Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TMax01 t1_iro0c7c wrote

Reply to comment by Devout--Atheist in Quantum philosophy: 4 ways physics will challenge your reality by ADefiniteDescription

>Sure, if you describe "reality" as what humans are capable of perceiving,

I describe "reality" as what humans do percieve, and consider only humans to be capable of perceiving. But I don't limit perception by excluding what we can empirically measure from it. To believe that QM is different from classic physics because it requires more precise measurements to identify it's principles is just like believing that QM is a matter of size rather than scope.

>A computer is undeniably a macro structure.

I accept that challenge. A computing appliance (a generally programmable calculating device) is a macro structure. But the computer which it enmatters is not. It is a system, but it would be the same system if it were implemented with any other structure, regardless of the size. In a very real way, all computers are "quantum devices", because a binary digit is a quantum of information/data, and also because somehow (we know not how!) the electrical mechanisms we use to execute the computer are themselves quantum effects, more so than the physical object is. But of course, the current craze concerning 'equipment which utilizes superpositions for computation' makes that identification of a data processing appliance as "a quantum computer" confusing.

>A computer manipulating the rules of quantum mechanics must have something to do with our macro "reality", even if it is rather inconsequential at this time

It really doesn't, although admittedly the mind boggles at trying to imagine a computing mechanism which does not require deterministic ("macro") components. But your analogy furthers my position, because neither the mathematical manipulations (translations, in mathematical terms) nor the rules of quantum mechanics are bounded by "our" reality, although they are objective so there is a parallel.

In case you didn't notice, I quibbled with the same comment (a reply to my previous comment) that you did. I am not opposed to your conjecture about the necessary relationship between QM theory and the more directly observable universe of objects. I was just picking at a particularly troublesome part of the reasoning you apparently based that conjecture on.

Sorry to have bothered you. Carry on. 😉

−1

Devout--Atheist t1_iro4qhe wrote

Well now you just seem to want to redefine "computer" as a piece of an emergent "computing system", but you've failed to clearly do so. At what part does this distinction occur? Can we include the motherboard? Is your arbitrary definition confined to only the computer's processor? Can we include the processor's BIOS, or are we also excluding any assembly code that is essential to the processor's function? Do we need to go to individual logic gates of the processor to reach your definition of "computer"?

Until you clearly define the physical parts of the commonly held definition of computer that fit your esoteric definition, forgive me for dismissing yours as nonsense.

2

TMax01 t1_iropdyr wrote

>Well now you just seem to want to redefine "computer" as a piece of an emergent "computing system",

Not a piece, a purpose. The computer is the logic behind the hardware, not the hardware.

> At what part does this distinction occur?

Distinctions occur when they are made. You can refuse to make the distinction; obviously enough, it was mentioned only to illustrate a point. But regardless of whether it is a common usage of the term, it is easy to grasp (metaphorically, though as impossible to physically grasp as any metaphor) if you try even a little bit to understand the point. It isn't even all that novel. There was a time when "computer" was a career choice, not equipment. The computer is not the appliance, but the function. It may require a process, but it is holistic; the (abstract) computer missing any "part" of the process is no longer a computer at all. In contrast, the appliance without a given chip or a hard drive is still a "computer" in the conventional sense, just not a functioning one.

>Until you clearly define the physical parts of the commonly held definition of compute

LOL. Until you come to grips with the point I was making, that the hardware (or even software) isn't the issue, the computation is, you'll continue to be mystified by the fact that anything that computes is a computer, and it is not necessary for it to be the "macro" device you are thinking of when you use the term, and you'll be unable to recognize the significance of your error when it comes to the relationship between QM and deterministic objects. It is easy to assume and believe that our current QM models are sufficient for explaining how and why deterministic objects we directly interact with emerge from the quantum mechanics we've already discovered, and nothing more, just as it is easy to assume the word "computer" only refers to the electronic appliances you are familiar with. But until you do explain how and why the "macro world" emerges from quantum interactions, in each and every detail and every possible instance, you're just testifying to your faith, not reporting a fact. I can't dismiss your assumption that Newtonian (and relativistic) mechanics would certainly emerge from what we already know about quantum interactions as nonsense, because it is not nonsense. It's just arrogance and ignorance. It might not even be an inaccurate belief, but it is still wrong simply because it is a belief rather than actual knowledge.

Let me close by summarizing the distinction between my reasoning and yours, in terms of the quibbles we have with the original comment we've both separately addressed by disagreeing with it:

>>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

Here's your quibble, as you've attested, indicated by emphasis:

>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

I said you overstated your case in your quibbling, and I hope you'll take the trouble to review the thread to see why I said it, and how it was a reasonable criticism. I think it is more important than you realize. In contrast, here's my quibble, again indicated by emphasis, which I also hope will be self-explanatory in making a less overblown and thus stronger case against the original comment:

>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

−1