3 ms·

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!

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!