= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whpearson comments on How to think like a quantum monadologist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
We are using monad in the functional programming sense? I thought Leibniz at first glance. I've never quite apprehended Leibniz's monads, so I put off trying to grok the post fully. An introduction to them would be useful.
I don't know much, but...
Leibniz's monads were an attempt to resolve the mind-body problem. Supposedly, monads are something like atoms, and something like souls. They don't interact with each other - all causality goes from God directly to the monads, not from one monad to the other - for example, perception is only accurate by God arranging for monads' perceptions to be accurate.
It seems like really incredibly strange metaphysics / theology to me.
I agree. Bertrand Russell explained it as due to Leibniz's beliefs about causality - one substance could not affect another substance. By a monad I just mean an elementary "thing" which can have mental states.
I think it must be the FP monad; here's a sigfpe post which is, as usual, above me but which seems to treat vectors as Haskell monads: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2007/03/monads-vector-spaces-and-quantum.html
It's inscrutable to me too, but mainly because I never learned Haskell.
It does, however, contain a link to this interesting paper, which shows that straightforward application of Cox's axioms allow you to have complex-valued probabilities in Bayesian inference, which makes the jump to quantum physics much easier.
I had a bit of a hard time following that too, but mainly because I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of mathematical fields and their notation.
You should learn Haskell. Assuming you've already learned Erlang, of course.
I've got all kinds of advice on geeky things that are for most people complete wastes of time.
Do you have a list anywhere?
I'm thinking I should totally do that, but it might make me seem less useful. Like when Sherlock Holmes explains his deductions so they seem obvious.
Well, I suppose you have two questions to ponder. One, is it worth it to be more useful if this entails seeming less useful? Two, is this what will actually happen if you make that list?
But where does Mitchell Porter use anything from the functional programming side of things?
It might be this bit:
But really, I was replying to whpearson's question about bogus's comment. (The FP monad at least makes more sense to me than Leibniz's monads.)