- We all say some of AlphaGo’s moves are so weird and strange and maybe mistakes. But, after a game is finished, we have to doubt ourselves, our judgment. – AlphaGo making another kind of nonsensical throw in. We’re not really sure what that’s about. – This is what 10 or maybe 11 dan play looks like. It looks weird and we don’t quite understand it. – I think it is important to study more about AlphaGo’s mistake-like moves. And maybe we can adjust our knowledge of AlphaGo. – To me the most amazing thing to come out of my understanding of Go, as a result of watching AlphaGo play, are the infamous slack moves. – Well, there’s something strange about the way it’s playing because it’s playing some moves that are not really necessary. – Right. – A slack move is a move that looks lazy. You can see these other better moves and AlphaGo is rejecting them. But what I think AlphaGo is teaching us is that we’ve been using score as a proxy for chance of winning. So the bigger my margin of territory, the more confident I am that I’m gonna win. And AlphaGo is saying no, no, no. It shouldn’t matter how much you win by. You only need to win by a single point. Why should I be seizing all this extra territory when I don’t need it. The lessons that AlphaGo is teaching us are going to influence how Go is played for the next thousand years. –
- But we could learn important lessons from a computer being so successful at Go. Machines will have the capability, not only to crunch through huge amount of data, but also to analyze it intelligently. Just as in the case of the Go games, the machine made moves that surprised even experts. And, eventually, the machines will gain our confidence because we will see that very, very often they make a better guess than we could have made as humans.
VIDEO: The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don’t Want You to Know
- TLDR: You are correlation without correlata ie You are not made of atoms (correlata), you are actually made of bits(correlations) ie information
- So these are all mathematical manipulations the results of which we interpret in order to tell stories about what our world is like and if you leave it in and what you have is a description of the unadulterated underlying physical reality which is quantum and the reason that’s hard to wrap your brain around is because your brain is classical everything that you are is is classical you’re made of classical bits that are ones are you’re a Turing machine you’re not a quantum computer but you’re made out of a quantum computer and that’s why there’s this fundamental disconnect that will always take a toll on our intuitions it will never go away because they’re really fundamentally different the difference between real numbers and complex numbers the underlying reality is complex but the thing that is processing the information that lets you think about these things is real is made of real numbers
- David Mermin has contributed to the relational approach in his “Ithaca interpretation.” He uses the slogan “correlations without correlata”, meaning that “correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not”, so “correlations are the only fundamental and objective properties of the world”. The moniker “zero worlds” has been popularized by Garret to contrast with the many worlds interpretation. As David Merman puts it “we are not made of atoms (correlata) we are actually made of bits(correlations). We are our thoughts and these thoughts actually reside. We are a simulation running on a quantum computer
- Information, Physics, Quantum, Wheeler’s 1989 essay propounding the idea that the physical universe arises from information, which he dubbed “it from bit.”
- “it from qubit.”
- I tend to assume that space-time and everything in it are in some sense emergent.
- He drew a picture on the blackboard of the universe visualized as an eye looking at itself. I had no idea what he was talking about. It’s obvious to me in hindsight that he was explaining what it meant to talk about quantum mechanics when the observer is part of the quantum system. I imagine there is something we don’t understand about that.
The most elite scientists in the world are still struggling to find why exactly our universe didn’t destroy itself as soon as it came into existence. That’s what science says should have happened – but it clearly hasn’t, since you’re here reading this, as far as we know.
At the beginning of the universe, according to the standard model, there equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. The trouble with that is that they would each have annihilated each other, leaving none of the matter that surrounds us today.
Researchers have been frantically looking for some difference between matter and anti-matter that could explain why the universe is still around. But they have tried a range of different possibilities – that they have different mass, electric charge, or something else – but have found no difference.
That has led researchers to question why the universe is still around at all.
“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” explained Christian Smorra, the author of a new study conducted at CERN.
“An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?”
The latest possibility was matter and anti-matter’s different magnetism. But new research shows that they are identical in that way too – lending further mystery to the question of why the universe is still around at all.
The universe’s greatest game of spot the difference goes on. The next hotly anticipated experiment is over at ALPHA, where CERN scientists are studying the effect of gravity of antimatter – trying to answer the question of whether antimatter might fall ‘up’.