Sciences and humanities : ne'er the twain shall meet?

[mixed_biscuits]

John Doe - once people start calling the other's arguments 'nonsense,' then I give up. If I want a slanging match, I go down the pub and start one. Hmm, pub...

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

That's not true at all. All semiconductor electronics are based on technology that could only be developed once physicists had a fully quantum-mechanical theory of solid-state physics.

Well then, we seem to be talking about two completely different processes, as it would be news to learn that Turing machines are based on quantum mechanics, which I assume you're not actually saying here.

What I was saying is that digital computation is based on discrete, deterministic processes, ideas that have been around long before quantum mechanics. Technology is not the issue here [especially when it is just used for classical computation], but the scientific paradigm: digital computers do not use the quantum properties of particles in order to represent and structure data nor to perform operations on such data.

Quantum computation is based on stochastic, indeterminate processes, and has yet to be fully implemented [though D-Wave Systems' "Orion quantum computing system" claims to be the world's first working quantum computer, which incidentally operates as an analog computer].

 

[Mr. Tea]

Technology is the issue here, since digital electronics in general (and computers in particular - not to mention fibre-optic cables, CDs, DVDs, mobile phones, digital cameras, etc. etc.) rely on technology that could not possibly have been developed without quantum mechanics.

I wasn't talking about quantum computers, as they have obviously had no significant effects on society since they haven't been invented yet (or, at best, are in the very, very early stages of development).

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Technology is the issue here,

No, such technology is still based on the classical computational paradigm: binary processing. How such technology is constructed to enable the mere continuation of classical processing is thus irrelevant (whether analogue abacus or digital processor). A camera is still a camera ...

I wasn't talking about quantum computers, as they have obviously had no significant effects on society since they haven't been invented yet (or, at best, are in the very, very early stages of development).

Well then you've answered your own question, or rather, contradicted your earlier assertion.

Yes, microchips are not based on quantum computation, because, as I said earlier (and which you repeat above), such quantum computers remain in the realm of theory.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You're like a stuck record, you are.

If you knew even the first thing about computers you'd know that (modern) computers are based on semiconductor technology. This could no more have been invented without knowledge of quantum mechanics than the internal combustion engine could have been designed without the aid of thermodynamic theory (or, as I mentioned elsewhere, lightbulbs without electricity). No-one, least of all me, is claiming that computers operate according to quantum-mechanical computational procedures. I fail to see how I've 'contradicted' myself, since the only thing I've contradicted is your garbled mangling of my original statement.

But no doubt you're going to do what you always do, i.e. ignore everything I've said and launch some completely spurious attack about how 'ignorant' I am.

 

[tht]

the superposition could resolve itself classically by suggesting that quantum theory did not inform early computer science (theory) in a conceptual fashion analagous to its co-option within the writings of [ ] and had to content itself simply with faciliating transistors, a paltry end

'Philosophy has no specificity, no proper territory, it is within literature, within art or science or theology or whatever; it is this element which contains a capability to be developed. In a sense, philosophy is scattered in every territory.'

(agamben)

 

[Mr. Tea]

I certainly wouldn't say 'paltry'. The theory has a lot going for it quite apart from the (amazing) technologies that its discovery has allowed to be invented.

 

[borderpolice]

the superposition could resolve itself classically by suggesting that quantum theory did not inform early computer science (theory) in a conceptual fashion analagous to its co-option within the writings of [ ] and had to content itself simply with faciliating transistors, a paltry end

For whatever it might be worth, the first ever computer, understood as a turing-universal machine, Zuse's Z3 (http://www.epemag.com/zuse/part4a.htm), was not using transistors at all, but rather electromechanical switches.

In fact, you can implement computers using just about anything, including water (http://www.blikstein.com/paulo/projects/project_water.html), or rocks, if Putnam is to be believed (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql4047230q675124).

It is however also true, that computers as we understand them now, are essentially inconceivable without extremely fast switching elements like transistors, all known instances of which currently rely on quantum mechanics.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This was my point exactly. You can make a Turing machine by moving plastic counters around on your dining room table if you really want to, but all modern electronics (since the 1950s/60s, at any rate) have made use of technology based on the quantum theory of electrons in solids.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

If you knew even the first thing about computers you'd know that (modern) computers are based on semiconductor technology. This could no more have been invented without knowledge of quantum mechanics than the internal combustion engine could have been designed without the aid of thermodynamic theory (or, as I mentioned elsewhere, lightbulbs without electricity). No-one, least of all me, is claiming that computers operate according to quantum-mechanical computational procedures. I fail to see how I've 'contradicted' myself, since the only thing I've contradicted is your garbled mangling of my original statement.

Let me put it starkly: I've been teaching computer science/information theory for over twenty years and during that time I've never come accross such a deranged dimwit such as yourself. Your very first post here claimed that semi-conductors "operate according to quantum-mechanical" principles. Now, your mistaken assumption exposed ["No-one, least of all me, is claiming that computers operate according to quantum-mechanical computational procedures] you still "fail to see how I've 'contradicted' myself."

You are a troll, evident since you began posting on this forum. No more discussion with YOU ...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Oh fuck off. If you know that little about how computers work, you shouldn't be teaching the subject. If you don't know the difference between the concepts 'computers work by semiconductor electronics, which could not have been invented without quantum theory' and 'computers work by quantum-computational procedures', then you don't belong in the teaching profession.

Look, dickhead, the word 'quantum' appears five times in the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor
If semi-conductors don't work according to quantum-mechanical principles, then exactly how do they work? Do microscopic pixies ferry the electrons around at exactly the right energy levels? Does Santa Claus maintain the Fermi energy and band-gap structure of gallium-doped silicon? Do you even have the faintest idea what I'm talking about here?

It's obvious that your modus operandi is to spout a load of pretentious bullshit, get shot down in flames for talking rubbish and then try and cover your tracks by calling your detractors 'ignorant' in an attempt to disguise the fact that you don't know your arse from your elbow, all the while obfuscating the debate with references to postmodern philosophers and God knows what else.

I bet you a million pounds you reply to this post.

Edit: fucking hell, am I psychic or what?

But no doubt you're going to do what you always do, i.e. ignore everything I've said and launch some completely spurious attack about how 'ignorant' I am.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

tht, to quote you from the "War In Iran" thread, "why do you engage -however derisorily- with the likes of this nudnik cunt?"

 

[tht]

that seems unfair, since that invective was in response to a callow apologist for political violence

the flaw in suggesting that quantum theory facilitated the development of semiconductors is redundancy (as if the theory is useful infosar as it is utile) - the assertion is essentially true nonetheless

 

[Mr. Tea]

the flaw in suggesting that quantum theory facilitated the development of semiconductors is redundancy (as if the theory is useful infosar as it is utile) - the assertion is essentially true nonetheless

Cheers for the backup, although I'm not sure what you mean by 'redundancy' - I certainly never claimed quantum mechanics was developed in order to facilitate semiconductors and hence computers. Christ, I'd have to be a, an engineer *spits* to think like that!

 

[tht]

that quantum theory is applied in technology isn't very surprising since almost all physics will have some technological use eventually

if concepts from physics are considered to be poetically or epistemological useful by writers eg pynchon, musil, gadda, like the poets of old, then that is not comparable to technology employing the same concepts, or even the transposition of a theory from physics to finance simply to predict a different type of variable - the epistemology of the three fields is completely different

how much of this discontent comes from the use of the term theory (not even critical- or literary-) to refer to hyper-allusive writing that syncretises different types of (post)structuralist thought (such that lacan, derrida, jakobson, bakhtin, althusser are all theorists after the fact, though they might have contentedly thought themselves linguists, psychoanalysts, philologists, phenonemolgists etc) ?

 

[Mr. Tea]

how much of this discontent comes from the use of the term theory (not even critical- or literary-) to refer to hyper-allusive writing that syncretises different types of (post)structuralist thought (such that lacan, derrida, jakobson, bakhtin, althusser are all theorists after the fact, though they might have contentedly thought themselves linguists, psychoanalysts, philologists, phenonemolgists etc) ?

Er...about twelve? :slanted: I have to say, you've lost me a bit here.

My original point, before Alan Turing here led us off on a jolly tangent about how computers work, was the question: for what reason would academics working in fields totally unconnected to physics - historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers of the humanities - start saying to themselves "There's this new idea called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which applies to subatomic particles, therefore we need to start thinking differently about society, the human mind, literature and the arts" (to put it in an unrealistically literal turn of phrase, of course).

I mentioned the computers thing as an example of what I was not talking about, i.e. the very obvious tangible impact science has, via technology, on society. The fact that the atom became the pre-eminent symbol of physics, and science as a whole, in the 20th century tells you all you need to know about this - especially when you consider the atom's natural corollary, the mushroom cloud.

 

[gabriel]

that one study isn't enough to indicate what happens in general, though, gabriel.

oh really? thanks for pointing that out to me, nomadologist, i had no idea about that

 

[tht]

for what reason would academics working in fields totally unconnected to physics - historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers of the humanities - start saying to themselves "There's this new idea called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which applies to subatomic particles, therefore we need to start thinking differently about society, the human mind, literature and the arts" (to put it in an unrealistically literal turn of phrase, of course)

the latent wish that atoms ergo chromosones, aphids, nebulae, fixed income bonds, single mothers, cathars, superegos etc are all somehow symmetrical? fuck knows

 

[Mr. Tea]

fuck knows

Heh, I appreciate the honesty.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

that seems unfair, since that invective was in response to a callow apologist for political violence

the flaw in suggesting that quantum theory facilitated the development of semiconductors is redundancy (as if the theory is useful infosar as it is utile) - the assertion is essentially true nonetheless

On the contrary, your original invocation of same was unfair: quietism and resignation in the face of such militant apologists. I quoted you here precisely because you are now engaging with "a callow apologist for political violence" (or are you under the illusion that you have failed to notice?).

As to the original, hilarious flaw in this thread - the "information society" being based on quantum mechanics - the poster in question has compounded his error by resorting to unacceptable personal abuse and slurs to deflect from his inane, untrue assertion, which is why all further discussion with him is terminated [and not because he's a political retard]. Good luck in your endeavours.