Roger, I've become rather suspicious of the field of quantum computing for much the same reasons. Surely *someone* can write an easily understood basic explanation of how it is supposed to work in principle. Maybe I just haven't dug deep enough, but everything seems to be either too hand-wavy, too focused on how that's going to make Google or Microsoft or whoever even more uber rich, or dismissive of the possibility that the general computing community could understand it. I would be willing to suspend disbelief long enough to take it as a given that a qbit could take on two states at the same time, but then I'd like to see how this fact can be put to practical use *at an algorithmic level* to solve some problem.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:13 AM Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote: > I actually find most of those explanations weak, given that, according to > Feynmann, no one understands quantum mechanics. How does an appeal to > authority work when you appeal to an authority that does not understand and > cannot explain? How does one don the attributes of experts who do not > understand or explain their expertise? Where are the solid foundations of > quantum mechanics? > > I suppose it could all be *pro forma* in that none of the participants > understand that there is no there there to which one could appeal, so the > appeal becomes nothing but a ritual motion with "quantum woo" taking the > place of whichever holiest holy worked last week. > > But maybe it's exactly the inexplicability which is the secret sauce, that > there is something ineffable about the quantum physics. > > -- rec -- > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:51 AM ∄ uǝlƃ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> OK. So, maybe y'all have collectively provided an answer. The reason(s) >> people invoke quantum woo so *often* is because it serves several (perhaps >> conflatable and ambiguous) purposes. >> >> In order of appearance in the thread: >> 1) justificationist appeals to authority >> 2) donning attributes others (seem to) have but you don't >> 3) hearkening to paradigm shifts and longing for solid foundations >> 4) power (both social and individual) >> 5) evocation of the shaman/oracle archetype >> >> Note, I'm not including ordinary physics, only woo, because that's what >> irritated me enough to stop reading "Ignorance" for so long. Firestein has >> lots of other riffs and hooks and it was childish of me to react that way >> ... but I can't help it. The woo is killing me. By contrast, imagining (and >> ruling out) an "airfoil" around pond scum in relation to the Purcell paper >> was NOT irritating at all. Invocations of actual physics are fine. >> Invocations of mysterious stuff just because it's mysterious flips my >> triggers. >> >> Speaking of the Purcell paper, this popped off the queue this morning: >> >> New Clues To ALS And Alzheimer's From Physics >> >> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/08/888687912/new-clues-to-als-and-alzheimers-from-physics >> >> I'm embarrassed that I didn't notice it sooner. >> >> -- >> ☣ uǝlƃ >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> >> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
