Quantum Bayesian Networks

May 7, 2013

Fox News Poll: Who Won (or is Winning) the Aaronson/Lubos Debate

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:21 pm

Remember: Vote early and vote often!

The debate of the century!
The debate that polarized the world and tore countless families apart.

The debaters: Scott Aaronson Versus Lubos Motl
Topics being debated tonight: Is Complexity Theory just a science based on conjectures? Are those conjectures even right, or that fundamental, or of any importance to Physics? Are Complexity Theorists too political, clannish and dismissive of others? Do they sometimes give themselves all the credit for inventing the wheel? Did they really invent physics? Which one would you hire: a complexity theorist, a computer programmer or a string theorist? Would you hire Lubos? Would you hire Aaronson?
Topics not being debated tonight: Will (gate model) quantum computers ever be built? Both debaters believe that they will be.
Venues (in inverse chronological order): (sorry for the preponderance of Lubos links, but, shit!, the guy does have stamina, and, unlike Lubos, no complexity theorist has reviewed Scott’s book in their blog, so far, that I know of)

3 Comments »

  1. Lubos in on of his reviews even managed to compare Scott to an Islamic terrorists. Don’t even know what to make of this, it’s as if Rush Limbaugh took up physics blogging.

    Comment by siteadmin — May 7, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

  2. To quote Lobos form one of these write-ups: ‘the computer scientist’s way of thinking about such things simplifies much of Gödel’s thinking tremendously. Turing gets some credit here. And Aaronson talks about the consistency of axioms supplemented with additional assumptions about their (in)consistency. It’s all nice. But again, these things haven’t really passed the tests of “validity from the viewpoint of physics”.’

    This doesn’t make any sense. To the extend that the Turing machine is the idealized model of a physical machine the halting problem also falls into the domain of physics. There is an overlap between computer science and physics that no amount of debate can negate.

    Comment by Henning Dekant — May 7, 2013 @ 3:32 pm

  3. Yes Henning, but some of Lubos’ skepticism about Conventional Wisdom in complexity theory has also been voiced by others like the super wise, knowledgeable and nice Richard Lipton:
    http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/conventional-wisdom-and-pnp/
    Besides, this Boaz Barak guy works for Microsoft, makers of Windows 8. I rest my case.

    Comment by rrtucci — May 7, 2013 @ 7:37 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: