Hacker News Reader

Ah, I see that it is time to raise my objection again.

As I wrote before [0], I think that what Aaronson's calls "the theory" is a somewhat bastardized version of quantum mechanics that might suffice for quantum computing but, in my opinion, not for physics.

I discussed the difference here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38255476

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39627618

View on HN

Okay, but what's the implication of that? You can't get the whole quantum mechanics by just doing the generalization of probability thing?

No, because physics is not mathematics.

Uhhh...says who?

Most people. Physics uses math to model the world, but is independent (math is not a science). At least we don't have any further evidence to say otherwise. There's a lot of interesting ideas around this in https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf and many of us believe that the universe itself is effectively an embedding of a large mathematical structure in a 3D-space 1D-time. But that would be effectively impossible to prove in any convincing way.

I would say Physics is the subset of Mathematics that describes Physical reality.The rest does not care if it is practical, just logically intact.

Says the fact that their objects of study are different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com