Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interview with Scott Aaronson

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#71

Post by Xcelerate »

typon wrote: post #70
Xcelerate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth. Yeah, but these people are rarely actual physicists. A physicist might discuss "interpretations of quantum mechanics" over lunch with a colleague in a fun, speculative way, but it makes little difference on the research they perform. More importantly, it doesn't affect the predictions that their research makes.…

Are you sure you follow actual physicists? Have you ever heard Sean Carrol talk about how anyone who doesn't believe in the MW interpretation is pretty much stupid?

I mean, yes, there are a few physicists who have turned into science popularizers, but they're no longer at the forefront of scientific research (e.g., Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene).

I do quantum chemistry research. Do you recognize any of the names: Colbeck, Renner, Alavi, Booth, Kohn, Sherrill, Gill, or Pople? Colbeck and Renner are about as philosophical as you're going to get for scientists who currently perform actual research (Tegmark and Baez are in categories of their own).

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#72

Post by foldr »

moultano wrote: post #66
foldr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, that seems like a fairly banal observation. Of course you can't tell whether someone has free will looking from the outside. In the general case the behavior of someone with free will will be indistinguishable from random behavior. If free will was just about patterns of behavior then it wouldn't be a very interesting philosophical issue.

>Of course you can't tell whether someone has free will looking from the outside. Before quantum mechanics and uncomputability, the "of course" went the other direction.

I don't see how that makes any difference. Could you expand?

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#73

Post by foldr »

Tyr42 wrote: post #65
foldr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, that seems like a fairly banal observation. Of course you can't tell whether someone has free will looking from the outside. In the general case the behavior of someone with free will will be indistinguishable from random behavior. If free will was just about patterns of behavior then it wouldn't be a very interesting philosophical issue.

Here's the paper he wrote on it, I think it'd be good to take a look at it directly. https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159 Scott is making a pair of claims: If it's possible to build a fast, noninvasive, perfect predictor then what more can science say to show that people don't have free will? If it's impossible to build such a predictor, for some fundamental reason, then what more can science say to show that free will ex…

Ah, in the paper he says that he's not actually talking about free will. That makes it less confusing. But I still think he's making much too strong a connection between Knightian unpredictability and free will. I don't see any reason at all to think that the former is a necessary condition for the latter, and he doesn't really attempt to argue the point. (He promises that he's going to argue it in section 2.5, but then section 2.5 ends up only talking about problems of personal identity.)

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#74

Post by qms »

eachro wrote: post #61
zodiac wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has a blog post about it - http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2620

Maybe I should've just asked the question I really wanted to ask: did MIT deny him tenure? If so, why? From what I've heard, Scott Aaronson is one of the rising stars of theoretical CS, so him moving on from MIT was very surprising to hear.

No: http://www.csail.mit.edu/node/2041

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#75

Post by moultano »

foldr wrote: post #72
moultano wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course you can't tell whether someone has free will looking from the outside. Before quantum mechanics and uncomputability, the "of course" went the other direction.

I don't see how that makes any difference. Could you expand?

I don't think it's obvious that you can't tell whether someone has free will from the outside. Considering the enormous success physics has had with explaining every other phenomenon from the outside, that seems like a very strong statement.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#76

Post by typon »

Xcelerate wrote: post #71
typon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you follow actual physicists? Have you ever heard Sean Carrol talk about how anyone who doesn't believe in the MW interpretation is pretty much stupid?

I mean, yes, there are a few physicists who have turned into science popularizers, but they're no longer at the forefront of scientific research (e.g., Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene). I do quantum chemistry research. Do you recognize any of the names: Colbeck, Renner, Alavi, Booth, Kohn, Sherrill, Gill, or Pople? Colbeck and Renner are about as philosophical as you're going to get for scientists who…

Do you put Sean Carroll in the same category as the other science popularizers?

Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations? I only know QC as it concerns DFT or QMC (I do semiconductor modeling)

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#77

Post by Xcelerate »

typon wrote: post #76
Xcelerate wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yes, there are a few physicists who have turned into science popularizers, but they're no longer at the forefront of scientific research (e.g., Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene). I do quantum chemistry research. Do you recognize any of the names: Colbeck, Renner, Alavi, Booth, Kohn, Sherrill, Gill, or Pople? Colbeck and Renner are about as philosophical as you're going to get for scientists who…

Do you put Sean Carroll in the same category as the other science popularizers? Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations? I only know QC as it concerns DFT or QMC (I do semiconductor modeling)

No, he still publishes quite a bit. But I'd say it's unusual to find someone who is both a researcher and a popularizer.

> Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations?

I suppose that is mainly the point of my original post; the vast majority of researchers who utilize QM do so without regard to the philosophical aspects of the subject. Wouldn't you think Sean Carroll is an outlier in that sense?

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#78

Post by foldr »

moultano wrote: post #75
foldr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that makes any difference. Could you expand?

I don't think it's obvious that you can't tell whether someone has free will from the outside. Considering the enormous success physics has had with explaining every other phenomenon from the outside, that seems like a very strong statement.

How would you distinguish decisions that were freely made from decisions made at random?

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#79

Post by typon »

Xcelerate wrote: post #77
typon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you put Sean Carroll in the same category as the other science popularizers? Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations? I only know QC as it concerns DFT or QMC (I do semiconductor modeling)

No, he still publishes quite a bit. But I'd say it's unusual to find someone who is both a researcher and a popularizer. > Also, isn't quantum chemistry too applied for there to be significant arguments about specific interpretations? I suppose that is mainly the point of my original post; the vast majority of researchers who utilize QM do so without regard to the philosophical aspects of the subject. Wouldn't you th…

But then I could make the same point about the vast majority of humanities academics. Most work isnt paradigm shifting, it's just building on top of currently accepted theories.

And that's my actual point. When it comes to rejecting or accepting new models, there is much dogma in physics as there is in sociology, because the underlying problem is human beings not the subject of study. Even Einstein dogmatically said "God does not play dice", rejecting QM based on his intuition about how the universe works rather than being cold and only looking at observation.

Personally, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with dogma, it helps your research become an overdamped system otherwise you'd be wasting all your time following ultimately fruitless leads. The important thing is to use this inherent quality of humans to your advantage.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#80

Post by moultano »

foldr wrote: post #78
moultano wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's obvious that you can't tell whether someone has free will from the outside. Considering the enormous success physics has had with explaining every other phenomenon from the outside, that seems like a very strong statement.

How would you distinguish decisions that were freely made from decisions made at random?

If we can't, then that says something doesn't it?
Post reply on HN