> a measure of quantumness known as “magic.”
This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line...
> They had worked out a way of running software on a classical computer that would mimic a quantum task.
When it comes to using a regular computer to mimic (read: fake) the execution of an exotic program/API for nonexistnet future hardware, I highly recommend the humorously titled talk: "Temporally Quaquaversal Virtual Nanomachine Programming In Multiple Topologically Connected Quantum-Relativistic Parallel Timespaces... Made Easy!" [0][1]
To be fair, it isn't that different from why we have imaginary numbers. Or why the reals are calls reals.
Which. Yeah, has been a pretty bad thing for people in understanding those. :(
> This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line...
You're a little late here, "magic" is already a fairly well known term in quantum computing literature. There's "magic states" and protocols for "magic state distillation" and "magic state injection", there's "shallow magic depth circuits", etc.
I guess we can no longer use this phrase:
"The best kind of science is magic, and the best kind of magic is science."
I had assumed it was a play on the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" but I didn't see that in the article.
Is any of this experimentally testable in the real world?
Would gravity or spacetime under these definitions behave differently and yield something we can observe?
Or is this fancy math modeling that looks nice on paper, but that we won't be able to test until we become a Kardashev type III civilization?
See the end of the article, after further research quantum gravity could be simulated on a quantum computer. The links between research on quantum computing and quantum gravity are fascinating anyway!
Simulating it on a computer, even a "quantum computer", is not the same as testing it against actual reality.
Ah. You're assuming we're not living in a simulation?
I mean, I don't think we are living in a simulation, but even if we were, there is no reason to believe that simulating something inside of a simulation is going to prove anything about the outer simulation.
Would the designers want us to know?
If they're powerful enough to build a universe simulation, theoretically they can blur the edges so we can't discover them. They might even be able to construct and limit the systems of maths and physics we have access to.
I suppose the simulation could be smaller than a universe simulation though - and this is actually really compelling -
It could just be you that is simulated.
Maybe your consciousness and sensory inputs are simulated. You're kept largely on rails and the rest of the world is run at lower fidelity. They know you won't go poking at particle accelerators and theory, so they can keep those pieces low effort and you just get fed narrative. The only things to simulate are those that are directly in front of you now.
Almost like a movie. Not a universe at all.
We might have that capability within 50 years. All your sensory input being simulation. And the virtual brain playing with that input or replaying recordings.
That could be totally feasible. And we might have that tech soon.
As far as I know it’s the latter and that’s a big problem for physics. A lot of stuff like string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc. require energies that would take a particle accelerator the diameter of the solar system or something nuts like that.
Without tests it’s just pretty math that can be coaxed into agreeing with reality but that proves nothing.
Physicists try to indirectly test all the time via cosmological observations but that is extremely hard and limited to what you can infer and how well you can eliminate other explanations or sources of error.
I believe there was a science fiction story all the way back in the early '80s describing a scenario where physics gets reclassified as a soft science or an art form because it is no longer feasible to prove anything.
Does the model need to offer new testable hypothesis if it provides a way of explaining existing results that current models can't?
If it is competing against another model that does both that and offers new testable hypothesis (which experiments match), the other model is the clear winner. But lacking that, if no other model explains all existing data, is new testability really necessary when it is the only model that currently explains all existing tests?
That said, aren't most of theoretical models only contenders for such, as in they haven't been expanded to actually explain all testing results, only that, as far as they have been expanded, there are no contradictions yet? So they need physicists to expand them, but if the model is wrong, the effort might largely be wasted, and we have some models that there is disdain for not because they contradict existing experiments, but because they have eaten too many careers without showing value in return?
These wild ideas eventually arrive in textbooks as if they were tested, proven with none of the nuance or contradictory evidence
Do they though? Are physics textbooks putting forward some version of string theory from the 1990s as proven fact?
> This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line...
Your worries are a bit late, there's already a huge amount of new age conspiracy bull about quantum healing with wave function collapse, microtubule alignment and biophotons - quality all-you-can-eat word salad buffet.
Don't underestimate the capacity for the problem to get significantly worse.
Blame Roger Penrose for the microtubule bullshit. Ironically, he's the opposite of new age, dude won a Nobel prize.
Maybe, just maybe, an eminent physicist who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us. At the very least his ideas deserve consideration instead of ridicule and dismissal.
Also as far as I know, Penrose’s main argument is that consciousness can not be computational. If you can’t argue against an idea with reason and resort to name calling, you’re not being rational you’re just being dogmatic and censoring ideas.
I didn't say all his theories were garbage, though the theories inspired by them developed by laypeople almost certainly are. I just don't find his argument compelling enough on its face to warrant holding them up as real progress.
Also, remember that Isaac Newton was deep into alchemy and religious prophecy. Just because you have one good idea and you're smart enough to follow it to its logical conclusion doesn't mean every idea you have is good.
You could turn that idea over: Newton's alchemical researches may have given him the courage to posit action at a distance. Universal gravitation was very controversial and was not at all accepted initially. Descartes spent pages and pages building theories of vortex action to explain forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement. It’s so ironic how you’ll call it bullshit and link to some pop culture skeptic idea with no scientific backing to try and undermine an idea in defense of “real science”
> Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been.
https://paulgraham.com/say.html
I'm disagreeing with the notion that someone "who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us". History suggests otherwise.
Surely you must appreciate the irony when your primary argument is an appeal to authority, while on the other hand you dismiss everyone who is unconvinced as "dogmatic".
As for Penrose's specific ideas, i'm not familiar enough with them or the field to make an informed judgement. Hence i would defer to other experts in that field, who as far as i understand are unconvinced. However, the fact he previously won a nobel does not lead me to give him any more credence than i would anyone else. If anything its a negative signal.
That said, if i was going to bite:
> Penrose’s main argument is that consciousness can not be computational. If you can’t argue against an idea with reason
The onus is on Penrose to show consciousness is non-computational. Preferably with some sort of experiment (or are we in the realm of pure philosophy here? Arguing how many angels are dancing on the pin). Science is about creating hypotheses and testing them. Admiteddly im not super well-read on this topic, but i don't think this theory has yielded testable predictions not explainable by other theories that have been verified.
> Hence i would defer to other experts in that field, who as far as i understand are unconvinced.
This is also an appeal to authority.
Plus I’m not arguing that Penrose is correct, I’m arguing that it’s unscientific to call a theory bullshit because it sounds “woo” or “new age.” It should be debated on its merits, and yes I did make an appeal to authority for the same reasons you did: it’s a useful heuristic if we don’t have the capacity to evaluate every idea on its merits.
> However, the fact he previously won a nobel does not lead me to give him any more credence than i would anyone else. If anything it’s a negative signal.
So you’re saying that being a Nobel laureate is a counter signal for scientific credibility?
> The onus is on Penrose to show consciousness is non-computational. Preferably with some sort of experiment (or are we in the realm of pure philosophy here? Arguing how many angels are dancing on the pin).
I mean there’s the whole field of mathematics and most of modern physics that use mathematical proofs instead of experiments, including the main article this thread is on. I don’t disagree that an experiment would be ideal, but again, my point was not to argue that Penrose is correct but that it’s unscientific and akin to religious dogma to call his theory bullshit because it sounds like a “new age” idea.
Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement.
We can now simulate every aspect of consciousness except for long-term memory consolidation, to the extent that you can't tell if you're talking to a conscious person or a computer. The existence of LLMs means that no quantum woo is necessary to explain consciousness. Our brains just do the same thing by different means.
In short, Penrose's argument is a religious one, not a scientific one.
You’re conflating consciousness with intelligence. Consciousness is subjective experience, there’s no way to know if any other people, much less machines, are conscious.
> You’re conflating consciousness with intelligence. Consciousness is subjective experience
Indeed. Thinking is not the same as experiencing thinking.
> there’s no way to know if any other people, much less machines, are conscious.
Or even ourselves :D
"Consciousness is just an illusion" "If so, who's experiencing the illusion?" "Yes"
That doesn't mean we can't simulate it, though. Name an attribute of consciousness, and we can (or will soon be able to) simulate it.
Penrose's argument isn't rational itself, so I don't see why a rational argument should be required in order to dismiss it. As CuriouslyC points out, quantum consciousness is the equivalent of Newton's dalliances with alchemy and astrology.
Maybe you could briefly describe and steelman his argument as a show of good faith instead of just denouncing it because it’s “equivalent with alchemy and astrology.” My understanding is that it’s very rational, it’s based on mathematical proofs.
Mathematical proofs don't really apply to anything outside of math, since they require a certainty in your assumptions that's not replicable in the real world. At the end of the day, all a mathematical proof can tell you is "If P then Q," which just shifts the question from Q to P.
Let he go first and start arguing for this one with reason. If he insists on using discredited ideas that are known not to lead to the results he insists on, name-calling is an appropriated response.