tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post5783042622922036976..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Quantum computer jokeRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-10043370537737013752018-03-23T04:10:49.299-07:002018-03-23T04:10:49.299-07:00I believe the Chomsky's line in the bar is a r...I believe the Chomsky's line in the bar is a reference to his linguistic theories. Simply put, Chomsky stresses the distinction between competence and performance. Every native speaker knows what is a complete sentence and how to form them, even though what you hear in real conversations are more often than not fragmented pieces of a sentence. So, Chomsky "knows" that on some abstract level the joke is funny, but the others are performing poorly when telling it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-21761363457479442062014-09-04T10:52:23.244-07:002014-09-04T10:52:23.244-07:00an awful lot of funnies in one post. seriously.
y...an awful lot of funnies in one post. seriously. <br />you must've called some sort of custom guffaw( ) module.Jon Burdickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548776058585897717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-86046123511648077802014-08-29T09:32:59.596-07:002014-08-29T09:32:59.596-07:00The smug implication is supposed to be that the co...The smug implication is supposed to be that the computer which actually did the calculation was actually now a different branch of probability (bullshit reality), but sadly, the only part of the joke that is funny is how the person who made it up does not know what probability actually is... it's just a second hand calculation, it has nothing to do with actuality unless you believe performing a mere numerical calculation grants divine powers of hypostatization. Every time you roll the dice, you are rolling the same dice in the same universe, maybe a different game at a different time, but other wise... meh, nothing profound except demonstration that actual things move through actual space. The only thing that is amusing about the 'joke' is how deluded mathematicians are to think even crunching numbers is possible without an underlying physical actuality to inform their existence. No physical reality = no matter/energy = thus no people or computers or calculators or represented '=' symbols to contain abstract information about half baked parallel universes (neurons, all electronic logical gates, slide-rulers, and abacuses are all comprised of matter and require a physical actuality to sustain them and their operation).<br />*<br /> Considering how many overpaid number crunchers are purported atheists, I am surprised with how often they try to swerve into the supernatural and lend physical actuality to second hand abstractions through the use of mere hand waving and off camera miracles. Perhaps if they were actually even a tad educated in philosophical and epistemological theory, they might shy away from sophomoric reification errors...or just plain 'Wishing don't make it so'.<br />*<br /> What the study of philosophy can teach math and physics people is what a poorly constructed idea looks like, and how to avoid their pitfalls. (reification and hypostatization are rudimentary philosophical reasoning errors, epistemology in particular can also be very useful) If you have no idea of the history of ideas before you came along, you really are uniformed when you go about constructing your own ideas, and are more likely than not to end up re-inventing someone else's mistake.CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-51805224473427834972014-08-28T11:09:14.557-07:002014-08-28T11:09:14.557-07:00The joke is that Scott Aaronson is trying to be fu...The joke is that Scott Aaronson is trying to be funny by repeating a joke from John Preskill who isn't very funny either. The joke blind leading the joke blind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com