Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:56:45.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

David Deutsch ,
Artur Ekert  and
Rossella Lupacchini
David Deutsch
Affiliation:
Centre for Quantum Computation, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, Ox1 3Pu, U.K.E-mail:[email protected]
Artur Ekert
Affiliation:
Centre for Quantum Computation, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, Ox1 3Pu, U.K.E-mail:E-mail:[email protected]
Rossella Lupacchini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento Di Filosofia, Università Di Bologna, Via Zamboni 38, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

§1. Mathematics and the physical world. Genuine scientific knowledge cannot be certain, nor can it be justified a priori. Instead, it must be conjectured, and then tested by experiment, and this requires it to be expressed in a language appropriate for making precise, empirically testable predictions. That language is mathematics.

This in turn constitutes a statement about what the physical world must be like if science, thus conceived, is to be possible. As Galileo put it, “the universe is written in the language of mathematics”. Galileo's introduction of mathematically formulated, testable theories into physics marked the transition from the Aristotelian conception of physics, resting on supposedly necessary a priori principles, to its modern status as a theoretical, conjectural and empirical science. Instead of seeking an infallible universal mathematical design, Galilean science usesmathematics to express quantitative descriptions of an objective physical reality. Thus mathematics became the language in which we express our knowledge of the physical world — a language that is not only extraordinarily powerful and precise, but also effective in practice. Eugene Wigner referred to “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences”. But is this effectiveness really unreasonable or miraculous?

Numbers, sets, groups and algebras have an autonomous reality quite independent of what the laws of physics decree, and the properties of these mathematical structures can be just as objective as Plato believed they were (and as Roger Penrose now advocates).

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 265 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Bernstein, E. and Vazirani, U., Quantum complexity theory, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing (New York), ACM, 1993, pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
[2] Cleve, R., Ekert, A., Macchiavello, C., and Mosca, M., Quantum Algorithms Revisited, Proceedings of the Royal Society, A, vol. 454, 1998, pp. 339–354.Google Scholar
[3] Deutsch, D., Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society, A, vol. 400, 1985, pp. 97–117.Google Scholar
[4] Deutsch, D., The Fabric of Reality, The Penguin Press, Allen Lane, 1997.Google Scholar
[5] Ekert, A. and Jozsa, R., Quantum computation and Shor's factoring algorithm, Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 68 (1996), pp. 733–753.Google Scholar
[6] Feynman, R.P., Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 21 (1982), pp. 467–488.Google Scholar
[7] Galilei, G., Saggiatore, [1623], Opere (Favaro, A., editor), vol. 6, Edizione Nazionale, Firenze, 1896.Google Scholar
[8] Gandy, R., Church's thesis and principles for mechanisms, The Kleene Symposium (Barwise, J. et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 123–148.Google Scholar
[9] Goldstine, H.H., The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.Google Scholar
[10] Papadimitriou, C.H., Computational Complexity, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994.Google Scholar
[11] Penrose, R., Shadows of the mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar
[12] Rivest, R., Shamir, A., and Adleman, L., On Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems, Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-212, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, 01 1979.Google Scholar
[13] Shor, P., Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete log and factoring, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (Los Alamitos) (Goldwasser, S., editor), IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994, pp. 124–134.Google Scholar
[14] Shor, P., Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Symposiumon the Foundations of Computer Science (Los Alamitos,CA), IEEE Computer Society, 1996.Google Scholar
[15] Sieg, W., Mechanical procedures and mathematical experience, Mathematics and Mind (George, A., editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 71–117.Google Scholar
[16] Turing, A., On computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2, vol. 42, 1936–1937, pp. 230–265.Google Scholar
[17] Wigner, E. P., The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, 1960, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar