], I think that what Aaronson's calls "the theory" is a somewhat bastardized version
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
Ah, I see that it is time to raise my objection again.
As I wrote before [0], I think that what Aaronson's calls "the theory" is a somewhat bastardized version of quantum mechanics that might suffice for quantum computing but, in my opinion, not for physics.
I discussed the difference here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38255476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38255476
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39627618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39627618
- nextaccountic 2y agoOkay, but what's the implication of that? You can't get the whole quantum mechanics by just doing the generalization of probability thing?
- Koshkin 2y agoNo, because physics is not mathematics.
- notfed 2y agoUhhh...says who?
- Koshkin 2y agoSays the fact that their objects of study are different.
- dekhn 2y agoMost people. Physics uses math to model the world, but is independent (math is not a science). At least we don't have any further evidence to say otherwise. There's a lot of interesting ideas around this in https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf and many of us believe that the universe itself is effectively an embedding of a large mathematical structure in a 3D-space 1D-time. But that would be effectively impossible to prove in any convincing way.
- ekm2 2y agoI would say Physics is the subset of Mathematics that describes Physical reality.The rest does not care if it is practical, just logically intact.