[FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Yes, I understand your skepticism. I even share it. But nothing you've said validates the dichotomy you laid out before. The wizard's spell sense you get from entanglement across 3 meters of space is a reflection of how you (yes, and most of us) model the world. Even if it's only like 5/7e9 people that have any intuition of how the other model(s) work(s), it's still not zero. And I suspect it's more than 5.

A pedestrian example is in how/why/what the kids love about Instagram and hate about Facebook ... or can listen to that gawdawful music they listen to. They're developing intuitions us old farts will never have. What's to say it won't also happen with QM effects? E.g. we're already (fairly) comfortable with the way transistors work, even if most of the modeling language in which they're used is classical. The distinction between the circuits-level language of use versus the underlying quantum properties of materials level language of transistor construction (again riffing off Eric's point) isn't near as crisp as it once was.

That optimism does rely on a progressive society, though ... which looks unlikely at this point.

On 4/30/19 4:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There are more people that catch fly balls than develop theories of physical information.   I don't believe a well-funded liberal culture will change that.   Maybe in a hundred or a thousand years if we are a reconfigurable species, a large part of the population will spend their days experiencing and manipulating physical phenomenon as first class thing using an extended nervous system.  But as it is, the inputs are from a narrow range of temperatures & pressures and a tiny window of electromagnetic radiation.   And cognitively, the short term workspace of a human is small and slow compared to even a simple computer.   

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ