24:19 How is it possible that a small, real-world quantum state requires more information to describe it than the total information that can exist in the observable universe when that state is already described using a tiny fraction of the possible information in the observable universe?
"a small, real-world quantum state requires more [CLASSICAL] information to describe it than the total [CLASSICAL] information that can exist in the observable universe when that [QUANTUM] state is already described using a tiny fraction of the possible [QUANTUM] information in the observable universe" Does that answer your question?
Well then you know at least one thing ..lol ; then you could use bayes to iteratively approximate also ; another thing one can know is that some things are more likely than others ; i know that if you toss a coin, there is only infinitessimal odds of it not being heads or tails ; or that the sun is more likely than not to rise tommorow ; or that the further away in space or time you try to predict, the more likely you will fail.
If you think Scott's bad, check out Robert Naviaux's lecture: "Mitochondria and Autism (Spring 2011)" /watch?v=1Sq2Os0mtrQ#t=200s I want to turn that video into a drinking game but I'm afraid I'd kill someone... *Edit: Actually, Scott is even worse. Wowza.
I know (no pun intended) that some people think he's a bad speaker, but his talks are funny and informative. This makes him a good speaker in my book.
24:19 How is it possible that a small, real-world quantum state requires more information to describe it than the total information that can exist in the observable universe when that state is already described using a tiny fraction of the possible information in the observable universe?
"a small, real-world quantum state requires more [CLASSICAL] information to describe it than the total [CLASSICAL] information that can exist in the observable universe when that [QUANTUM] state is already described using a tiny fraction of the possible [QUANTUM] information in the observable universe"
Does that answer your question?
Y'all crazy. I can listen to Scott speak for hours!
A very enjoyable and entertaining lecture
he does say "you know" quite a lot
how do you know?
wondering if Aaronson talk about this topic now, what would he say. does the recent development of AI add anything new to this topic?
“I know that I know nothing.” - Plato
Well then you know at least one thing ..lol ; then you could use bayes to iteratively approximate also ; another thing one can know is that some things are more likely than others ; i know that if you toss a coin, there is only infinitessimal odds of it not being heads or tails ; or that the sun is more likely than not to rise tommorow ; or that the further away in space or time you try to predict, the more likely you will fail.
Hmm..... I don't know...
He reminds me of Sydney Coleman
Me too, mainly because I had never heard of either.
If you think Scott's bad, check out Robert Naviaux's lecture:
"Mitochondria and Autism (Spring 2011)"
/watch?v=1Sq2Os0mtrQ#t=200s
I want to turn that video into a drinking game but I'm afraid I'd kill someone...
*Edit: Actually, Scott is even worse. Wowza.
He has problem speaking publicly. Writes well, but doesn't know what he wants to say.
On this occasion, you know, he spoke extraordinarily well. It was a well-rounded, incredibly insightful talk.
Ah ah you know oh oh you know eh eh you know... Impossible to listen to
lets play drinking game of "you know"
ok at 2 minutes and have h eard you know 8 times im out