
Quantum Darwinism spotted in diamond spin - jonbaer
https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-darwinism-spotted-in-diamond-spins/
======
Strilanc
Just another "X1 implies Y, X2 implies Y, X3 implies Y, ..., Xk implies Y; we
observed Y; therefore X2" article about quantum interpretations.

~~~
improv32
Is there anyway to assign a reasonable conditional probability to those Xk's
and recover some useful science?

------
gumby
The use of "darwinism" seems like another way of just saying "thermodynamics".
I assume though that physicists are smarter than I, at least when it comes to
physics, so can someone explain what else there might be to this than "local
minima"?

------
aeternum
Any Darwinian theory should clearly explain the mechanism for selection.

The selection mechanism for quantum darwinism is usually said to be "those
states that agree with classical mechanics". This seems like extreme circular
reasoning when the goal of the theory is to explain why/how QM experiments
result in classical observations.

------
tabtab
I'm not clear if they found the mechanism of this alleged evolution, or merely
found behavior that suggests evolution is taking place.

------
xorand
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.10456](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.10456)

------
labster
Can quantum Darwinism be used in the blockchain as a engagement service?

------
yters
What even is 'Darwinism'? Are diamonds reproducing and competing amongst
themselves for scarce resources in a tragic Malthusian drama, leaving only the
fit diamonds to survive? Is this how we account for the wide variety of
diamond species that we see in the wild? Is this how the favored diamond races
are preserved in their struggle for life?

~~~
TaupeRanger
A general notion of "universal Darwinism" exists, whereby any system that
implements variation, selection, and retention is said to exhibit "Darwinism".

~~~
yters
Ah I see. I now propose the theories of typing Darwinism, shopping Darwinism,
snacking Darwinism, 'making up my mind' Darwinism, Darwinism Darwinism,
'picking my boogers' Darwinism, 'doing my homework' Darwinism, 'programming'
Darwinism. We should come up with a Darwin award for all the different sorts
of Darwin theories and the most Darwinian of them all.

~~~
dag11
What's the point you're trying to make here?

~~~
yters
If everything is 'Darwinism,' what's the point of the theory? What does it
tell us? What explanatory power does it have? What possibilities does it
exclude?

Darwin's original theory was groundbreaking because it could explain how you
can get a large variety of species from one or a few simple organisms. But, if
all one has to do to have a brilliant insight is to prefix 'Darwinian' to any
process of change, then it all seems exceedingly pointless. I can write an app
where you give it a name, and it prefixes 'Darwinian' and now you have a
brilliant insight. I can replace a whole host of researchers with a Python
script. It just seems ridiculous.

~~~
n4r9
> any process of change

The previous comment was fairly clear: it's not any process of change, it is
evolution within a system that has mechanisms of variation, selection and
heredity.

~~~
yters
My point is that there are so many processes that fit under that
characterization that it seems fairly meaningless to prefix "Darwinism". Plus,
that something follows a process of variation, selection and heredity seems
fairly uninformative. I still fail to see why it is considered such a
breakthrough, as per all my tongue in cheek examples.

~~~
n4r9
I don't think it's meaningless; it's a tool or perspective that can be used to
explain and predict observations in systems that possess certain
characteristics.

A loose analogy could be made with e.g. systems that have an observed variable
which responds linearly to an input. This applies to a very wide array of
systems. The theory of linear dynamics was nevertheless an insightful
breakthrough at the time, and it's still interesting to explore whether
particular systems can be modeled effectively with it.

~~~
yters
I agree with linear response systems (elec. eng. class), but what predictions
can we make from this 'Darwinist' definition?

~~~
n4r9
That's a well-posed question, and after some thought I think the answer is
simply: those units of replication which are better adapted to surviving and
replicating in their environment, will spread and thrive.

I understand that this seems like a tautology, but I think that is actually
the first part of Darwin's genius. Once the model is understood, then the
outcomes appear obvious, at least at small scales. The second part of the
genius is to grasp how small changes can build up over immense time scales to
produce a plethora of species large and small.

When it comes to "universal darwinism", the idea that first springs to mind is
the theory of memetics, somewhat like cultural evolution via natural
selection. A quick google suggests some movement is being made towards
formalising this into a predictive science [0].

Also, I think that the explanatory power of a model can be just as helpful to
us as the predictive power. For example the interplay of memetic and genetic
selection gives satisfying explanations for behavioural phenomena that can be
tough to accept on purely genetic grounds [1]. The existence of purely
celibate positions of authority in many societies (shaman, priest, monk...)
can be explained on the grounds that the "meme" defined by such a position
frees up a lot of the host's energy. They no longer have to spend time and
effort on maintaining a family or gathering food, and this energy can then be
poured into spreading the meme to the next generation. I think you could even
make a concrete prediction on similar grounds: there will continue to be
strong groups forming around an idea of celibacy well into the future, such as
is happening now with "incel" and "journey to purity" groups.

[0]
[https://www.ies.be/files/metaspaper.pdf](https://www.ies.be/files/metaspaper.pdf)

[1]
[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMGEN.html](http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMGEN.html)

------
api
Evolution is learning, so this implies that learning in some form is intrinsic
to matter and that the quantum->classical transition represents some kind of
learning process, which is absolutely fascinating. I also think it has
implications for the question of life's origins and perhaps supports a super-
gradualist hypothesis in which life as we call it is merely an extreme
expression of certain universal characteristics of matter. This doesn't
necessarily imply really extreme ideas like panpsychism (the idea that
consciousness in some sense is ubiquitous), but it doesn't rule them out
either.

~~~
jerf
This is why they really shouldn't call it "Darwinism". I won't say it's
completely certain you're wrong, but I think you're extracting way more
meaning from the fuzzy term "Darwinism" than the mathematics of this concept
justifies... like, _waaaay_ more meaning. It's possible this might end up
there, but only via a lot more steps. On its own terms this is like talking
about how important wave function collapse is because it shows how the
universe is biased towards consciousness or how it must have wanted life... it
isn't necessarily possible to completely eliminate the possibility in the most
rigorous sense, but there's just a hair's breadth separating those phrases
from outright word salad.

