Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Quantum Question Equality

Quantum theory reveals puzzling pattern in how people respond to some surveys, June 2014

Researchers used quantum theory – usually invoked to describe the actions of subatomic particles – to identify an unexpected and strange pattern in how people respond to survey questions.

"Human behavior is very sensitive to context. It may be as context sensitive as the actions of some of the particles that quantum physicists study," said Zheng Wang, lead author of the study and associate professor of communication at The Ohio State University.

"By using quantum theory, we were able to predict a surprising regularity in human behavior with unusual accuracy for the social sciences in a large set of different surveys."

These new findings involved an issue that has long faced researchers using survey data or any self-report data: question-order effects. Scientists have known that the order in which some questions are asked on a survey can change how people respond. That's why survey organizations normally change the order of questions between different respondents, hoping to cancel out this effect.

"Researchers have thought of these question-order effects as some kind of unexplainable carry-over effects or noise," Wang said. "But our results suggest that some of these effects may not be mere nuisance, but actually are something more essential to human behavior."

Take, for example, one of the surveys used in the study. This was a Gallup poll that asked Americans, among other questions, whether Bill Clinton was honest and trustworthy and whether Al Gore was honest and trustworthy.

The survey changed the order in which these questions were asked between respondents and, as expected, there were question-order effects found. When respondents were asked about Clinton first, 49 percent said that both Clinton and Gore were trustworthy. But when respondents were asked about Gore first, 56 percent said that both were trustworthy.

The pattern that quantum theory predicted – and that the researchers found – was that the number of people who switch from "yes-yes" to "no-no" when the question order is reversed must be offset by the number of people who switch in the opposite direction.

Indeed, in this case, the number of people who said "no-no" – that both Clinton and Gore were not trustworthy – went from 28 percent when the Clinton question was asked first to 21 percent when Gore was asked about first.

That 7 percent decline essentially cancels out the 7 percent increase in the number of people who said "yes-yes" when the question order was reversed.

Likewise, the number of people who switched from "yes-no" to "no-yes" was offset by the number of people who switched in the opposite direction.

The researchers called this phenomenon "quantum question equality." They found it in every one of the surveys studied. [marked as suspicious]

"When you think about it from our normal social science perspective, the finding is very bizarre," Wang said. "There's no reason to expect that people would always change their responses in such a systematical way, from survey to survey to create this pattern."

But from a quantum perspective, the finding makes perfect sense, Wang said. "It is exactly what we would have predicted from quantum theory. We mathematically derived this precise prediction of quantum question equality from quantum theory before we looked at any data. This had to be true if our theory is right."

"Usually, in the social sciences we're talking about parameters: If we can predict that one factor is always larger or smaller than another, we consider that a strong finding," she said.

"But here we found a quite precise answer that is always nearly zero – the number of people who switch an answer one way are always offset by the number of people who switch in the opposite direction. That number never changed. In other words, their difference is always nearly zero. And that level of exactness is almost never found in social science research."

The larger question brought up by this study is "why?" Why must the number of people who switch from "yes-yes" to "no-no" when question order is reversed be offset by the number of people who switch in the opposite direction?

Wang said there is nothing yet proposed in standard psychological theory that would explain why this is true.

Paper: Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments
Provided by The Ohio State University

Magical Quantums

aka on words and meaning

Study finds weird magic ingredient for quantum computing, June 2014
[^THIS IS NOT clickbait; it is the original title from a article] 

"Quantum devices are extremely difficult to build because they must operate in an environment that is noise-resistant. The term magic refers to a particular approach to building noise-resistant quantum computers known as magic-state distillation. So-called magic states act as a crucial, but difficult to achieve and maintain, extra ingredient that boosts the power of a quantum device to achieve the improved processing power of a universal quantum computer."

Magic states offer surprisingly low error rates for quantum computing, Mar 2015

Making quantum computers that are noise-resistant, or fault-tolerant, is one of the biggest challenges facing their development.

Currently, the leading approach to fault-tolerant quantum computing involves "magic states." First proposed in 2005 by Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev, magic states are quantum states that contain an acceptably low level of error. In order to create magic states, physicists take noisy quantum states and use a process called distillation to derive a smaller number of improved, i.e., higher fidelity, states. This process is repeated as many times as necessary until the states reach the target fidelity.

On the Illusion of Intent and Mass Conspiracy

A spook’s guide to the psychology of deception
Mind Hacks, Aug 2014

[blog author critiques the information used according to conventional literature on the overarching psychologically-related topics synthesized. He concludes in critiquing the tenor of government-directed psychological operations (and conspiracy theories as well)]

"We tend to think that the secret services are super efficient experts with an infinite budget, but they probably just work like any other organisation. HSOC were probably told to deliver an Online Covert Action Accreditation course with few resources and not enough time and came up with the most sensible thing in the time allowed."

Magical Thinking

light paintings - Janne Parviainen

Magical thinking still haunts all our thoughts
Andrew Crumey, 2014, Aeon

While scientific theories can become increasingly technical and abstract, the brains that struggle to interpret their meaning haven’t evolved much in the past 50,000 years. If our own brain is a kind of living fossil, it’s hardly surprising that so much of what we do with it is metaphorically fossilised too.

light paintings - Janne Parviainen

Note to God

Laura Battle_timepiece via synaptic stimuli

Aquinas, to God: You can't make a triangle with more than 
180 degrees.

God: Damnnnnnnnnn.

'Mathematics is the only religion that can prove itself to
be one'