3 ms·
It's nothing like the quantum physics sequence. Yudkowsky starts out making up numbers from nowhere and asserts things for purely philosophical reasons, whereas
by thebooktocome 14y ago
It's nothing like the quantum physics sequence. Yudkowsky starts out making up numbers from nowhere and asserts things for purely philosophical reasons, whereas Aaronson actually has proofs (albeit left to the reader).
- loup-vaillant 14y agoSure, the numbers in "Quantum Explanations" are made up, but (1) the experiments are real, and (2) everything besides the numbers is accurate (as far as I know). Plus, the goal of the sequence was never to actually explain quantum physics. It was to explain why a realist perspective (the wave function is all there is, and the math says it doesn't collapse, so it really doesn't) is by far the most probably correct, despite the fact that it makes no new prediction compared to previous interpretations. That, plus answering some philosophical question with physics. Aaronson's explanation definitely is a step in the right direction. I still have a quibble however: he keeps mentioning "probability" as an analogy to amplitude. That confuses his explanation in my opinion. I'd rather have a straight explanation of QM math, then an explanation about its similarities with probability theory. And the mixed state paragraph seems to conflate subjective probability and actual distribution of amplitude. Ick.