Quantum Bayesian Networks

August 9, 2014

New Study Shows that Quantum Mechanics Virus Affects 3 out of Every 5 Senior Americans

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 5:38 pm

There is a not-so-silent (in fact, quite vociferous and opinionated) epidemic afflicting senior citizens in America and Europe. Just look at the alarming data given below if you don’t believe us. It’s an epidemic of qMIV (Quantum Mechanics Interpretation Virus). qMIV is a highly contagious, airborne, Internet borne, you-name-it borne, pathogen for which there is no known cure. (Some people believe that building a quantum computer may be a cure or a palliative for qMIV, but, at the present time, this is mere speculation)

Symptoms: qMIV is an extremely debilitating disease. Like another old man’s disease called TP (Tea Party-osis), qMIV causes the patient to have severe difficulty getting any useful work done. The patient also tries to stop those nearby, especially those belonging to the “shut up and calculate” party, from getting their own work done.

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is advising young people: Stick to REAL physics, like Feynman’s Lectures or quantum computing (which Feynman invented). Do not read any documents carrying the qMIV pathogen. If you do, you will surely waste your time trying to make sense out of gibberish, and you may even end up contracting this dreadful old man’s disease.

Data:

qMIV is endemic to certain philosophically swampy regions of the blogosphere. Such regions breed large populations of mosquitoes that transmit the disease. The mosquitoes from those regions make a peculiar buzzing sound known as a blog comment. Some philosophically swampy blogs like Shtetl Optimized can have hundreds of comments per blog post, a truly deafening buzz.

To be fair, qMIV doesn’t only afflict old men. There are other human populations that are also acutely susceptible to it. For instance, the community of Philosophers has been decimated by the disease, probably because of an entrenched custom in that community to practice unprotected scientific thinking.

Advertisements

4 Comments »

  1. The “disease” is born from youth who challenged the wisdom of the standard model but have been voices in a wilderness all their lives. I would hope you are being facetious. I am saddened by the truth in that science has been shackled by dogmatic thinking.

    “unprotected scientific thinking” is what science is supposed to be, unbiased critical thinking. Scientific principles have a domain of applicability, but science progresses thinking outside the box.

    The common thread in my view inhibiting humanity from greater scientific understanding of the quantum is the insistence on intrinsic uncertainty. On the one hand, our worldly experience is clearly stochastic by nature, but we also see the emergent results of quantum determinism and employ it perfectly in quantum computers. It is not “unprotected scientific thinking” in my view to consider the uncontradicted statement of Carver Mead that we are not seeing a fuzzy quantum through clear glasses, but a clear quantum through fuzzy glasses. I question the wisdom of excluding deterministic interpretations that are equivalent in predictive power to non-deterministic interpretations. That seems unscientific to me.

    That Feynman embraced uncertainty is not surprising, without it our ordinary experience cannot be accounted for, and quantum information, as Aharonov showed is determined by delayed choice. That it is not determined in the present does not necessarily imply that it will not be determined in the future. If it may be determined ever, it is deterministic, not random.

    Feynman echoed Mermin’s “Shut up and calculate!” and proclaimed that if you think you understand the quantum, you don’t, but Feynman also stated that the quantum can be understood as computing. Indeed, it is modeled as quantum logical kinetic action. But it is not computing in the manner of a Turing machine, it is distributed massively parallel computing. It is not one computer program, it is all computer programs. While nobody can understand all computer programs we can always understand more of the computation manifest, and increase our understanding of the quantum. We can embrace quantum logical entanglement as all that there is, rather than it being something strange. Non-commutative logical operations allow freedom of independent finite logical systems with information that is limited, with most information being unknowable and thus having no effect in a local system, but not necessarily random globally.

    I established the quacks anonymous yahoo group years ago when I realized there was important truth in most every crazy interpretation of the quantum. Rather than blind ourselves to unconventional wisdom regarding the quantum, we ought discover how they are true, as the quantum may be thought of as unconstrained computing making all possible worlds possible with a finite probability such that they will be determined with certainty in finite time and thus exist.

    Comment by jim whitescarver — September 13, 2014 @ 2:12 pm

  2. Jimbo, this is a very light-weight blog by a featherweight mind. Furthermore, my debating skills stink. There are other bloggers that are much better debaters than I (like some nutty guy called Aaronson). However, let me mention in passing that your statement ” If it may be determined ever, it is deterministic, not random.” is a no-no. A deterministic event is one that occurs with unit probability.

    Comment by rrtucci — September 13, 2014 @ 2:40 pm

  3. You had me going and inspired me to write a pretty good response. I did enjoy your post as a sort of “spoof” but am hesitant to promote it to those who might take it too seriously.

    That anything determined has a unit probability is consistent with my statement. That it has not yet been determined but may be in the future makes it deterministic with unit probability at that time. It cannot be said to be random just because we don’t know how it will be determined yet.

    Comment by jim whitescarver — September 14, 2014 @ 12:06 am

  4. Yes it can. That’s what randomness is — a process that can only be guessed at now but will be revealed later. This is NOT the same thing as an uncertain (or “fuzzy”) process that doesn’t even produce a result better than a guess.

    Comment by collin237 — November 23, 2015 @ 1:10 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: