As I watched this conversation, I could feel the center of gravity of all of TH-cam shifting in a positive direction along many axes; usefulness, truthfulness, humility, civility, good humor, etc. Thank you gentlemen.
Brian and Scott - this was fantastic, so great job! The questions you have covered were very interesting and I really enjoyed to hear your honest opinions. Hope to see Part 2 at some point. Thanks!
The two of you are my favourites - for a long time - as being the best at explaining your subjects of computer science and physics respectively. Better still, you do it without getting caught in all the hype.
Brian, I've never met you. But I really love you as my human brother❤. I am impressed how you try to simplify complex knowledge with these great podcasts. You're a great asset for humanity!
"quantum mechanics must be an approximation of a better theory" is put so beautifully. this is coming from a guy with tons of experience and knowledge of how real the wave function is. i actually had a brainblast when he started talking about errors and amplitudes and wanting them in/out of phase, realizing i need to understand shor's algorithm to be able to fully comprehend how we extract value from the wave function in quantum computing; so i'm gonna need you to keep working on that explanation Dr. Greene. 10/10 guys thx
It is not only the conceptual quality which is inspiring here. These are great guys. Great well intentioned people. Seeing this gives me hope for the human race. Without berating the bad guys. I sometimes just have to say. Long live the good guys. L0nG LiVE the g00d guys.
A fascinating, wide-ranging conversation between theorists from two totally different disciplines. I understood most of the computer science half, but much of the quantum physics and some of the math references went over my head. I find that with these quantum computing videos it helps to watch/listen to multiple ones with different people. Maybe after watching a few others I'll come back to this one again.
Excellent discussion, informative and "loose" without feeling unfocused. And i'd also have happily watched Profs Greene and Aaronson devote the full 90 minutes to discussing just quantum interpretations BTW (in case anyone from the festival is reading and looking for ideas :).
This was delightful. Aaronson was a great guest (as always) and Greene did well to cover a good range of topics and dig into points that, even when I was familiar with the topic already, taught me new things.
One of the most exciting aspects of quantum computing is its potential to solve problems that are currently intractable for classical computers. For example, quantum algorithms could revolutionize fields like cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery by enabling faster processing of large datasets and complex simulations. Algorithms such as Shor's and Grover's illustrate how quantum computing could break traditional encryption methods and optimize search processes, respectively.
One of my math professors at the Ural State University made that point, more or less: "math does not describe the world, it describes how our brain processes the world". I recently discussed it in a math/physics/IT community and to my surprise most were very critical of it, convinced that math is actually directly related to the structure of the physical universe. Speaking of aliens: if they are animals, like us, I'd expect them to have a very similar mathematics for evolutionary reasons. Separating oneself from other animals, counting others of your species, it seems to me like our way of thinking is actually a consequence of those and we share it with animals on Earth. (they are just less capable at it). If the alien was something completely different, like the planet in Lem's Solaris, or at least a hive mind like in Ender's game - who knows. P.S. I love Greene's discussions so much! Although I have to revisit the explanation of quantum computers, I still don't understand anything ))
Dr. Aaronson resonanted with all of my intellectual curiosities. Finished up through Diff Eq in highschool because I felt the maths above Calculus just blew my mind. I ended up in Comp Sci at BU and met some of the smartest people. Only during senior year did I realoze there was an Applied Math major out there which in another life time wouldve been equally useful. The realm of numbers and discrete answers is fascinsting. With all the recent hype around AI and GPUs and QPUs it's always imperitive we go back to the sciences to ground our expectations. Thanks for the company on my commute home from work
A truly GREAT episode. Since it was mentioned near closing, Law of Excluded Middle is NOT a universal property in the context of mathematical inquiry, some civilian or conscripted casualties include the Axiom of Choice.
No, it isn't. The eye opener with regards to MWI is reading Everett's thesis. By the second sentence you realize he was an idiot who didn't understand quantum mechanics. :-)
I do have some anxiety about what happens when the AI gets too powerful but knowing that genuinely good people like Scott and Ilya are at the center of all of it and are trying to push safety does make me feel a little better.
"We had no theoretical framework to predict the performance of the current generative algorithms" - I think that is a very important point and it goes along with the question "what do we even mean by being the best". The next step then becomes what is human intelligence, human consciousness and ta da ... free will. So to cut it short, I find it to be a case of how do we explain emergent properties, be it for a LLM or for humans. Even if we somehow find reliable methods to predict very large generative algorithms, we still don't know if it compares to humans.
The answer is free will is illusionary and consciousness is not open to empirical study. This much has been known for millennium. But it will answer lots of other stuff 🐵
relevant to your point on emergence and maybe consciousness, i believe they mention bohm quite a bit. i looked into him for a couple minutes to know where the convo was. he had a concept of group communication that was supposed to lead to emergent opinions or ideas (i dont know the level of success or failure). just something i thought was interesting. he seems like a guy who was dedicated to showing everything exists in the physical world deterministically
PLEASE have a second extension of this conversation. Scott is such an amazing pool of wisdom and you two are honestly amazing to watch - unlike most others as an avid channel viewer.
I think most people in the heart of hearts know that we are the only branch and there are no many worlds and if this is the case then you have to say how does quantum collapse work in our only universe?
if you train ai to do quantumn algorithm you might be able to train them to find new algorithm like it's a puzzle to solve similar to solve a chess position.
This may sound uneducated, because I am absolutely amazed that the human brain can conceive and comprehend the absolutely enormous implications of computational ability of the future and articulate these to an individual such as myself! I see people turning over their livelihood and safety all of the time to machines that can do it better, from airplanes to Modern farming practices. Pro;lems like the play example, enjoying it in a crowd or individually, both will happen. I also agree that a realistic understanding of the process the machine takes to give you the answer is necessary, but I also feel that we are going to reach a point were human understanding will be impossible as machines optimize current systems as it writes its own code on or in a neurologic base systems. In my opinion this is why restrictions and protocols must not be imposed on the development of AGI as the potential enemies of our way of life will forgo the restrictions and we will not be able to maintain equivalency let alone Supremacy!
If you use a quantum computer to factor a large prime number in one universe, you found those two numbers, another universe, you didn't didn't find it would they keep going until it did find it? So does that mean they merges back to us when they do find the factorization?
Brian Greene you have revealed yourself to be a Nominalist which is quite refreshing. Have you read “Science Without Numbers” yet? Also, Kant would agree with you that Math is a human construct.
I want an actual extension of the theories, with new variables our familiar ones emerge out of the statistics of in a classical division of possible worlds in this sort of way, where the deeper theories have to extended explanatory power for why gravitnis weak, why particles come in three generations, how is expansion related to it ect. And bohmian mechanics just can do such a thing.
That's very brave of Brian to take that stance for the sake of the argument and to spawn the irresistible need to engage discussion. Everyone give him a big round of applause as you remind him "concept" is a cheap out. ;O)- "I don't exist, therefore concept is irrelevant."
Agreed prof Scott: Interference is indeed the way to go! It won't be enough though as at different stages of your measurement/search you might achieve different level of interference with typically the highest levels on the last branches of the search tree and therefore with no much practical use. What you need is a strong interference since the very start which allows you to efficiently select the solution, and this can be done too with some math tricks... 🙂
Dude, "interference" is the absence of interaction. Something that doesn't exist doesn't come in "weak" and "strong". You need to stop the binge drinking. ;-)
Bohmians dont need to keep the wavefunction btw, you can throw away what is lost in a collapse, or else we would have to account for all possible past measurements to make correct predictions. But that is a minor detail.
The way i look at extended set of variable theories, is that you go from a classical probability distribution resulting from one unified wavefunction, to an ordinary classical sum over histories, whether the states summed over are entirely deterministic or not doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this point. Bohmian pilot wave theory is just a direct map from initial conditions to outcomes in a 1 to 1 way, keeping the one wavefunction as the laws of physics so to speak. Its the simplest and probably not very useful example of turning it into a summing over initial conditions classically statistical mechanical problem. I have no issue with it, but it is.the wavefunction i want to account for, so it is just a countexample to some of the liberal arts language orbiting quantum mechanics but thats about it in my book :).
Quantum computer is said to take advantage of “qubits” which are particles that exist in a superimposed quantum state in order to gain their computational power. These qubits are part of the machine. Superimposed quantum particles lose their superimposed states whenever they interact with any other particles (this is the “looking” in the classic analogies like Schrodinger’s Cat). The “other” particles are any other part of the machine. Therefore a Quantum Computer can never work, because the qubits must remain in an isolated state, but since they are in an isolated state, they can’t function as part of the machine. I have just disproven the possibility of a “quantum computer” QED
I enjoy Brian Green and this is my first experience listening to Scott, enjoyable but damn you are a comp sci math nerd. From an udderly non formally educated individual how is quantum computation not just adding a plane of computation to the newtonian planes? Have you ever thought that this plane is not bound to the newtonian with the same math proofs are correct within the newtonian. So why is it you don't separate the toolbox of newtonian from the additional plane? To me math is but a language. With that in mind we use math in terms to secure digital signal communication. I have found when understanding science it beneficial to break any transaction into 5 steps. Perception - Translation - Communication - Translation - Perception. I ask within digital communication what step is the most troublesome for security? In terms of AI and worries I have is computerized trust domains remove free will from any learning modules within the system they are loaded if that system is joined to a domain. Interesting conversation but math is but a language to me and what is the problem you are defining and directing things to solve is more an issue especially when learning things don't have a choice to say as far as I can figure out this not healthy for what is asking this of me and those around for what is asking me to figure out.
Can we give this thing a name now!! ? The gap between all simultaneous solutions as output by a quantum computer calculation, some being soluble. And our inability to know which of the simultaneous solutions is the one useful to the computation of sequences or factors unsolvable by classical means. For 10 years, I have watched quantum processors grow in power, but this thing has scarcely been significantly defeated. If we are to overcome it, we should at least give it a name so that we can refer to it without contextualizing or explanation. At the least saving us the time spent in doing so as our battle against it rages on! We are dealing with the measurement to solutions as something which lies outside of our computable measurement-space. Intrinsically unrelatable, as it is a first appearance of every solution we can not obtain. This divide...between what our obtainable solutions can point us towards in the space of solutions they can not obtain...and the solution in that unobtainable space which is useful...knowably ensureable as being the one we should obtain. A name for this divide: The Quantum Atronach
The most misunderstood thing in my opinion is that all particles are entangled always. Entanglement in a quantum computer is simply setting up the local physical conditions to represent a problem in a way the entanglement solves a problem and is highly isolated from the rest of the universe. When entanglement is lost in a quantum computer it is not actually lost, the state has been mixed with the surrounding entanglements in a way that corrupts the process.
I would have liked a final biographical question: what is Scott doing now and next. No doubt we will find out. I'm sure it will be significant and he will continue to be eloquent.
I just randomly found this and hoping it will be a solution for what I’ve been trying to do for ages. Using an old Yaesu mobile rig for digi modes and a weekly digital net. I was having to use a second radio for voice comms during the net but it would be cool to use the one radio and a usb microphone on the same PC as my digirig interface . I’ll play with it and report back
Yeah, i think a hidden variable theory should explain the wavefunctions resulting classical probability distribution over observables, without a wavefunction, or at least a wavefunction with diminished uncertainty that you have to sum over many different versions of to get a distribution. I mean to say, summing over initial conditons to produce a classical probability distribution does not need to have deterministic states exactly as the states evolving that are summed over in an ordinary classical way. They can also be more detereministic in a sense, by splitting it into different wavefunctions so to speak each with different resulting probability distributions over outcomes with smaller uncertainty than the original, and then when summed and normalized we get the same or close to the same classical probability distribution that would be produced by the born rule and the original wavefunction.
Choreographing waves implies an AI-generated Busby Berkeley dance illustrating Shor's Algorithm. What are the possibilities for quantum-coupled communication? Would it give a decisive military advantage? Might AI developed for fusion control be useful for maintaining coupling?
Is it at all possible, even in principle, to have an observer inside the oracle? If not, we, identifying with the world of observables, as an observer, could never observe quantum reality. But we do, when we look at the screen behind the double slits, when we are not concerned at all through which slit(s) the particle went. We see quantum reality, an interference pattern, which is real. Is it comparable to observing music by looking at the notes but not hearing it, and listening to the music, enjoying the superimposed waves of instruments and vocals, without knowing where each individual wave originates from? What would need to happen to steal the music from the individual notes? Is the sample rate (split distance) at all important, in other words, is the observer quantum:, digital: is it an observer or is it not, or can we fabricate a superimposed observer that breaks down into a classical observer (so observed music turns into spikes of noise gradually, when we change the sample rate? Can someone shed light on this for me?
This was too short, I need a sequel, fantastic conversation, from two wonderful minds!
yes!!!
Wow, the 8 minutes of Scott going off at 22:32 are simply gold. Thank you!
As I watched this conversation, I could feel the center of gravity of all of TH-cam shifting in a positive direction along many axes; usefulness, truthfulness, humility, civility, good humor, etc. Thank you gentlemen.
Brian and Scott - this was fantastic, so great job! The questions you have covered were very interesting and I really enjoyed to hear your honest opinions. Hope to see Part 2 at some point. Thanks!
The two of you are my favourites - for a long time - as being the best at explaining your subjects of computer science and physics respectively. Better still, you do it without getting caught in all the hype.
This is one of the best discussions I have seen on this channel. Very interesting and informative.
Brian, I've never met you. But I really love you as my human brother❤. I am impressed how you try to simplify complex knowledge with these great podcasts. You're a great asset for humanity!
One the most interesting conversations and easiest listens on this channel. So clear and informative. Bravo!
One thing I've learned from this channel is time moves much faster when watching interesting videos. Amazing.
fantastic beginning to end. thank you for this! Scott - great job.
I love Scott Aaronson!
Thank you World Science Festival!🌈
"quantum mechanics must be an approximation of a better theory" is put so beautifully. this is coming from a guy with tons of experience and knowledge of how real the wave function is. i actually had a brainblast when he started talking about errors and amplitudes and wanting them in/out of phase, realizing i need to understand shor's algorithm to be able to fully comprehend how we extract value from the wave function in quantum computing; so i'm gonna need you to keep working on that explanation Dr. Greene. 10/10 guys thx
Great discussion, thanks WSF!
It is not only the conceptual quality which is inspiring here. These are great guys. Great well intentioned people. Seeing this gives me hope for the human race. Without berating the bad guys. I sometimes just have to say. Long live the good guys. L0nG LiVE the g00d guys.
I am very grateful for this. Thank you very much Brian, Scott, and the WSF team.
a wonderful discussion. A real delight! Thanks
😊
Thank you Brian for another interesting topic! Thank you Scott!
A fascinating, wide-ranging conversation between theorists from two totally different disciplines. I understood most of the computer science half, but much of the quantum physics and some of the math references went over my head.
I find that with these quantum computing videos it helps to watch/listen to multiple ones with different people. Maybe after watching a few others I'll come back to this one again.
Scott needs to go on Joe Rogan and set the record straight on quantum computing. Fix the damage done by Michio Kaku.
😂 True though
What happened to NASA's project (Quail) btw?
Anyone who listens to Joe Rogan deserves to be misinformed.
@@sidneyHarrell35 So you're in favor of having more misinformed people in the world. Nice.
@@ben_spiller garbage people can't be fixed by a little more information.
Wonderful discussion. Thank you both.
As a computer scientist and physics nerd, I found this conversation fascinating. Thank you both.
A fantastic rendition of the principles of quantum probability!
Thank You Brian, among your excellent talks this might be the *best*.
Brilliant conversation! Thank you so much Drs. Brian Greene and Scott Aaronson!
Excellent discussion, informative and "loose" without feeling unfocused. And i'd also have happily watched Profs Greene and Aaronson devote the full 90 minutes to discussing just quantum interpretations BTW (in case anyone from the festival is reading and looking for ideas :).
Two thirds of this was well beyond my ken, but the third that remained was frikken brilliant. Thank you very much.
Hello fellow nerds, we are here again.
yo
Hi!
To fall asleep
Yolo
Always a pleasure to listen Brian and his guest.
I see podcast with guest Scott Aaronson, I click.
This was delightful. Aaronson was a great guest (as always) and Greene did well to cover a good range of topics and dig into points that, even when I was familiar with the topic already, taught me new things.
omg !!
About half way through this got *really* interesting. Intense, and intriguing.
Thank you Brian and Scott.
One of the most exciting aspects of quantum computing is its potential to solve problems that are currently intractable for classical computers. For example, quantum algorithms could revolutionize fields like cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery by enabling faster processing of large datasets and complex simulations. Algorithms such as Shor's and Grover's illustrate how quantum computing could break traditional encryption methods and optimize search processes, respectively.
Great job for layperson like to find this helpful and make me more aware. Thank you!
wow! what a conversation!!! thank you to both of you.
Scott is my favorite scientist/comedian
One of my math professors at the Ural State University made that point, more or less: "math does not describe the world, it describes how our brain processes the world". I recently discussed it in a math/physics/IT community and to my surprise most were very critical of it, convinced that math is actually directly related to the structure of the physical universe.
Speaking of aliens: if they are animals, like us, I'd expect them to have a very similar mathematics for evolutionary reasons. Separating oneself from other animals, counting others of your species, it seems to me like our way of thinking is actually a consequence of those and we share it with animals on Earth. (they are just less capable at it). If the alien was something completely different, like the planet in Lem's Solaris, or at least a hive mind like in Ender's game - who knows.
P.S. I love Greene's discussions so much! Although I have to revisit the explanation of quantum computers, I still don't understand anything ))
No, math describes the world. Many math teachers, researchers and professors believe so.
Dr. Aaronson resonanted with all of my intellectual curiosities. Finished up through Diff Eq in highschool because I felt the maths above Calculus just blew my mind. I ended up in Comp Sci at BU and met some of the smartest people. Only during senior year did I realoze there was an Applied Math major out there which in another life time wouldve been equally useful. The realm of numbers and discrete answers is fascinsting.
With all the recent hype around AI and GPUs and QPUs it's always imperitive we go back to the sciences to ground our expectations.
Thanks for the company on my commute home from work
A truly GREAT episode. Since it was mentioned near closing, Law of Excluded Middle is NOT a universal property in the context of mathematical inquiry, some civilian or conscripted casualties include the Axiom of Choice.
What a great show! It was equal parts inspiring, and unsettling.
That was an insightful and engaging one-on-one conversation! Thanks!
I watch all the discussions on regularly thank you both of you ❤❤
Thanks so much! Very informative and interesting! Thank you both for all you do!!! ❤❤❤
You’re incredible at what you do!
Amazing... Thank you Scott!!! 🐶😻🤗 Love all your inputs, explanations, glasses, everything!!! 🫶
so happy to find this youtube chamel/ .. just love this . thank you very much for making these videos. its wonderful
I loved the pothead question discussion at the end!
Simply brilliant video
Thank you dear uploader
Amazing conversation! Thank you!
Great discussion
33:45 "Why do we experience one and not the other?" This is an eye opening question.
No, it isn't. The eye opener with regards to MWI is reading Everett's thesis. By the second sentence you realize he was an idiot who didn't understand quantum mechanics. :-)
Wonderful!
I do have some anxiety about what happens when the AI gets too powerful but knowing that genuinely good people like Scott and Ilya are at the center of all of it and are trying to push safety does make me feel a little better.
I need someone like him as my Quantum Tutor.
Fascinating listen on Saturday morning heaven.
Thank you very much for the engaging conversation. 👍✨😊
He is the best , great clarity
"We had no theoretical framework to predict the performance of the current generative algorithms" - I think that is a very important point and it goes along with the question "what do we even mean by being the best".
The next step then becomes what is human intelligence, human consciousness and ta da ... free will.
So to cut it short, I find it to be a case of how do we explain emergent properties, be it for a LLM or for humans.
Even if we somehow find reliable methods to predict very large generative algorithms, we still don't know if it compares to humans.
The answer is free will is illusionary and consciousness is not open to empirical study. This much has been known for millennium. But it will answer lots of other stuff 🐵
relevant to your point on emergence and maybe consciousness, i believe they mention bohm quite a bit. i looked into him for a couple minutes to know where the convo was. he had a concept of group communication that was supposed to lead to emergent opinions or ideas (i dont know the level of success or failure). just something i thought was interesting. he seems like a guy who was dedicated to showing everything exists in the physical world deterministically
Hello from WA state, USA!
Scott Aaronson is a gleeful genius, not an evil one.
Scott Aaronson! Above par questions from Brian, always.
one of my favorite guests
PLEASE have a second extension of this conversation. Scott is such an amazing pool of wisdom and you two are honestly amazing to watch - unlike most others as an avid channel viewer.
I think most people in the heart of hearts know that we are the only branch and there are no many worlds and if this is the case then you have to say how does quantum collapse work in our only universe?
Thanks for having picture of this planet in the background, it helps me back when I drift away 😅
The very ending could have been the very beginning .. appreciate you both so much !!
Great program, great guest.
Loved it. Thank you.
if you train ai to do quantumn algorithm you might be able to train them to find new algorithm like it's a puzzle to solve similar to solve a chess position.
This may sound uneducated, because I am absolutely amazed that the human brain can conceive and comprehend the absolutely enormous implications of computational ability of the future and articulate these to an individual such as myself!
I see people turning over their livelihood and safety all of the time to machines that can do it better, from airplanes to Modern farming practices. Pro;lems like the play example, enjoying it in a crowd or individually, both will happen. I also agree that a realistic understanding of the process the machine takes to give you the answer is necessary, but I also feel that we are going to reach a point were human understanding will be impossible as machines optimize current systems as it writes its own code on or in a neurologic base systems. In my opinion this is why restrictions and protocols must not be imposed on the development of AGI as the potential enemies of our way of life will forgo the restrictions and we will not be able to maintain equivalency let alone Supremacy!
If you use a quantum computer to factor a large prime number in one universe, you found those two numbers, another universe, you didn't didn't find it would they keep going until it did find it? So does that mean they merges back to us when they do find the factorization?
Brian Greene you have revealed yourself to be a Nominalist which is quite refreshing. Have you read “Science Without Numbers” yet? Also, Kant would agree with you that Math is a human construct.
I want an actual extension of the theories, with new variables our familiar ones emerge out of the statistics of in a classical division of possible worlds in this sort of way, where the deeper theories have to extended explanatory power for why gravitnis weak, why particles come in three generations, how is expansion related to it ect. And bohmian mechanics just can do such a thing.
That's very brave of Brian to take that stance for the sake of the argument and to spawn the irresistible need to engage discussion.
Everyone give him a big round of applause as you remind him "concept" is a cheap out. ;O)-
"I don't exist, therefore concept is irrelevant."
the question is the answer
thank you Dr. Greene
Thank you so much for your service to humans❤
Agreed prof Scott: Interference is indeed the way to go! It won't be enough though as at different stages of your measurement/search you might achieve different level of interference with typically the highest levels on the last branches of the search tree and therefore with no much practical use. What you need is a strong interference since the very start which allows you to efficiently select the solution, and this can be done too with some math tricks... 🙂
Dude, "interference" is the absence of interaction. Something that doesn't exist doesn't come in "weak" and "strong". You need to stop the binge drinking. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 lol ok!
@@W-HealthPianoExercises Your DK is getting the best of you, right now. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 "Laughing all the way to the bank" 🙂
@@W-HealthPianoExercises That's the problem with DK. It can't hear anything other than itself. It tends to shut out reality completely. ;-)
Bohmians dont need to keep the wavefunction btw, you can throw away what is lost in a collapse, or else we would have to account for all possible past measurements to make correct predictions. But that is a minor detail.
Amazing talk, just brilliant.
The way i look at extended set of variable theories, is that you go from a classical probability distribution resulting from one unified wavefunction, to an ordinary classical sum over histories, whether the states summed over are entirely deterministic or not doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this point. Bohmian pilot wave theory is just a direct map from initial conditions to outcomes in a 1 to 1 way, keeping the one wavefunction as the laws of physics so to speak. Its the simplest and probably not very useful example of turning it into a summing over initial conditions classically statistical mechanical problem. I have no issue with it, but it is.the wavefunction i want to account for, so it is just a countexample to some of the liberal arts language orbiting quantum mechanics but thats about it in my book :).
Quantum computer is said to take advantage of “qubits” which are particles that exist in a superimposed quantum state in order to gain their computational power. These qubits are part of the machine. Superimposed quantum particles lose their superimposed states whenever they interact with any other particles (this is the “looking” in the classic analogies like Schrodinger’s Cat). The “other” particles are any other part of the machine. Therefore a Quantum Computer can never work, because the qubits must remain in an isolated state, but since they are in an isolated state, they can’t function as part of the machine. I have just disproven the possibility of a “quantum computer” QED
I enjoy Brian Green and this is my first experience listening to Scott, enjoyable but damn you are a comp sci math nerd. From an udderly non formally educated individual how is quantum computation not just adding a plane of computation to the newtonian planes? Have you ever thought that this plane is not bound to the newtonian with the same math proofs are correct within the newtonian. So why is it you don't separate the toolbox of newtonian from the additional plane? To me math is but a language. With that in mind we use math in terms to secure digital signal communication. I have found when understanding science it beneficial to break any transaction into 5 steps. Perception - Translation - Communication - Translation - Perception. I ask within digital communication what step is the most troublesome for security? In terms of AI and worries I have is computerized trust domains remove free will from any learning modules within the system they are loaded if that system is joined to a domain. Interesting conversation but math is but a language to me and what is the problem you are defining and directing things to solve is more an issue especially when learning things don't have a choice to say as far as I can figure out this not healthy for what is asking this of me and those around for what is asking me to figure out.
Cool talk boys
Where’s the best place to research which companies are leading the field? And keep track of changes of pace?
Anyone know who’s leading right now?
Can we give this thing a name now!! ? The gap between all simultaneous solutions as output by a quantum computer calculation, some being soluble. And our inability to know which of the simultaneous solutions is the one useful to the computation of sequences or factors unsolvable by classical means. For 10 years, I have watched quantum processors grow in power, but this thing has scarcely been significantly defeated. If we are to overcome it, we should at least give it a name so that we can refer to it without contextualizing or explanation. At the least saving us the time spent in doing so as our battle against it rages on!
We are dealing with the measurement to solutions as something which lies outside of our computable measurement-space. Intrinsically unrelatable, as it is a first appearance of every solution we can not obtain. This divide...between what our obtainable solutions can point us towards in the space of solutions they can not obtain...and the solution in that unobtainable space which is useful...knowably ensureable as being the one we should obtain.
A name for this divide: The Quantum Atronach
Here I finally understood how the quantum computer works and what a quantum algorithm is supposed to do.
Lies
The most misunderstood thing in my opinion is that all particles are entangled always. Entanglement in a quantum computer is simply setting up the local physical conditions to represent a problem in a way the entanglement solves a problem and is highly isolated from the rest of the universe. When entanglement is lost in a quantum computer it is not actually lost, the state has been mixed with the surrounding entanglements in a way that corrupts the process.
Great talk, thanks.
I especially liked, "I have massive error bars over the future". haha.
I would have liked a final biographical question: what is Scott doing now and next. No doubt we will find out. I'm sure it will be significant and he will continue to be eloquent.
I just randomly found this and hoping it will be a solution for what I’ve been trying to do for ages. Using an old Yaesu mobile rig for digi modes and a weekly digital net. I was having to use a second radio for voice comms during the net but it would be cool to use the one radio and a usb microphone on the same PC as my digirig interface . I’ll play with it and report back
Great talk
hello from Amsterdam , the Netherlands
Yeah, i think a hidden variable theory should explain the wavefunctions resulting classical probability distribution over observables, without a wavefunction, or at least a wavefunction with diminished uncertainty that you have to sum over many different versions of to get a distribution. I mean to say, summing over initial conditons to produce a classical probability distribution does not need to have deterministic states exactly as the states evolving that are summed over in an ordinary classical way. They can also be more detereministic in a sense, by splitting it into different wavefunctions so to speak each with different resulting probability distributions over outcomes with smaller uncertainty than the original, and then when summed and normalized we get the same or close to the same classical probability distribution that would be produced by the born rule and the original wavefunction.
we're getting close, strap in people
DAMN GOOD VID!!!!
I want to be Scott Aaronson when I grow up.
So which stock to I buy?
You only ever buy the stock that you control yourself. ;-)
It really shored up computer science, number theory and physics.
How to we know that an answer given by a quantum circuit is the best answer and not simply a random answer?
Choreographing waves implies an AI-generated Busby Berkeley dance illustrating Shor's Algorithm. What are the possibilities for quantum-coupled communication? Would it give a decisive military advantage? Might AI developed for fusion control be useful for maintaining coupling?
Is it at all possible, even in principle, to have an observer inside the oracle? If not, we, identifying with the world of observables, as an observer, could never observe quantum reality. But we do, when we look at the screen behind the double slits, when we are not concerned at all through which slit(s) the particle went. We see quantum reality, an interference pattern, which is real. Is it comparable to observing music by looking at the notes but not hearing it, and listening to the music, enjoying the superimposed waves of instruments and vocals, without knowing where each individual wave originates from?
What would need to happen to steal the music from the individual notes? Is the sample rate (split distance) at all important, in other words, is the observer quantum:, digital: is it an observer or is it not, or can we fabricate a superimposed observer that breaks down into a classical observer (so observed music turns into spikes of noise gradually, when we change the sample rate?
Can someone shed light on this for me?
wow, it just rolls the dice until its perfect