Mindscape 99 | Scott Aaronson on Complexity, Computers, and Quantum Gravity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
There are some problems for which it’s very hard to find the answer, but very easy to check the answer if someone gives it to you. At least, we think there are such problems; whether or not they really exist is the famous P vs NP problem, and actually proving it will win you a million dollars. This kind of question falls under the rubric of “computational complexity theory,” which formalizes how hard it is to computationally attack a well-posed problem. Scott Aaronson is one of the world’s leading thinkers in computational complexity, especially the wrinkles that enter once we consider quantum computers as well as classical ones. We talk about how we quantify complexity, and how that relates to ideas as disparate as creativity, knowledge vs. proof, and what all this has to do with black holes and quantum gravity.
Scott Aaronson received his Ph.D. in computer science from the University of California, Berkeley. He is currently the David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin, and director of the Quantum Information Center there. He specializes in quantum computing and computational complexity theory, but has written on topics from free will to the nature of consciousness. Among his awards are the Tomassoni-Chisesi Prize in Physics (Italy) and the Alan T. Waterman Award from the National Science Foundation. His blog Shtetl-Optimized is known both for its humor and as the most reliable source of information on news in quantum computing. He is the author of Quantum Computing Since Democritus.
#podcast #ideas #science #philosophy #culture - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 57 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pNhft3YZFRE/mqdefault.jpg)
Favourite guest so far! Obviously brilliant, and fascinating fields of study.
2 years late but you should watch the Leonard Susskind episode. He worked with Scott and was the one to give Sean the idea of doing an episode with him
Bring him back for Part Deux! Thank you, thank you for this stimulating episode.
Wow, great guest and great episode. My professional and educational background is in CS, but I've followed your channel as a "hobby physicist" for awhile. Thanks Sean!
Agree, in my opinion this is the kind of topics where Mindscape shines above any other podcast/channel I know. The ideas Susskind and Maldacena developed are the stuff that turned my infatuation with physics to a probably lifelong relationship. :)
never wanted this to end. I would have listened for 10 hours. Thanks!
This was such a fascinating discussion! Thanks!
This was a really good one! Thanks Sean and Scott :)
Great episode 👌. Please get David Deutsch on your podcast.
I think it's time to have Scott on again!
Thanks for plugging the word “heady.” The psychonautic scientists among us appreciate it haha
We Are Legion.
Finally, I have been for Scott's interview.
Me too.
Wow! Good job popularizing this great stuff!
This is by far my favorite episode!
Thanks Sean. Great stuff!
Thank you, Sean and Scott!
The stuff about the universe "conspiring" to disallow us to perform that calculation before the black hole evaporates feels eerily similar to how it seems to conspire to prevent time travel (and hence paradoxes). Makes me want so much to know that the underlying structure is that does the "conspiring"!
Thank you, Sean!
Thanks for posting it on TH-cam.
Can you invite David Deutsch to talk about emergent gravity? Love your videos, THANK YOU from Australia!
I have an algorithm that multiplies 2 n by n dense matrices in O(n^2log(n)) time, but, unfortunately, it takes me O(n^3) time to write it down :))
Thank you Sean
These are topics I know something about, but I'm ready to eat humble pie... let the fun begin!
Just started listening. So excited about this one!!
great podcast
Sir thank you
What's that paper they talk at 1:40:15 ? Amps paper??
Question: My understanding of the best description on how the material world that we perceive arises from the underlying quantum fields is through a lexicographical matrix to what we call reality. First, is this roughly correct? Second, is a lexicographical matrix in essence, a game theory matrix? Lastly, if these are both yeses, I have a thought experiment for you. What would happen if the Nash Equilibrium we enjoy in our current orbit around the Son was suddenly moved out beyond Pluto's orbit and why? Hints: Nash Equilibrium = “negotiated peace” and what is in the middle of selflessness and selfishness? Thanks for indulging me.
Oh shit, this is awesome!
Sean, I really miss the studio setting, I like seeing the talking heads. Doesn't have to be a Roganesk man cave... Think Lex Fridman!
Thx 🙏 for your work and diligence in creating these podcasts. Only Chanel I will watch the adverts all way through so you get the revenue haha .. i can’t do the patrion thing so this is my small token.
Thx
Please have Steven Weinberg for your 100th episode
46:25 that sound like fun
How long would it take Laplace's Demon to calculate the entire past and future state of the universe?
In an instant
@@strangerwithscience3597 Impressive. Must be nice to not have to worry about the laws of physics.
@@robertglass1698 yeah its just a thought experiment so it doesn't matter. The whole concept of something being able to know all states in itself is just a fantasy. So you have to not worry about time.
@@strangerwithscience3597 Exactly; a fantasy. Makes me wonder why anyone takes it seriously when thinking about how the universe works.
@@robertglass1698 It was a thought experiment to reveal that the world was deterministic at the most fundamental level, which certainly seemed to be the case at the time of Laplace. Such a being couldn't exist now with the advent of quantum mechanics. To know the outcome of a quantum experiment before measurement (whatever that is) would assert the existence of some hidden variables that could be accessed by this being; Yet now we know that the predictions of a hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics does not conform with our reality.
Could quantum computer raytrace much faster?
For a human computer there’s a lot of lag with this guy lol. Jokes aside great guest and great podcast
I really enjoyed this thoughtful discussion between John Mulaney and Wallace Shawn. Thanks!
I'm not a huge fan of the many worlds interpretation but if I were to take a measurement I would be happy that I live in this reality with sean carroll
Will you guys please hurry up and reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics. I mean I've been sitting around waiting patiently and all.............paying my taxes, supporting higher education. I'm not getting any younger you know. :)
Solved: Just sent some of that money this way, and I'll let you in on it.
@@4pharaoh Your qualifications are dubious. I suspect a flat earth plays some role in your calculations. :)
Motor Head agreed, now send me some of that money and you will know for sure.😜
Thanks for creating and sharing this content...i feel there is a large audience hoping for a bit more depth and even theory than TV shows go.
Bright, open minded people, who may have taken their carreer in another direction but are still interested and fascinated by the big questions in science.
I for one would love a bit more knowledge on mathematical theories around how stem cells turn into arms, legs, organs etc...aka...how does life know to build life? I appreciate this is maths, chemistry and biology (maybe some physics?)...but still one of the biggest questions in the universe.
also...I'd love 15 mins of your time to chat about social housing problems. Im very interested in hearing bright minds and their approach to social problems in general discussion. Daniel
I think you forgot to touch on the important subject: what is the computational complexity of Crysis? It's got to be N factorial or something.
And, can we run Doom on a potato? Or better yet, on itself?
You know, you know
where did your face go ? :(
Why you do not film the interview like joe rogan does. It would be great.
So many CompSci grads, and yet this seems to be the field of science we know least about, weird.
Ya know?
i want somebody to deep fake george costanza's voice and do text to speech of shthl optimized blog posts
Are there problems that a quantum computer can solve that can't be solved by a Turing machine?
No, but it may take longer for the Turing machine.
Pretty disappointed... that I can only give one thumb up
He characterizes Prof Penrose as saying "I am a perfect mathematician" and "I am never mistaken"???
He can't claim to disagree nor 'have a problem' with the ideas and questions because he failed to demonstrate that he even understood what Penrose was trying to underscore which was a combination of Gödel's therom and the implication that human understanding may be something beyond ruled-based, algorithmic computation.
Penrose also points out that human understanding and intelligence cannot be computationally approximated without some real sense of the basic principles involved.
There is a consistent amount of content on TH-cam and elsewhere implying that clever and accomplished scientists and physicists automatically have true wisdom to share about the deep mysteries of existence and consciousness. I see very little to support the idea that this is a remotely correct assumption.
Scott Aaronson's mocking of Penrose comes off as adolescent and he should be embarrassed.
He is just peacocking and talking over Sean the entire time, it's very annoying to listen to, I am only persisting because the content is actually interesting.
what time stamp ?
@@kiran0511 Protip: If you click on the ellipsis to the right of the Like / Dislike thumbs, you can use the "Open Transcript" feature and copy it to a text editor for searching.
Conversation starts at 19:06 and the specific part where he dissed Penrose is 19:50
@@mistersmithson4321 Thanks a lot
Our universe (debunking multiverse for the moment) is fine tuned (FT) so much so that it is easy ride from particles/ atoms/ molecules/organic molecules...and on to life and consciousness, even if it takes winning millions of lotteries in billions of years, simply because we had the FT parameter space (Lee Smolin). Our Milky way has millions of BH moving through the galaxy at tremendous speed, yet not one came near our solar system, in the last 4.5 billion years, diminishing any chance for life to evolve here on earth, just because of FT. Even if we are the only thinking/comprehending life form in the whole universe, implies divine design, the mind of god who knows the algorithm that tames complexity, guarantying that life is created with probability one.
The conclusion is expressed by Maldacena when he conjectured that 'the whole universe is a QC function'. Likewise, the algorithm is known only to god himself, just like the Turing machine can never think, so humans can never obtain the divine algorithm.
The closest humans came near discovering the algorithm is perhaps the Ramanujan's partition function p(n).
It appears life and universe are at bottom a mathematical simulation from the get go, playing out, a videogame/simulation by a child deity, as Hume suggested. And heartless.