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

I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 373 posts

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#351

Post by ScottAaronson »

jderick wrote: post #8

Do you think that quantum physics can tell us anything about 'the hard problem' in philosophy? Is it possible that the mind could somehow control how quantum states collapse in situations where randomness would be the typical explanation?

Short answer: not in any obvious way!

Longer answer: whatever I have to say about possible implications of QC for the hard problem of consciousness, you can probably find in the following lecture

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951

or in the Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine essay that’s linked below.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#352

Post by ScottAaronson »

_0w8t wrote: post #119

Hi Scott, If somebody claims that there is no freedom of will, what what you accept as a reasonable proof? It seems that one can be sceptical even in presence of extremely precize predictions as it my be easier to alter memory about predictions than to produce them.

I’m not sure I fully understand your argument, but if someone showed that they could perfectly predict the actions of the people around them, say hours or days into future, placing the predictions into a sealed envelope or a cryptographic commitment and revealing them later, then to whatever extent fraud and the like had been ruled out as explanations (in the ordinary experimental ways, and possibly with the help of James Randi :-) ), I’d have to say that the person had successfully unmasked free will as an illusion.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#353

Post by ScottAaronson »

geraltofrivia wrote: post #115

Hi Scott, I got interested in Quantum Computing, and fundamental mathematics a week ago. Ever since, I'm reading your book `Quantum Computing since Democritus`. I discovered your blog (oh and it's such a joy to read!). Today I run into your podcasts and AMA. This is going to get overwhelming very soon, I feel. Couple things: your book is an amazing repertoire of abstractions, theorems, phenomenon and whatnots. Does i…

Knowing more math than most of the people who you pass on the street, but at the same time having vastly inferior social skills to them, is something that you sort of get used to in childhood. :-) You should keep in mind, also, that as a theoretical computer scientist, I spend a lot of my time hanging around people who are abnormal in more-or-less the same ways I am, and in many cases more so.

Besides QCSD, I’d try Mermin’s Quantum Computer Science: An Introduction for QC, or any of my 50 favorite books from this list

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3679

if you’re just looking for some interesting reading material.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#354

Post by lisper »

Y_Y wrote: post #347
lisper wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the word "physics" means ?

Good question. I'm willing to bet you have a different idea to me. How about you tell me what you think. I'm a professional physicist with a relatively mainstream view. But i couldn't give a comprehensive definition in the time I'm willing to take to write this comment. But i promise to write one if you do.

> How about you tell me what you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

> I'm a professional physicist

You're behaving more like a troll than a physicist. What is your field of expertise?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#355

Post by henryaj »

ScottAaronson wrote: post #263
henryaj wrote: post #241

Do you have any thoughts to offer on the "culture wars", especially the way you were treated by the online mob when you wrote about your personal struggle with your sexual identity[0,1]? 0. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ 1. https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664

Dude, if you'd just asked me a more specific question, you could surely have baited me into commenting on this or that culture war issue. Since you asked a general question, though, I'll simply answer with the generality that I wish we could all make more of an effort to show empathy for each other's problems, and (as I said on the podcast) carefully articulate where we agree and disagree with each other rather than…

That Quora post is wonderful - thanks for sharing. Glad you were able to rise above the attacks made on your character :)

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#356

Post by nicklaf »

ScottAaronson wrote: post #339
nicklaf wrote: post #65

Hi Scott, If quantum computing ever becomes commonplace, and quantum computer programs widely written and understood, do you envision that the teaching of quantum mechanics itself will be significantly impacted? Or instead will we simply see quantum complexity theory begin to redefine the undergraduate computer science curriculum?

I think that the teaching of QM has already been impacted by quantum information—and I hope it gets impacted more, regardless of if and when we get useful QCs! To my mind, it’s just infinitely clearer to start with the basic rules and properties of QM—states, unitary transformations, measurements, tensor products, entanglement, density matrices, etc.—illustrated with the simplest systems to which those rules apply, n…

OK, now I'm out of excuses for having not read Quantum Computing since Democritus ;-) (and The Theoretical Minimum as well, why not both?).

Thanks for the enlightening response!

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#357

Post by dang »

dschuetz wrote: post #202
ScottAaronson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quantum computer is a device that exploits constructive and destructive interference among exponentially many amplitudes , which are numbers that are closely related to probabilities but can be positive, negative, or even complex. If you feel that sentence wasn't clear enough, and it would take at least a few more paragraphs to flesh it out ... well, duh, what did you expect? :-D For a SLIGHTLY longer account, see…

QM was invented , not as you say "discovered". It was the only means to explain things that were inexplicable with the means of classical physics, or even rational thought. And still, there are a so many physicists who claim and toot that they've got it all about QM and act like it's a no-brainer to study 5 years worth physics curriculum first to properly get it . Most people mistake QM for a natural mechanism, rathe…

If you post like this again we will ban you.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#358

Post by sethrin »

mygo wrote: post #317
kybernetikos wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there things that we can't test that do exist? Lots of people think so (e.g. unmeasurable things predicted by theory like parallel universes, but also things like evil or God or the color purple), but by definition it's hard to be very sure, or to transfer your own confidence in such things to others. Lots of these kinds of questions reduce to quibbling about definitons; and also by definition, if we can't test…

> if we can't test the thing then the universe isn't going to punish us either way for believing or not. If we can’t test the thing then what we are discussing is faith, not science. Nothing wrong with faith and beliefs but I think it’s important to differentiate between these things and science because often times science is used as a basis for untestable beliefs and then people really start to think that those unte…

Do you have any empirical evidence for any particular QM interpretation? If not, does that make them unscientific?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#360

Post by ScottAaronson »

ScottAaronson wrote: post #341
selimthegrim wrote: post #96

Hi Scott - What was the best part/most favorite thing about your sabbatical? Can you explain why Forrelation is a guiding light for quantum deep learning these days? As a bonus - it would be nice to see a walkthrough - commentary of the recent oracle separation proof of Tal and Raz and how they used Fourier transforms specifically.

My favorite part of my sabbatical in Tel Aviv was having some actual time to do research. My second-favorite part was the hummus. Forrelation is not a “guiding light for quantum deep learning.” I’m not even sure if there’s such a thing as “quantum deep learning” that’s sufficiently well-developed to deserve the name. You can use Forrelation as a separating example for some other quantum learning problems, e.g. k-mean…

Just as a quick followup: Avishay Tal has confirmed for me that, indeed, their proof still goes through if you replace the Fourier transform by any other unitary matrix with bounded entries.
Post reply on HN