Twitter | Search | |
wrf3 Sep 12
You didn't say "there is no evidence of objective universal truths". Had you said, "all truth is subjective", I might have agreed with you.
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams Sep 12
Subjective misses the point. As Wigner, Poincare, and many others have demonstrated, everything we consider universal is really relative to limited space, time, and chosen events to observe.
Reply Retweet Like
wrf3 Sep 13
2/ observe exist in an infinite Hilbert space of complex probability amplitudes. We can't measure them, because the moment we do, the "waveform" collapses, but they have to exist, since we can't do quantum computing without them.
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams Sep 13
Hilbert space isn't real. It is an imaginary tool to describe what we cannot imagine.
Reply Retweet Like
wrf3 Sep 14
Then how does quantum computation work? How do these imaginary waveforms interfere with each other so that Shor's algorithm can factor numbers faster than any classical computer?
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams Sep 14
A better question is when will those models break down, which are incomplete, breakdown and be replace by newer approximations. The point to keep in mind is what we imagine as waveforms do correspond to something real, but that reality is not the same as our representations.
Reply Retweet Like
wrf3 Sep 15
There may be a better question, but please answer the one that was asked. Because you have the situation of something that is real that cannot be measured - i.e. you have something that is real that you can't experience, yet it can be put to use.
Reply Retweet Like
wrf3 Sep 15
The whole point of quantum computing is that there exists something that you can describe, and the description clearly works, but you can't experience the work without destroying the work. The work is outside experience, but not outside description.
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams Sep 15
1/I’ll just address a few of your responses and skip over the ones that are simply going in circles. I’ll also point out that you have misstated or misunderstood my position at every step. I suspect this is your first encounter with post Enlightenment thought as you seem unaware
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams Sep 15
2/ of most of the concepts. Over the decades I strove to keep up with science and mathematics as they can inform philosophy. The strangeness of physics presents unmatched opportunities for philosophy at this moment. I regret that few mathematicians and scientists have
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams
3/ reciprocated with an understanding of philosophy, which always precedes other fields by clearing and setting the grounds for thinking in any age. First, some basic concepts: 1. There is a crucial difference between a priori ideas and sensibilities and experience of the
Reply Retweet Like More
Jeffrey Williams Sep 15
4/ external world. The a priori is no more than our evolved forms and conditions of objective thought, and on its own tells us nothing about the world. Its only job is to format the chaotic sense data into a comprehensible representation. That representation corresponds to and
Reply Retweet Like
Jeffrey Williams Sep 15
5/approximates whatever external thing stimulated the sense but is in no way equal to it. It seems to us that the order imposed on the sense data actually exists in the world because we have no other way to think it, but there is no reason at all to assume that our secondary
Reply Retweet Like
wrf3 Sep 16
This is clearly false. Your "a priori" ideas are a product of the wiring of your brain, which is just nature swirling around inside your skull instead of outside of it. Your "a priori" ideas are as much an experience of nature as is temperature, or sweetness.
Reply Retweet Like