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

Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#131

Post by tim-projects »

Terr_ wrote: post #2

> a measure of quantumness known as “magic.” This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line... > They had worked out a way of running software on a classical computer that would mimic a quantum task. When it comes to using a regular computer to mimic (read: fake) the execution of an exotic program/API for nonexistnet future hardware, I highly recommend the humorously titled talk: "Temporally…

I guess we can no longer use this phrase:

"The best kind of science is magic, and the best kind of magic is science."

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#132

Post by an0malous »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #127
an0malous wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement. It’s so ironic how you’ll call it bullshit and link to some pop culture skeptic idea with no scientific backing to try and undermine an idea in defense of “real science” > Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone…

Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement. We can now simulate every aspect of consciousness except for long-term memory consolidation, to the extent that you can't tell if you're talking to a conscious person or a computer. The existence of LLMs means that no quantum woo is necessary to explain consciousness. Our brains just do the same thing by different means. In short, Penrose's a…

You’re conflating consciousness with intelligence. Consciousness is subjective experience, there’s no way to know if any other people, much less machines, are conscious.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#133

Post by an0malous »

bawolff wrote: post #100
an0malous wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement. It’s so ironic how you’ll call it bullshit and link to some pop culture skeptic idea with no scientific backing to try and undermine an idea in defense of “real science” > Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone…

I'm disagreeing with the notion that someone "who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us". History suggests otherwise. Surely you must appreciate the irony when your primary argument is an appeal to authority, while on the other hand you dismiss everyone who is unconvinced as "dogmatic". As for Penrose's specific ideas, i'm not familiar enough with them or the field to make an informed judgement. Hence i would defer…

> Hence i would defer to other experts in that field, who as far as i understand are unconvinced.

This is also an appeal to authority.

Plus I’m not arguing that Penrose is correct, I’m arguing that it’s unscientific to call a theory bullshit because it sounds “woo” or “new age.” It should be debated on its merits, and yes I did make an appeal to authority for the same reasons you did: it’s a useful heuristic if we don’t have the capacity to evaluate every idea on its merits.

> However, the fact he previously won a nobel does not lead me to give him any more credence than i would anyone else. If anything it’s a negative signal.

So you’re saying that being a Nobel laureate is a counter signal for scientific credibility?

> The onus is on Penrose to show consciousness is non-computational. Preferably with some sort of experiment (or are we in the realm of pure philosophy here? Arguing how many angels are dancing on the pin).

I mean there’s the whole field of mathematics and most of modern physics that use mathematical proofs instead of experiments, including the main article this thread is on. I don’t disagree that an experiment would be ideal, but again, my point was not to argue that Penrose is correct but that it’s unscientific and akin to religious dogma to call his theory bullshit because it sounds like a “new age” idea.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#134

Post by zchrykng »

Erem wrote: post #65
zchrykng wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please enlighten us how purely theoretical mathematical constructs, that are impossible to test, help us understand anything about our universe.

Imaginary numbers are purely theoretical, but they turn out very helpful in almost every engineering discipline

Sure, let me know when any of these imaginary physics is useful for predicting anything that can be observed.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#135

Post by an0malous »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #125
an0malous wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, just maybe, an eminent physicist who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us. At the very least his ideas deserve consideration instead of ridicule and dismissal. Also as far as I know, Penrose’s main argument is that consciousness can not be computational. If you can’t argue against an idea with reason and resort to name calling, you’re not being rational you’re just being dogmatic and censoring ideas.

Penrose's argument isn't rational itself, so I don't see why a rational argument should be required in order to dismiss it. As CuriouslyC points out, quantum consciousness is the equivalent of Newton's dalliances with alchemy and astrology.

Maybe you could briefly describe and steelman his argument as a show of good faith instead of just denouncing it because it’s “equivalent with alchemy and astrology.” My understanding is that it’s very rational, it’s based on mathematical proofs.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#136

Post by zchrykng »

e12e wrote: post #89
zchrykng wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simulating it on a computer, even a "quantum computer", is not the same as testing it against actual reality.

Ah. You're assuming we're not living in a simulation?

I mean, I don't think we are living in a simulation, but even if we were, there is no reason to believe that simulating something inside of a simulation is going to prove anything about the outer simulation.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#137

Post by zchrykng »

dwroberts wrote: post #101
zchrykng wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please enlighten us how purely theoretical mathematical constructs, that are impossible to test, help us understand anything about our universe.

Lots of science is impossible to test practically for hundreds of years before it is actually experimentally verified

Not actually science until you can test it.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#138

Post by vardump »

nilkn wrote: post #67

"Einstein cast gravity not as a force but as the geometric bending of space and time. In a popular analogy, the fabric of space-time is like the flat expanse of a mattress, and a massive object like a star is like a bowling ball sitting on top. The weight of the bowling ball compresses the mattress, forming a dimple — matter tells space-time how to curve. In this analogy, a planet is like a smaller ball. If it rolls…

Does this mean universe can only support certain amount of energy (or motion) in a certain volume?

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#139

Post by 2b3a51 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #76
an0malous wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, just maybe, an eminent physicist who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us. At the very least his ideas deserve consideration instead of ridicule and dismissal. Also as far as I know, Penrose’s main argument is that consciousness can not be computational. If you can’t argue against an idea with reason and resort to name calling, you’re not being rational you’re just being dogmatic and censoring ideas.

I didn't say all his theories were garbage, though the theories inspired by them developed by laypeople almost certainly are. I just don't find his argument compelling enough on its face to warrant holding them up as real progress. Also, remember that Isaac Newton was deep into alchemy and religious prophecy. Just because you have one good idea and you're smart enough to follow it to its logical conclusion doesn't me…

You could turn that idea over: Newton's alchemical researches may have given him the courage to posit action at a distance. Universal gravitation was very controversial and was not at all accepted initially. Descartes spent pages and pages building theories of vortex action to explain forces.

Re: Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

#140

Post by BobaFloutist »

an0malous wrote: post #135
CamperBob2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Penrose's argument isn't rational itself, so I don't see why a rational argument should be required in order to dismiss it. As CuriouslyC points out, quantum consciousness is the equivalent of Newton's dalliances with alchemy and astrology.

Maybe you could briefly describe and steelman his argument as a show of good faith instead of just denouncing it because it’s “equivalent with alchemy and astrology.” My understanding is that it’s very rational, it’s based on mathematical proofs.

Mathematical proofs don't really apply to anything outside of math, since they require a certainty in your assumptions that's not replicable in the real world. At the end of the day, all a mathematical proof can tell you is "If P then Q," which just shifts the question from Q to P.
Post reply on HN