141–150 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science is not based on consensus seeking. Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it. And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.
Actually it is exactly based on hypotheses that are verified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit after skimming arxiv preprint[1]: Yeah, this is pretty huge. They achieved the result with surface codes, which are general ECCs. The repetition code was used to further probe quantum ECC floor. "Just POC" likely doesn't do it justice. (Original comment): Also quantum dabbler (coincidentally dabbled in bitflip quantum error correction research). Skimmed the post/research blog. I believe the key point is the scal…
You got the main idea, it's a proof-of-concept: that a class of error-correcting code on real physical quantum chips obey the threshold theorem, as is expected based on theory and simulations. However the main scaling of error correction is via surface codes, not repetition codes. It's an important point as surface codes correct all Pauli errors, not just either bit-flips or phase-flips. They use repetition codes as…
> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?
> It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 1025 or 10 septillion years. If you want to write it out, it’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. If it's not, what would be your explanation for this significant improvement then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quantum computation done in done multiple universes is the explanation given by David Deutsch the father of Quantum Computing. He invented the idea of a quantum computer to test the idea of parallel universes. If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. Also your comment does not have any useful information. You assumed h…
I disagree that it is "the best explanation we have". It's a nice theory, but like all theories in quantum foundations / interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is (at least currently) unfalsifiable. I didn't "assume" hype, I hypothesized it based on the evidence before me: There is nothing in Google's paper that deals with interpretations of quantum mechanics. This only appears in the blog post, with no evidence gi…
> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?
The quantum computer idea was literally invented by David Deutsche to test the many universes theory of quantum physics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.
Science is not based on consensus seeking. Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it. And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Generated comments are against HN guidelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quantum computer idea was literally invented by David Deutsche to test the many universes theory of quantum physics.
You've mentioned this in another comment. I have to point out, even if this is his opinion, and he has been influential in the field, it does not mean that this specific idea of his has been influential.
"What is their mission? Cure cancer? Eliminate poverty? Explore the universe? No, their goal: to sell another fucking Nissan." --Scott Galloway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science is not based on consensus seeking. Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it. And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.
David is this you?