Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What do you think of the simplified argument here: https://algassert.com/post/1902 ? Basically: ground the definition of probability into a reversible classical circuit then use that circuit's quantum behavior to generalize the definition to quantum (while assuming as few things as possible). In this case the assumptions are "limiting to amplitude 1 must mean limiting to probability 1" and no signalling.



Thanks for bringing that to my attention. My initial reaction is that the argument appears sufficiently cogent to merit respectful consideration. I predict that if someone were to dig into it, they'd find a question-begging assumption hidden somewhere. (The alternative is that this is a major breakthrough in physics, and my Bayesian prior on that is low.) But where that assumption is hiding is not immediately obvious to me. Looking for it seems like a worthwhile exercise.


I don't think the argument is novel, it's just a cut down counting/frequency argument. So any objections to those would presumably port over.


I dunno, I think you might be selling it short. This argument seems to be based on the mathematical continuity of probabilities, which is not something I can recall ever seeing before.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: