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 BD9ED13888F for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6924E0888; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46AEE0858 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iedfl3 with SMTP id fl3so100915032ied.1 for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 05:03:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=BZoq77ceMVAm3dVpRGHzNunsYidXterHMU/dGjGgu2s=; b=elFLdun2TOBcGMQsh+3nDU6F9a4X4sLnJYr5cn05OBLjLW1QJpXiMYBEds2lgOw5Uw hDRXDuzhrm+lfdJMcDJfl/WXMryCua6FbpL9djRrxA4mXRbxMru01agghQM8zuxYmOIq 8P1UKuIxa4g6CzTthni95ZZn4aq36zjOoLjY14lY0ReIpd1hdJyCV/AV812WXT3LpZgi ORVktFLsmtGxuyMfL/kvhePMzVSxw4cOIKL50DaSEKxYRjDmA7jXmsOrK18cMUDLyUvf WHoFsMkqi/6ga32W/rGAh9/9LTqTue9Sz9O2PR0L3j7Q4PtybBmWo2dzmSw2piYNWkH4 GmKA== 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 X-Received: by 10.107.9.141 with SMTP id 13mr2592165ioj.71.1428062592149; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 05:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 05:03:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2074513.Jq2xfKgqVs@wstn> References: <20150403053030.61ad1705@hal9000.localdomain> <2074513.Jq2xfKgqVs@wstn> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:03:12 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gfW5bU0uaAvLt7BZAbASrjXNG50 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 43e31592-425d-40a6-945b-f0a7cc920b9b X-Archives-Hash: 9365659c3940ad3b993f7bd79d5ec99f On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly >> non-deterministic > > But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain > of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic > behaviour. /me looks over at his handy Plinko board. Just because it looks probabilistic, doesn't mean that it is. Take a cryptographic PRNG. If you know the seed, the output is completely deterministic. If you don't know the seed, you could describe the output as probabilistic, and it might look non-deterministic, but it still is. The biggest problem I have with quantum mechanics is that there is no understanding of underlying mechanisms. We have models that describe experiments, which is great, but not really a satisfying solution. I think a lot of scientists have gone on to argue that it is wrong to look for underlying mechanisms or argue that they don't exist, but I think this is just a result of the fact that nobody has found one. It seems a bit like intellectual pride: "why, my and my friends have spent 30 years working hard on this, and none of us have solved it, so the problem must be unsolvable." It is possible they are right, but it is also possible that they are not, and there certainly is no concrete evidence one way or the other, just a lot of hand-waving. The beauty of a good explanation of mechanisms is that it takes behavior that previously relied on complicated models and such, and suddenly causes it to make sense and look simple. We just don't have that for quantum mechanics yet. Absent such an explanation, I am skeptical that we really can claim to know what is truly going on. That doesn't mean the models themselves aren't useful, or that there aren't MANY practical benefits arising from our current understanding of quantum mechanics. I just think that statements like "the universe is non-deterministic" are reaching a bit further than our current grasp. -- Rich