I think you’re conflating mathematical and philosophical realness and then Principle of Explosion-ing your way into hating on physicsts.

Waa waa boo hoo. You can cry about me criticizing crackpot quantum mysticism by saying “stop hatin’ bro 😢😢😢😢” but that doesn’t magically make your crackpot mysticism justifiable. You have the right to have incoherent mystical beliefs, but I also have the right to criticize them. If you don’t want to be criticized then don’t post them on a public forum.

I think you’re conflating mathematical and philosophical realness and then Principle of Explosion-ing your way into hating on physicsts. Quantum indefinite interpretations still result in the same mathematical predictions about observations

Did you read what I wrote at all? This is a criticism about the crackpot anti-realist claims. Yes, you can argue that objective reality doesn’t exist, that all that exists is what you are directly observing in the direct moment of the observation and nothing exists outside of your direct gaze, and that you have a mathematical model for predicting what will show up in your direct gaze, and that this model makes the right predictions.

If that is just your own personal belief, I’d think you’re crazy, but whatever. If, however, you start lying and claiming that this is somehow implied by the linear algebra, that quantum mechanics somehow “proves” your solipsistic crackpottery, then I am going to call you out on being a crackpot quantum mystic. If you don’t want to be criticized then don’t spread your quantum mysticism on a public forum.

so all your talk about MW saying your memory is a lie is just obvious bullshit.

Because you don’t understand the mathematics so you don’t understand what I am talking about. You have a Laymen’s interpretation of MW you got from YouTube videos that paints it as just saying that different classical worlds occur in different parallel branches of a multiverse. In your mind, you think what MW is claiming is that if a photon has a 50%/50% chance of being reflected/transmitted at a beam splitter, then the world splits into two classical branches where in one the observer measures the photon having been reflected and in the other they measure the photon having been transmitted.

You think what I am saying is absurd because you get all your info from YouTube videos and don’t even understand what is seriously being advocated by these crackpots as you don’t actually read the academic literature on the subject. No, what they are claiming is indeed far more absurd, which is that the photon does neither of those things, it takes no real trajectories at all in 3D space in any sense, it doesn’t even exist as a distinct object in the world.

“Thus in our interpretation of the Everett theory there is no association of the particular present with any particular past. And the essential claim is that this does not matter at all. For we have no access to the past. We have only our ‘memories’ and ‘records’. But these memories and records are in fact present phenomena. The instantaneous configuration of the xs can include clusters which are markings in notebooks, or in computer memories, or in human memories. These memories can be of the initial conditions in experiments, among other things, and of the results of those experiments. The theory should account for the present correlations between these present phenomena. And in this respect we have seen it to agree with ordinary quantum mechanics, in so far as the latter is unambiguous.” … “Everett’s replacement of the past by memories is a radical solipsism—extending to the temporal dimension the replacement of everything outside my head by my impressions, of ordinary solipsism or positivism. Solipsism cannot be refuted. But if such a theory were taken seriously it would hardly be possible to take anything else seriously. So much for the social implications. It is always interesting to find that solipsists and positivists, when they have children, have life insurance.”

— John Bell, “Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists”

MW is even more crackpot nonsense than typical anti-realist claims, because at least the solipsist believes in what they can observe in the moment. You simply cannot derive what is empirically observed from MW because it has no connection at all to the real world, and so it only reflects one’s ignorance on this subject to claim that MW actually has a formula for making empirical predictions. They simply do not.

MW is anti-realist not just in the properties you are not observing, but even in the properties you observe, and just claims reality is literally a mathematical function, like a Platonic realm but rather than all mathematics it is just one function ψ(x,t). We obviously cannot observe pure mathematical functions. You need something in the mathematical model, some mathematical symbol, that refers to something that we can empirically observe, usually called an observable, yet there are no observables in MW so there is no possibility of actually making an empirical prediction with it.

“The gigantic, universal ψ wave that contains all the possible worlds is like Hegel’s dark night in which all cows are black: it does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe. In order to describe the phenomena that we observe, other mathematical elements are needed besides ψ: the individual variables, like X and P, that we use to describe the world. The Many Worlds interpretation does not explain them clearly. It is not enough to know the ψ wave and Schrödinger’s equation in order to define and use quantum theory: we need to specify an algebra of observables, otherwise we cannot calculate anything and there is no relation with the phenomena of our experience. The role of this algebra of observables, which is extremely clear in other interpretations, is not at all clear in the Many Worlds interpretation.”

— Carlo Rovelli, “Helgoland”

Even the crackpot solipsist’s views are more coherent than the views of the crackpot Many Worlder’s views.

Tim Maudlin has a good lecture on this fact I will link below. I’d also recommend his paper “Can the World be Only Wavefunction?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7gbWWPUsA

Again, my criticism is not solely that these views are obviously crackpot mystical nonsense (they are). The problem with quantum mystics is not just that they are mystics, but that they pretend quantum mechanics bolsters their mystical claims. Nothing in the linear algebra of the model comes close to having the hint of an air of implying these things. If you want to believe that personally, go ahead, but stop pretending these crank views are in any way backed by physics.

The rampant spread of quantum mysticism in academic circles is a problem because these physicists who buy into it don’t always keep to themselves, many go to the media and start trying to deceive the public that solipsism is somehow proved by physics. Some even manage to get peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals claiming objective reality doesn’t exist, which then crackpot idealists like Bernardo Kastrup latch onto to “prove” we all live in a grand “cosmic consciousness” because they have an academic paper and real physicists backing their views.

When even the physics departments are becoming overrun with crackpot mystics then we have a serious problem because the public trusts these people. I hold them to a higher standard than I would hold a random charlatan like Deepak Chopra which I don’t expect to tell the truth anyways. It bothers me much more when I see physicists like Chris Ferrie publishing Medium articles where he claims quantum mechanics “denies reality” or Mithuna Yoganathan deliberately lying about the mathematics with claims repeatedly debunked in the academic literature to push the nonsense that the mathematics proves there is a multiverse “if you just take it seriously” than I do some random Twitter user saying some quantum mystical nonsense. These people exploit their credentials to push their own mystical mumbo jumbo views.

You should generally dismiss what physicists in academia say about metaphysics, because crackpot quantum mysticism is rampantly popular and so you rarely get anything coherent from them.

I would recommend you check out my article here. Most academics in the physics departments believe in a property called “value indefiniteness” which amounts to crackpot solipsism based on poorly reasoned arguments that obviously cannot possibly be correct because Louis de Broglie presented a counterexample decades before these crackpot arguments were even made.

This is a strange phenomenon that the physicist John Bell points out in his paper “On the Impossible Pilot Wave.” The “pilot wave” theory is a model which is mathematically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics yet is value definite, and was first presented by de Broglie in the Solvay conference in 1927. Yet, despite this, academics from John von Neumann to Richard Feynman would go on to publish “impossibility theorems” trying to prove value definiteness is impossible, even though they all had a counterexample sitting in their lap.

Bell would then go on to publish several papers showing where the flaws in all their arguments are, but it had no impact on academia, and solipsism remains the overwhelmingly dominant position. Indeed “value indefiniteness” really is just a renaming of solipsism to make it sound less ridiculous. It literally means that particles have no values when you’re not looking at them, and since macroscopic objects, even other human beings, are made up of particles, it naturally applies to them as well: value indefiniteness = other people don’t exist if you’re not looking at them.

Many Worlds arose from this same crackpot delusion of physicists who recognize that solipsism is kinda silly but don’t want to give up value indefiniteness… which is literally solipsism. So they try to find a middle ground between solipsism and solipsism and their views just end up becoming coherent.

Bell points out in his paper “Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists” that Many Worlds is still basically just solipsism but with a lot of extra baggage to confuse people to what they are even arguing so it is not so obvious that it is. A lot of Laymen falsely think Many Worlds is just the claim that there are many classical worlds. If I go to measure a photon in a superposition of both possible paths, then they think it means there will be a classical world where I perceive it on one path and another classical world where I perceive it on another path.

No, Many Worlds is even more incoherent, because no one perceives anything on any path at all. There are simply no objects which travel through 3D space within the interpretation. Consider that you walk from your living room to your bedroom, and you remember clearly that you did that. Since Many Worlds is still value indefinite, there does not exist any definite trajectories in 3D space, and so your memory has to be a complete lie. That didn’t happen. Indeed, no matter how strongly you feel that there is a computer/phone screen in front of you right now, in Many Worlds, that also must be a lie, because no objects exist in 3D space so there cannot be an object with a definite value in front of you right now.

This is what Bell saw as so absurd about it. Everything we perceive and believe we have perceived has to be largely disconnected from the real world, almost as if we’re living in a fake simulation, a brain in a vat, that is entirely disconnected from what is “actually going on.” Many Worlds is more batshit idiotic than you are led to believe from YouTube videos. It does not follow from the science at all, but follows from the crackpot quantum mysticism of “value indefiniteness,” which has no basis in the mathematics at all. Even many of the believers in academia admit that no one knows how to actually derive what we actually perceive from the interpretation.

There are nonlocal effects in quantum mechanics but I am not sure I would consider quantum teleportation to be one of them. Quantum teleportation may look at first glance to be nonlocal but it can be trivially fit to local hidden variable models, such as Spekkens’ toy model, which makes it at least seem to me to belong in the class of local algorithms.

You have to remember that what is being “transferred” is a statistical description, not something physically tangible, and only observable in a large sample size (an ensemble). Hence, it would be a strange to think that the qubit is like holding a register of its entire quantum state and then that register is disappearing and reappearing on another qubit. The total information in the quantum state only exists in an ensemble.

In an individual run of the experiment, clearly, the joint measurement of 2 bits of information and its transmission over a classical channel is not transmitting the entire quantum state, but the quantum state is not something that exists in an individual run of the experiment anyways. The total information transmitted over an ensemble is much greater can would provide sufficient information to move the statistical description of one of the qubits to another entirely locally.

The complete quantum state is transmitted through the classical channel over the whole ensemble, and not in an individual run of the experiment. Hence, it can be replicated in a local model. It only looks like more than 2 bits of data is moving from one qubit to the other if you treat the quantum state as if it actually is a real physical property of a single qubit, because obviously that is not something that can be specified with 2 bits of information, but an ensemble can indeed encode a continuous distribution.

This is essentially a trivial feature known to any experimentalist, and it needs to be mentioned only because it is stated in many textbooks on quantum mechanics that the wave function is a characteristic of the state of a single particle. If this were so, it would be of interest to perform such a measurement on a single particle (say an electron) which would allow us to determine its own individual wave function. No such measurement is possible.

— Dmitry Blokhintsev

Here’s a trivially simple analogy. We describe a system in a statistical distribution of a single bit with [a; b] where a is the probability of 0 and b is the probability of 1. This is a continuous distribution and thus cannot be specified with just 1 bit of information. But we set up a protocol where I measure this bit and send you the bit’s value, and then you set your own bit to match what you received. The statistics on your bit now will also be guaranteed to be [a; b]. How is it that we transmitted a continuous statistical description that cannot be specified in just 1 bit with only 1 bit of information? Because we didn’t. In every single individual trial, we are always just transmitting 1 single bit. The statistical descriptions refer to an ensemble, and so you have to consider the amount of information actually transmitted over the ensemble.

A qubit’s quantum state has 2 degrees of freedom, as it can it be specified on the Bloch sphere with just an angle and a rotation. The amount of data transmitted over the classical channel is 2 bits. Over an ensemble, those 2 bits would become 2 continuous values, and thus the classical channel over an ensemble contains the exact degrees of freedom needed to describe the complete quantum state of a single qubit.

I got interested in quantum computing because I like computing already (compsci degree) but also because I have an interest in natural philosophy. Answering the question of “what is nature?” obviously requires the input of physics and if you don’t know at least introductory quantum information science then you will not be able to follow along with many important papers on this topic (Bell’s theorem, the Frauchiger-Renner Paradox, the Elitzur-Vaidman paradox, etc). Learning to program for quantum computers gives you an understanding of the overall logical structure of how quantum systems work which then makes it feasible to understand those kinds of papers.

Moore’s law died a long time ago. Engineers pretended it was going on for years by abusing the nanometer metric, by saying that if they cleverly find a way to use the space more effectively then it is as if they packed more transistors into the same nanometers of space, and so they would say it’s a smaller nanometer process node, even though quite literal they did not shrink the transistor size and increase the number of transistors on a single node.

This actually started to happen around 2015. These clever tricks were always exaggerated because there isn’t an objective metric to say that a particular trick on a 20nm node really gets you performance equivalent to 14nm node, so it gave you huge leeway for exaggeration. In reality, actual performance gains drastically have started to slow down since then, and the cracks have really started to show when you look at the 5000 series GPUs from Nvidia.

The 5090 is only super powerful because the die size is larger so it fits more transistors on the die, not because they actually fit more per nanometer. If you account for the die size, it’s actually even less efficient than the 4090 and significantly less efficient than the 3090. In order to pretend there have been upgrades, Nvidia has been releasing software for the GPUs for AI frame rendering and artificially locking the AI software behind the newer series GPUs. The program Lossless Scaling proves that you can in theory run AI frame rendering on any GPU, even ones from over a decade ago, and that Nvidia’s locking of it behind a specific GPU is not hardware limitation but them trying to make up for lack of actual improvements in the GPU die.

Chip improvements have drastically slowed done for over a decade now and the industry just keeps trying to paper it over.

It’s… literally the opposite. The giant AI models with trillions of parameters are not something you can run without spending many thousands of dollars, and quantum computers cost millions. These are definitely not services that are going to fall into the hands of everyday people. At best you get small AI models.

Multipolarity bros really need to stop fantasizing about BRICS being some sort of anti-imperialist military alliance It’s just delusion, BRICS isn’t a military bloc, it is about trade. It technically isn’t even a trading bloc either as it is literally just a forum to discuss trade relations. If you think any member of BRICS has defense obligations to one another then you are incredibly disconnected from reality.

You are unbelievably retarded. Sure, you Red Scare propagandist moron, China is totally building aircraft carriers for the purpose of fighting the USA in Venezuela. How stupid are the people of Lemmy? This place is even more braindead McCarthyite idiocy than Reddit World News. 我想，只要我继续使用英语论坛，就无法摆脱美国的极端民族主义者。

China obviously doesn’t give af about supplanting the US as a world power. If they did they would actually do stuff internationally. There is no Chinese equivalent to NATO. All they will do in regards to Venezuelan president being kidnapped is strongly condemn it. They won’t even offer PSUV any security guarantees. Literally all the Chinese government believes in is (1) trading with as many people as possible and (2) reuniting its breakaway territories. They have no ambitions beyond that. It is not true that China does business mostly with countries rejected by the Americans, but it does business with literally everyone. Chinese love to trade with everyone. While Americans media constantly criticizes China on every calling for regime change attacking their political system their leaders etc, the only time you ever hear criticism of the US on Chinese media is when the US does something that is viewed as harming trade, like the tariffs.

If you have a very noisy quantum communication channel, you can combine a second algorithm called quantum distillation with quantum teleportation to effectively bypass the quantum communication channel and send a qubit over a classical communication channel. That is the main utility I see for it. Basically, very useful for transmitting qubits over a noisy quantum network.

The people who named it “quantum teleportation” had in mind Star Trek teleporters which work by “scanning” the object, destroying it, and then beaming the scanned information to another location where it is then reconstructed.

Quantum teleportation is basically an algorithm that performs a destructive measurement (kind of like “scanning”) of the quantum state of one qubit and then sends the information over a classical communication channel (could even be a beam if you wanted) to another party which can then use that information to reconstruct the quantum state on another qubit.

The point is that there is still the “beaming” step, i.e. you still have to send the measurement information over a classical channel, which cannot exceed the speed of light.

Columnist likens billionaires to Jews

Maybe don’t do that.

I read the first sentence and stopped. Not worth reading the rest and does not deserve an actual reply.

They never claimed to have a communist system to begin with. That is a western label placed upon them. Communist parties do not implement communist systems any more than green parties implement “green systems.” They implement socialist systems.

Comparing this conflict to “manifest destiny” is just complete brainrot and doesn’t make it seem like you are that interested in understanding the actual historical circumstances. This is an unresolved civil war due to the USA’s invasion to protect one side of the civil war, which in China is viewed naturally as a major attack to their sovereignty so allowing a foreign power to just cut a piece of them off is viewed negatively due to the Century of Humiliation of them being carved up by foreign powers.

Both sides also agreed to the reunification of China and this “one-china policy” became internationally recognized by almost the entire world, and it was not until the year 2000 that Taiwan de facto stopped agreeing with this policy. You can make an argument that Taiwan’s fairly recent desire for sovereignty should be respected without resorting to bizarre comparisons like Manifest Destiny, as this is obviously not what is going on for anyone who is intellectually honest about the situation at all.

This is not even an economic dispute and so trying to use Marxian analysis and throwing around buzzwords like “imperialism” is irrelevant. One of the biggest reasons the PRC hasn’t invaded Taiwan is because they would be harmed from the destruction of TSMC, so if anything economic reasons are discouraging the PRC form acting than encouraging it. The desire for China to reunify with Taiwan is a cultural and historical disagreement, it is more of an ego thing. They view the splitting off of Hong Kong by the British, Macau by the Portuguese, and Taiwan by the USA as attacks on their national sovereignty and thus to their national pride, and have vowed to bring them all back into the fold for decades now, and Taiwan is the only one left.

It is really an ego thing more about national pride. Again, you can indeed argue that they their national pride shouldn’t override Taiwan’s right to self-determination, but it is not as deep as you make it out to be. If you read some of those Marxian books you would find that invasions for “imperialism” is supposed to have the goal of expanding to new markets, but China is already Taiwan’s biggest trading partner by miles, they already dominate their market.

You are trying to make this way deeper than it actually is. This is about one state’s ego and national pride vs another state’s desire for self-determination. It is not some deep analysis over capitalism or socialism or imperialism.

We still posting “news” like it’s 1921.

It originally was an insult used by communists against other communists to refer to people who supported the Soviet intervention into Hungary when the Hungarian government was collapsing. The Soviets intervened militarily to not only stabilize it but obviously make sure “their guy” would be in charge of the new government.

The communists who disagreed with this argued that Hungary should just be allowed to sort out their own government and the USSR shouldn’t be making those decisions for them, and they called people who disagreed “tankies” in reference to visible tanks in the streets when the Soviets showed up.

The word was then adopted by anarchists as an insult against Marxists, because Marxists believe in using state force to build socialism/communism while anarchists think the state is inherently a force for bad. This meant that “tankie” no longer referred to just the Soviet usage of tanks in Hungary specifically, but began to be used by anarchists to criticize every time a state ran by a Marxist party used state violence (“tanks”).

Liberals later discovered the word “tankie” and adopted it as just a synonym for “communist,” and the word has pretty much devolved in its usage in recent years to largely just be a stand-in for “communist” but more derogatory.