The Philosophy of Quantum Computing

Cuffaro, Michael E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95538-0_3

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for ST, we have argued elsewhere (Cuffaro and Hartmann 2021, sec. 3;Cuffaro and Hartmann 2024) that characterizing its ontology is considerably more complicated, but that if one takes ST to be a candidate fundamental theoretical framework (i.e., if one takes it to be complete in some sense), there are, broadly speaking, only two interpretational options available: the Everettian and orthodox families of interpretations (as we characterized them in Section 1); and that whichever one is inclined towards, ST is ontologically committed to open systems, in a way that other theoretical frameworks for physics like classical mechanics are not, despite being formulated in accordance with the closed systems view, according to which all systems must be modeled in terms of closed systems. We will now argue that whether one favors an Everettian or an orthodox interpretation-or neither-there are good reasons to take GT to be ontologically more fundamental than ST, and we will schematically represent our argument, at the end of this section, in the form of our second and final explication of the relation of ontic fundamentality between theoretical frameworks, OntFund-2.…”

Section: Ontic Fundamentalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have argued elsewhere Cuffaro and Hartmann 2021, sec. 3;Cuffaro and Hartmann 2023;Cuffaro and Hartmann 2024) that regardless of which of these senses of completeness one takes to be of primary interest, 8 quantum theory, in a way that other theoretical frameworks for physics like classical mechanics are not, is ontologically committed to open systems. What we want to emphasize here is that this is despite the fact that the formulation of quantum theory these approaches all focus on-what we will be calling standard quantum theory (ST)-is actually formulated in accordance with the closed systems view.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Open Systems View

Cuffaro,

Hartmann

2024

Philosophy of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a deeply entrenched view in philosophy and physics, the closed systems view, according to which isolated systems are conceived of as fundamental. On this view, when a system is under the influence of its environment this is always described in terms of a coupling between it and a separate system, which taken together are isolated. There is an alternative, the open systems view, according to which systems interacting with their environment are conceived of as fundamental, and the environment's influence is represented via the dynamical equations that govern the system of interest's evolution. In this paper we propose (although the formalism is not original to us) a theoretical framework which we call the general quantum theory of open systems (GT), within which one can make sense of the dynamics of open quantum systems in fundamental terms, and we argue that the open systems view, as formalized in GT, is fundamental in quantum theory.

show abstract

Section: Ontic Fundamentalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Open Systems View

Cuffaro,

Hartmann

2024

Philosophy of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Physicists working on quantum mechanics have a responsibility to their colleagues to be conceptually precise. As noted in Section 1.2 above, conceptual analysis is a necessary part of physics, and so conceptual clarity among physicists can contribute to progress within quantum mechanics [ 128 ] (Section 1) [ 165 , 166 ], and its applications [ 167 ]. Physicists also have a responsibility to carefully consider the language they use in suggesting potential applications of quantum mechanics to the wider public [ 168 , 169 ].…”

Section: Conclusion Possibilities and Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum Mechanics: Statistical Balance Prompts Caution in Assessing Conceptual Implications

Drummond

2022

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout quantum mechanics there is statistical balance, in the collective response of an ensemble of systems to differing measurement types. Statistical balance is a core feature of quantum mechanics, underlying quantum mechanical states, and not yet explained. The concept of “statistical balance” is here explored, comparing its meaning since 2019 with its original meaning in 2001. Statistical balance now refers to a feature of contexts in which: (a) there is a prescribed probability other than 0 or 1 for the collective response of an ensemble to one measurement type; and (b) the collective response of the same ensemble to another measurement type demonstrates that no well-defined value can be attributed, for the property relevant to the original measurement type, to individual members of the ensemble. In some unexplained way, the outcomes of single runs of a measurement of the original type “balance” each other to give an overall result in line with the prescribed probability. Unexplained statistical balance prompts caution in assessing the conceptual implications of entanglement, measurement, uncertainty, and two-slit and Bell-type analyses. Physicists have a responsibility to the wider population to be conceptually precise about quantum mechanics, and to make clear that many possible conceptual implications are uncertain.

show abstract

“…With theoretical roots dating back even further than AI (many trace beginnings to the late 19 th century), quantum technology is often shrouded in mystery (Simonte & Chen, 2020). Part of this mystery is because quantum computers function in a fundamentally different manner than classical computersin fact, they actually function on entirely different physical laws (Cuffaro, 2024)! The specifics of this difference, which will be discussed in a future section, are said to eventually be able to result inor at least what engineers are hoping forcomputers that can handle exponentially larger data sets with greater speed and efficiency than classical computers (Stackpole, 2024).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probing the limits of Figures and Grounds: Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computation

Gustafson

2024

New Explorations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>The present article employed McLuhan’s figure/ground distinction to probe the boundaries of artificial intelligence (AI) and computation. In popularizing the intellectual tradition of media ecology, Marshall McLuhan warned scholars that confusing the figure (i.e. the content or software) with the ground (i.e. the medium of communication or hardware) would lead to inadequate and incorrect analyses and appraisals of the effects of our media technologies. However, the present article contends that scholars of all stripes are at risk of falling prey to that exact mistake with regards to AI. The present article argues that AI, though having appeared as a touchstone issue in media and communication studies recently, represents the figure, whereas the computational hardware is the ground. Moreover, with continued development of quantum computation technologies, the ground upon which our AI programs rest is in the infantile stages of undergoing a revolutionary change. In sum, this article probes the significance of AI and Quantum computation for the coming decades.</p>

show abstract

The Philosophy of Quantum Computing

Cited by 4 publications

References 88 publications

The Open Systems View

The Open Systems View

Quantum Mechanics: Statistical Balance Prompts Caution in Assessing Conceptual Implications

Probing the limits of Figures and Grounds: Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About