Comment by ordu

> How is that a failure to take intellectual responsibility?

The argument is metaphysical, it doesn't pose any concrete questions about the validity of QM, which would go like "does QM predicts reality correctly". All the physics is built upon a nice mathematical formalism of real numbers, and it doesn't make physics invalid, it can be used to build planes and computers, despite those pesky real numbers, that are unreal.

Intellectual responsibility means that you filled your metaphysics with some substance. I don't really know, how to do it for quantum mechanics, but if I wanted to, I might start with the inability of QM to explain gravity, I'd dig this topic to the point when I would be able to propose a specific way how research on quantum gravity could overturn QM and make it wrong. Or at least I'd try to make an argument that QM predictions about QC might become false.

But I cannot make such arguments, because I don't know QM, and I'm not going to dive into it, because I know better ways to spend my time, so I'll keep my mouth shut and will not voice vague statements about QM being not reality.

In any case from metaphysical standpoint, I'm sure that physics is not reality, physics is a mathematical description of reality. It doesn't matter if this description is incomplete or even wrong if it works for our case. Like Newton's gravity still works, while being proved wrong. We just need to bear in mind the limits of applicability. So I see the argument Scott Aaronson discusses as a very general truth "a map is not territory" which is used in an incorrect way. The correct (intellectually responsible) way is to point to the limits of applicability and to build an argument that they can bite.

> Asking because it's basically what I think[2]

I had followed your link after I wrote the first part, and I was delighted to see that you targeted the limits of applicability. Your argument is different from just saying "mathematical formalism is not reality".

I cannot verify your thoughts, because I don't know QM or how QC are supposed to work, but you are talking about the limits of applicability: "a theoretically-capable Quantum Computer will be testing the predictions of Quantum Mechanics to a degree of precision hundreds of orders of magnitude greater than any physics experiment to date". It doesn't seem to me as intellectual irresponsibility, it is not intellectual irresponsibility if you really know what you a talking about and can defend your statement when talking with PhD in QM.

> but I promise not to argue with any explanation given here.

Feel free to argue, I have nothing against it. :)

BTW, do you don't take QC seriously because of that? Do you expect QM (as a theory) to fail as a result or R&D work that is done on QC? I agree that there is a probability of QM failing, but my uneducated guess that the probability is low enough (maybe 0.1?) to take QC seriously.