5 ms·

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

by gaze 2y ago

whimsicalism 2y ago
the everettian view is absolutely not the view? i am not so sure. or you mean specifically the parallel computation view?
- gaze 2y ago
  sorry -- the results don't add weight to one view or the other. The interpretations are equivalent.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    not metaphysically equivalent. also, i’m not so certain it will always be untestable. i would have thought the same thing about hidden variables but i underestimated the cleverness of experimentalists
    - DennisP 2y ago
      I think "experimentally equivalent" is what GP meant, and as of today, it holds true. Google's results are predicted by other interpretations just as well as by Everett. Maybe someday there will be a clever experiment to distinguish the models but just "we have a good QC" is not that.
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        i think you're arguing against a point i never made in any of my comments
- wasabi991011 2y ago
  In my opinion the "shut up and calculate" view is the most common among actual quantum computing researchers. Unsure about those working on quantum foundations, but I think the absence of consensus is enough to claim any view as absolutely not the view.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    i don’t really view “shut up and calculate” or very restrained copenhagenism as a real view at all. i think if you were to ask people to make a real metaphysical speculation, majority might be partial to everett - especially if they felt confident the results were anonymous
    - wasabi991011 2y ago
      I agree, but that kind of goes to my point: I believe the vast majority of researchers in quantum computing* spend almost no time on metaphysical speculation, *Well, those on the "practical side" that thinks about algorithms and engineering quantum systems like the Google Quantum AI team and others. Not the computer science theorists knee-deep in quantum computational complexity proofs nor physics theorists working on foundations of quantum mechanics. But these last two categories are outnumbered by the "practical" side.
    - spookie 2y ago
      Seeing to believe is indeed a view, as they would have to view it in order to believe!
klipt 2y ago
Soon: "are alien universes slowing down your internet? Click here to learn more!" Reminds me of the Aorist Rods from Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
- rafram 2y ago
  Well there has to be some reason I'm not getting the "gigabit" speeds I was quoted.
  - duderific 2y ago
    You were probably quoted "up to" gigabit speed. Which means anything from zero to gigabit is acceptable.
    - sebastiennight 2y ago
      Are negative speeds acceptable too?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
ColinHayhurst 2y ago
Credibility of the article plummeted when I got to that sentence, and especially since using name dropping.
ferfumarma 2y ago
One of the biggest problems with such an assertion is that it's not falsifiable. It could be that we are borrowing qbit processing power from Russel's quantum teapot.
hshshshshsh 2y ago
Science is not based on consensus seeking. Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it. And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.
- jayd16 2y ago
  Actually it is exactly based on hypotheses that are verified.
  - hshshshshsh 2y ago
    And how do you verify hypothesis? What is the process to do that?
    - fwip 2y ago
      You use the hypotheses to make predictions and design experiments. Then you carry those out and see if they support the hypothesis. Or is this one of those rhetorical questions?
      - hshshshshsh 2y ago
        Okay. I have a hypothesis that the rain is controlled by a god called Ringo. If you pray to Ringo and he listens to your prayer it will rain in next 24 hours. If he doesn't listen it won't rain. You can also test this experimentally by praying and observing the outcomes.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I assume this is a rhetorical question, since you are perfectly capable of doing a search for "the scientific method" on your own. MWI has not led to any verifiably-correct predictions, has it? At least not any that other interpretations can also predict, and have other, better properties.
  - JanisErdmanis 2y ago
justinpombrio 2y ago
From Wikipedia[1]: A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85] Max Tegmark reports the result of a "highly unscientific" poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop. According to Tegmark, "The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the consistent histories and Bohm interpretations."[86] In response to Sean M. Carroll's statement "As crazy as it sounds, most working physicists buy into the many-worlds theory",[87] Michael Nielsen counters: "at a quantum computing conference at Cambridge in 1998, a many-worlder surveyed the audience of approximately 200 people... Many-worlds did just fine, garnering support on a level comparable to, but somewhat below, Copenhagen and decoherence." But Nielsen notes that it seemed most attendees found it to be a waste of time: Peres "got a huge and sustained round of applause…when he got up at the end of the polling and asked 'And who here believes the laws of physics are decided by a democratic vote?'"[88] A 2005 poll of fewer than 40 students and researchers taken after a course on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo found "Many Worlds (and decoherence)" to be the least favored.[89] A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference on quantum foundations found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Pol...
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  i think if these polls were anonymous, copenhagen would lose share. there's a reason why MWI is disproportionately popular among people who basically have no professional worries because they are already uber-distinguished.

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

by gaze 2y ago

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

the everettian view is absolutely not the view? i am not so sure. or you mean specifically the parallel computation view?

gaze 2y ago
sorry -- the results don't add weight to one view or the other. The interpretations are equivalent.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  not metaphysically equivalent. also, i’m not so certain it will always be untestable. i would have thought the same thing about hidden variables but i underestimated the cleverness of experimentalists
  - DennisP 2y ago
    I think "experimentally equivalent" is what GP meant, and as of today, it holds true. Google's results are predicted by other interpretations just as well as by Everett. Maybe someday there will be a clever experiment to distinguish the models but just "we have a good QC" is not that.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      i think you're arguing against a point i never made in any of my comments
wasabi991011 2y ago
In my opinion the "shut up and calculate" view is the most common among actual quantum computing researchers. Unsure about those working on quantum foundations, but I think the absence of consensus is enough to claim any view as absolutely not the view.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  i don’t really view “shut up and calculate” or very restrained copenhagenism as a real view at all. i think if you were to ask people to make a real metaphysical speculation, majority might be partial to everett - especially if they felt confident the results were anonymous
  - wasabi991011 2y ago
    I agree, but that kind of goes to my point: I believe the vast majority of researchers in quantum computing* spend almost no time on metaphysical speculation, *Well, those on the "practical side" that thinks about algorithms and engineering quantum systems like the Google Quantum AI team and others. Not the computer science theorists knee-deep in quantum computational complexity proofs nor physics theorists working on foundations of quantum mechanics. But these last two categories are outnumbered by the "practical" side.
  - spookie 2y ago
    Seeing to believe is indeed a view, as they would have to view it in order to believe!

klipt 2y ago

Soon: "are alien universes slowing down your internet? Click here to learn more!" Reminds me of the Aorist Rods from Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.

rafram 2y ago
Well there has to be some reason I'm not getting the "gigabit" speeds I was quoted.
- duderific 2y ago
  You were probably quoted "up to" gigabit speed. Which means anything from zero to gigabit is acceptable.
  - sebastiennight 2y ago
    Are negative speeds acceptable too?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

ColinHayhurst 2y ago

Credibility of the article plummeted when I got to that sentence, and especially since using name dropping.

ferfumarma 2y ago

One of the biggest problems with such an assertion is that it's not falsifiable. It could be that we are borrowing qbit processing power from Russel's quantum teapot.

hshshshshsh 2y ago

Science is not based on consensus seeking. Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it. And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.

jayd16 2y ago
Actually it is exactly based on hypotheses that are verified.
- hshshshshsh 2y ago
  And how do you verify hypothesis? What is the process to do that?
  - fwip 2y ago
    You use the hypotheses to make predictions and design experiments. Then you carry those out and see if they support the hypothesis. Or is this one of those rhetorical questions?
    - hshshshshsh 2y ago
      Okay. I have a hypothesis that the rain is controlled by a god called Ringo. If you pray to Ringo and he listens to your prayer it will rain in next 24 hours. If he doesn't listen it won't rain. You can also test this experimentally by praying and observing the outcomes.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I assume this is a rhetorical question, since you are perfectly capable of doing a search for "the scientific method" on your own. MWI has not led to any verifiably-correct predictions, has it? At least not any that other interpretations can also predict, and have other, better properties.
- JanisErdmanis 2y ago

justinpombrio 2y ago

From Wikipedia[1]: A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85] Max Tegmark reports the result of a "highly unscientific" poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop. According to Tegmark, "The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the consistent histories and Bohm interpretations."[86] In response to Sean M. Carroll's statement "As crazy as it sounds, most working physicists buy into the many-worlds theory",[87] Michael Nielsen counters: "at a quantum computing conference at Cambridge in 1998, a many-worlder surveyed the audience of approximately 200 people... Many-worlds did just fine, garnering support on a level comparable to, but somewhat below, Copenhagen and decoherence." But Nielsen notes that it seemed most attendees found it to be a waste of time: Peres "got a huge and sustained round of applause…when he got up at the end of the polling and asked 'And who here believes the laws of physics are decided by a democratic vote?'"[88] A 2005 poll of fewer than 40 students and researchers taken after a course on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo found "Many Worlds (and decoherence)" to be the least favored.[89] A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference on quantum foundations found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Pol...

whimsicalism 2y ago
i think if these polls were anonymous, copenhagen would lose share. there's a reason why MWI is disproportionately popular among people who basically have no professional worries because they are already uber-distinguished.