From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68EC138A1C for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 02:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 016E8E0A0B; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 02:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.web-xs.org (mail.web-xs.org [148.251.4.204]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26C8EE0979 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 02:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.web-xs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1817B6EC2006 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 04:17:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.web-xs.org Received: from mail.web-xs.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.web-xs.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nfz4FbFr2Xhp for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 04:17:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from server-1.localdomain (p54A708AF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.167.8.175]) (Authenticated sender: lukas@der-erste-sinn.de) by mail.web-xs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 64B596EC2028 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 04:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hal9000.localdomain (hal.localdomain [192.168.0.2]) by server-1.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913433F6C4 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 04:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 02:31:30 +0200 From: To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer Message-ID: <20150404023130.695f6521@hal9000.localdomain> In-Reply-To: References: <1478951.WCFfi6fabA@navi> <1655034.0iNOFofX7r@wstn> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7d5a2c42-3a4b-4cb1-b725-eff0ee3ef816 X-Archives-Hash: 178819786b03234f9882c7be94de1ffb Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey > wrote: > > On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > > >> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may > >> never be able to answer is "why?". > > > > I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches > > to physics. Science does not answer the question "why?". That isn't > > its job. Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works." > > I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause. > > I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a > magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is. However, > compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model > is rather poor. > > This is how science has worked for hundreds of years. It has really > only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say > "well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't > science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the > experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good > enough." > > As I said, I think this is hubris. We think that the fact that we > haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the > answer. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm tending to assume that we can't figure out what's really behind the scene as a matter of principle. I think that all we can do is making theories which are able to predict the processes that we are detect. Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories. A fundamental question is, whether the mathematical axioms are existing "for real" and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality of our mind/brain. In the latter case it would probably be impossible for us to find "the answer". (42!;) Nevertheless we always should try to get a deeper understanding of the underlaying mechanisms. But I really have my doubts that we ever will reaching the "ground", if there is one at all. And even if there is something like a "absolute reality" or a "reason for everything", we maybe are not able to really understand it. -- Regards wabe