4 ms·

I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have th

I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have thought whoever writes the google tech blogs is more competent than bottom tier science journalists. But in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume malice, as the post is authored by the Google Quantum AI Lead, and makes more sense as hype-boosting buzzword bullshit than as an honest misunderstanding that was not caught during editing.

hshshshshsh 2y ago
Quantum computation done in done multiple universes is the explanation given by David Deutsch the father of Quantum Computing. He invented the idea of a quantum computer to test the idea of parallel universes. If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. Also your comment does not have any useful information. You assumed hype as the reason why they mentioned parallel computing. It's just a bias you have on looking at world. Hype does helps explain a lot of things. So it can be tempting to use it as a placeholder for anything that you don't accept based on your current set of beliefs.
- wasabi991011 2y ago
  I disagree that it is "the best explanation we have". It's a nice theory, but like all theories in quantum foundations / interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is (at least currently) unfalsifiable. I didn't "assume" hype, I hypothesized it based on the evidence before me: There is nothing in Google's paper that deals with interpretations of quantum mechanics. This only appears in the blog post, with no evidence given. And there is nothing google is doing with it's quantum chip that would discriminate between interpretations of QM, so it is simply false that "It lends credence to ... parallel universes" over another interpretation.
  - hshshshshsh 2y ago
    From what I understand, David Deutsch invented the idea of quantum computer as a way to test Parallel Universes. And later people went on and built the quantum computer. Are you saying that the implementation of a quantum computer does not require any kind of assumption on computations being run in parallel universes?
    - Vecr 2y ago
      It's just not how it works. All this type of quantum computer can do is test some of the more dubious objective collapse theories. Those are wrong anyway, so all theories that are still in the running agree.
    - lanternfish 2y ago
      In short, no.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      That's right, it doesn't. The implementation of a quantum computer does not prove or disprove the existence of parallel universes.
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. We have evidence for this universe though.
  - oniony 2y ago
    I believe their point was that, if you accept the reality of _this_ universe being created from nothing, why wouldn't you also accept the notion of _other_ universes similarly existing too. I can get on board with that: that there may be other, distinct universes, but I do not understand how this would lead to the suggestion they would be necessarily linked together with quantum effects.
    - nworno 2y ago
      Disagree with that. The fact that we reasonably accept a well-proven theory (ie the observed universe exists) that has some unexplained parts (we don't currently have a reasonable explanation for where does that universe comes from) doesn't mean that we should therefore accept any unproven theory, especially a unfalsifiable one.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. I can handle it, sure, and the idea of the multiverse is attractive to me from a philosophical standpoint. But we have no evidence that there are any other universes out there, while we do have plenty of evidence that our own exists. Just because one of something exists, it doesn't automatically follow that there are others.
movpasd 2y ago
There are compelling arguments to believe in the many-worlds interpretation. No sign of a Heisenberg cut has been observed so far, even as experiments involving entanglement of larger and larger molecules are performed, which makes objective-collapse theories hard to consider seriously. Bohmian theories are nice, but require awkward adjustments to reconcile them with relativity. But more importantly, they are philosophically uneconomical, requiring many unobservable — even theoretically — entities [0]. That leaves either many-worlds or a quantum logic/quantum Bayesian interpretations as serious contenders [1]. These interpretations aren't crank fringe nonsense. They are almost inevitable outcomes of seriously considering the implications of the theory. I will say that personally, I find many-worlds to focus excessively on the Schrödinger-picture pure state formulation of quantum mechanics. (At least to the level that I understood it — I expect there is literature on the connection with algebraic formulations, but I haven't taken the time to understand it.) So I would lean towards quantum logic–type interpretations myself. The point of this comment was to say that many-worlds (or "multiverses", though I dislike the term) isn't nonsense. But it also isn't exactly the kind of sci-fi thing non-physicists might picture. Given how easy it is to misinterpret the term, however, I must agree with you that a self-aware science communicator would think twice about whether the term should be included, and that there may be not-so-scrupulous intentions at play here. Quick edit: I realise the comment I've written is very technical. I'm happy to try to answer any questions. I should preface it by stating that I'm not a professional in the field, but I studied quantum information theory at a Masters level, and always found the philosophical questions of interest. --- [0] Many people seem to believe that many-worlds also postulates the existence of unobservable parallel universes, but this isn't true. We observe the interaction of these universe's every time we observe quantum interference. While we're here, we can clear up the misconception about "branching" — there is no branching in many-worlds, just the coherent evolution of the universal wave function. The many worlds are projections out of that wave function. They don't discretely separate from one another, either — it depends on your choice of basis. That choice is where decoherence comes in. [1] And of course, there is the Copenhagen "interpretation" — preferred among physicists who would rather not think about philosophy. (A respectable choice.)
- Vecr 2y ago
  That's right, I agree that Multiple Worlds isn't any less correct/falsifiable than quantum mechanics as a whole. I've never heard about quantum logic before. The "Bayesian" part makes sense because of how it treats the statistics, but the logic? Is that what quantum computer scientists do with their quantum circuits, or is it an actual interpretation?
vixen99 2y ago
Presumably the 'nonsense' is the supposed link between the chip and MW theory. Let me add a recommendation for David Wallace's book The Emergent Multiverse - a highly persuasive account of 'quantum theory according to the Everett Interpretation'. Aside from the technical chapters, much of it is comprehensible to non-physicists. It seems that adherents to MW do 'not know how to refute an incredulous stare'. (From a quotation)

hshshshshsh 2y ago

Quantum computation done in done multiple universes is the explanation given by David Deutsch the father of Quantum Computing. He invented the idea of a quantum computer to test the idea of parallel universes. If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. Also your comment does not have any useful information. You assumed hype as the reason why they mentioned parallel computing. It's just a bias you have on looking at world. Hype does helps explain a lot of things. So it can be tempting to use it as a placeholder for anything that you don't accept based on your current set of beliefs.

wasabi991011 2y ago
I disagree that it is "the best explanation we have". It's a nice theory, but like all theories in quantum foundations / interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is (at least currently) unfalsifiable. I didn't "assume" hype, I hypothesized it based on the evidence before me: There is nothing in Google's paper that deals with interpretations of quantum mechanics. This only appears in the blog post, with no evidence given. And there is nothing google is doing with it's quantum chip that would discriminate between interpretations of QM, so it is simply false that "It lends credence to ... parallel universes" over another interpretation.
- hshshshshsh 2y ago
  From what I understand, David Deutsch invented the idea of quantum computer as a way to test Parallel Universes. And later people went on and built the quantum computer. Are you saying that the implementation of a quantum computer does not require any kind of assumption on computations being run in parallel universes?
  - Vecr 2y ago
    It's just not how it works. All this type of quantum computer can do is test some of the more dubious objective collapse theories. Those are wrong anyway, so all theories that are still in the running agree.
  - lanternfish 2y ago
    In short, no.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    That's right, it doesn't. The implementation of a quantum computer does not prove or disprove the existence of parallel universes.
booleandilemma 2y ago
If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. We have evidence for this universe though.
- oniony 2y ago
  I believe their point was that, if you accept the reality of _this_ universe being created from nothing, why wouldn't you also accept the notion of _other_ universes similarly existing too. I can get on board with that: that there may be other, distinct universes, but I do not understand how this would lead to the suggestion they would be necessarily linked together with quantum effects.
  - nworno 2y ago
    Disagree with that. The fact that we reasonably accept a well-proven theory (ie the observed universe exists) that has some unexplained parts (we don't currently have a reasonable explanation for where does that universe comes from) doesn't mean that we should therefore accept any unproven theory, especially a unfalsifiable one.
kelnos 2y ago
> If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. I can handle it, sure, and the idea of the multiverse is attractive to me from a philosophical standpoint. But we have no evidence that there are any other universes out there, while we do have plenty of evidence that our own exists. Just because one of something exists, it doesn't automatically follow that there are others.

movpasd 2y ago

There are compelling arguments to believe in the many-worlds interpretation. No sign of a Heisenberg cut has been observed so far, even as experiments involving entanglement of larger and larger molecules are performed, which makes objective-collapse theories hard to consider seriously. Bohmian theories are nice, but require awkward adjustments to reconcile them with relativity. But more importantly, they are philosophically uneconomical, requiring many unobservable — even theoretically — entities [0]. That leaves either many-worlds or a quantum logic/quantum Bayesian interpretations as serious contenders [1]. These interpretations aren't crank fringe nonsense. They are almost inevitable outcomes of seriously considering the implications of the theory. I will say that personally, I find many-worlds to focus excessively on the Schrödinger-picture pure state formulation of quantum mechanics. (At least to the level that I understood it — I expect there is literature on the connection with algebraic formulations, but I haven't taken the time to understand it.) So I would lean towards quantum logic–type interpretations myself. The point of this comment was to say that many-worlds (or "multiverses", though I dislike the term) isn't nonsense. But it also isn't exactly the kind of sci-fi thing non-physicists might picture. Given how easy it is to misinterpret the term, however, I must agree with you that a self-aware science communicator would think twice about whether the term should be included, and that there may be not-so-scrupulous intentions at play here. Quick edit: I realise the comment I've written is very technical. I'm happy to try to answer any questions. I should preface it by stating that I'm not a professional in the field, but I studied quantum information theory at a Masters level, and always found the philosophical questions of interest. --- [0] Many people seem to believe that many-worlds also postulates the existence of unobservable parallel universes, but this isn't true. We observe the interaction of these universe's every time we observe quantum interference. While we're here, we can clear up the misconception about "branching" — there is no branching in many-worlds, just the coherent evolution of the universal wave function. The many worlds are projections out of that wave function. They don't discretely separate from one another, either — it depends on your choice of basis. That choice is where decoherence comes in. [1] And of course, there is the Copenhagen "interpretation" — preferred among physicists who would rather not think about philosophy. (A respectable choice.)

Vecr 2y ago
That's right, I agree that Multiple Worlds isn't any less correct/falsifiable than quantum mechanics as a whole. I've never heard about quantum logic before. The "Bayesian" part makes sense because of how it treats the statistics, but the logic? Is that what quantum computer scientists do with their quantum circuits, or is it an actual interpretation?

vixen99 2y ago

Presumably the 'nonsense' is the supposed link between the chip and MW theory. Let me add a recommendation for David Wallace's book The Emergent Multiverse - a highly persuasive account of 'quantum theory according to the Everett Interpretation'. Aside from the technical chapters, much of it is comprehensible to non-physicists. It seems that adherents to MW do 'not know how to refute an incredulous stare'. (From a quotation)