## Archive for the ‘Nerd Interest’ Category

### This review of Max Tegmark’s book also occurs infinitely often in the decimal expansion of π

Saturday, March 22nd, 2014

Two months ago, commenter rrtucci asked me what I thought about Max Tegmark and his “Mathematical Universe Hypothesis”: the idea, which Tegmark defends in his recent book Our Mathematical Universe, that physical and mathematical existence are the same thing, and that what we call “the physical world” is simply one more mathematical structure, alongside the dodecahedron and so forth.  I replied as follows:

…I find Max a fascinating person, a wonderful conference organizer, someone who’s always been extremely nice to me personally, and an absolute master at finding common ground with his intellectual opponents—I’m trying to learn from him, and hope someday to become 10-122 as good.  I can also say that, like various other commentators (e.g., Peter Woit), I personally find the “Mathematical Universe Hypothesis” to be devoid of content.

After Peter Woit found that comment and highlighted it on his own blog, my comments section was graced by none other than Tegmark himself, who wrote:

Thanks Scott for your all to [sic] kind words!  I very much look forward to hearing what you think about what I actually say in the book once you’ve had a chance to read it!  I’m happy to give you a hardcopy (which can double as door-stop) – just let me know.

With this reply, Max illustrated perfectly why I’ve been trying to learn from him, and how far I fall short.  Where I would’ve said “yo dumbass, why don’t you read my book before spouting off?,” Tegmark gracefully, diplomatically shamed me into reading his book.

So, now that I’ve done so, what do I think?  Briefly, I think it’s a superb piece of popular science writing—stuffed to the gills with thought-provoking arguments, entertaining anecdotes, and fascinating facts.  I think everyone interested in math, science, or philosophy should buy the book and read it.  And I still think the MUH is basically devoid of content, as it stands.

Let me start with what makes the book so good.  First and foremost, the personal touch.  Tegmark deftly conveys the excitement of being involved in the analysis of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations—of actually getting detailed numerical data about the origin of the universe.  (The book came out just a few months before last week’s bombshell announcement of B-modes in the CMB data; presumably the next edition will have an update about that.)  And Tegmark doesn’t just give you arguments for the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics; he tells you how he came to believe it.  He writes of being a beginning PhD student at Berkeley, living at International House (and dating an Australian exchange student who he met his first day at IHouse), who became obsessed with solving the quantum measurement problem, and who therefore headed to the physics library, where he was awestruck by reading the original Many-Worlds articles of Hugh Everett and Bryce deWitt.  As it happens, every single part of the last sentence also describes me (!!!)—except that the Australian exchange student who I met my first day at IHouse lost interest in me when she decided that I was too nerdy.  And also, I eventually decided that the MWI left me pretty much as confused about the measurement problem as before, whereas Tegmark remains a wholehearted Many-Worlder.

The other thing I loved about Tegmark’s book was its almost comical concreteness.  He doesn’t just metaphorically write about “knobs” for adjusting the constants of physics: he shows you a picture of a box with the knobs on it.  He also shows a “letter” that lists not only his street address, zip code, town, state, and country, but also his planet, Hubble volume, post-inflationary bubble, quantum branch, and mathematical structure.  Probably my favorite figure was the one labeled “What Dark Matter Looks Like / What Dark Energy Looks Like,” which showed two blank boxes.

Sometimes Tegmark seems to subtly subvert the conventions of popular-science writing.  For example, in the first chapter, he includes a table that categorizes each of the book’s remaining chapters as “Mainstream,” “Controversial,” or “Extremely Controversial.”  And whenever you’re reading the text and cringing at a crucial factual point that was left out, chances are good you’ll find a footnote at the bottom of the page explaining that point.  I hope both of these conventions become de rigueur for all future pop-science books, but I’m not counting on it.

The book has what Tegmark himself describes as a “Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde” structure, with the first (“Dr. Jekyll”) half of the book relaying more-or-less accepted discoveries in physics and cosmology, and the second (“Mr. Hyde”) half focusing on Tegmark’s own Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).  Let’s accept that both halves are enjoyable reads, and that the first half contains lots of wonderful science.  Is there anything worth saying about the truth or falsehood of the MUH?

In my view, the MUH gestures toward two points that are both correct and important—neither of them new, but both well worth repeating in a pop-science book.  The first is that the laws of physics aren’t “suggestions,” which the particles can obey when they feel like it but ignore when Uri Geller picks up a spoon.  In that respect, they’re completely unlike human laws, and the fact that we use the same word for both is unfortunate.  Nor are the laws merely observed correlations, as in “scientists find link between yogurt and weight loss.”  The links of fundamental physics are ironclad: the world “obeys” them in much the same sense that a computer obeys its code, or the positive integers obey the rules of arithmetic.  Of course we don’t yet know the complete program describing the state evolution of the universe, but everything learned since Galileo leads one to expect that such a program exists.  (According to quantum mechanics, the program describing our observed reality is a probabilistic one, but for me, that fact by itself does nothing to change its lawlike character.  After all, if you know the initial state, Hamiltonian, and measurement basis, then quantum mechanics gives you a perfect algorithm to calculate the probabilities.)

The second true and important nugget in the MUH is that the laws are “mathematical.”  By itself, I’d say that’s a vacuous statement, since anything that can be described at all can be described mathematically.  (As a degenerate case, a “mathematical description of reality” could simply be a gargantuan string of bits, listing everything that will ever happen at every point in spacetime.)  The nontrivial part is that, at least if we ignore boundary conditions and the details of our local environment (which maybe we shouldn’t!), the laws of nature are expressible as simple, elegant math—and moreover, the same structures (complex numbers, group representations, Riemannian manifolds…) that mathematicians find important for internal reasons, again and again turn out to play a crucial role in physics.  It didn’t have to be that way, but it is.

Putting the two points together, it seems fair to say that the physical world is “isomorphic to” a mathematical structure—and moreover, a structure whose time evolution obeys simple, elegant laws.   All of this I find unobjectionable: if you believe it, it doesn’t make you a Tegmarkian; it makes you ready for freshman science class.

But Tegmark goes further.  He doesn’t say that the universe is “isomorphic” to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the same thing.  Furthermore, he says that every mathematical structure “exists” in the same sense that “ours” does; we simply find ourselves in one of the structures capable of intelligent life (which shouldn’t surprise us).  Thus, for Tegmark, the answer to Stephen Hawking’s famous question—“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and gives them a universe to describe?”—is that every consistent set of equations has fire breathed into it.  Or rather, every mathematical structure of at most countable cardinality whose relations are definable by some computer program.  (Tegmark allows that structures that aren’t computably definable, like the set of real numbers, might not have fire breathed into them.)

Anyway, the ensemble of all (computable?) mathematical structures, constituting the totality of existence, is what Tegmark calls the “Level IV multiverse.”  In his nomenclature, our universe consists of anything from which we can receive signals; anything that exists but that we can’t receive signals from is part of a “multiverse” rather than our universe.  The “Level I multiverse” is just the entirety of our spacetime, including faraway regions from which we can never receive a signal due to the dark energy.  The Level II multiverse consists of the infinitely many other “bubbles” (i.e., “local Big Bangs”), with different values of the constants of physics, that would, in eternal inflation cosmologies, have generically formed out of the same inflating substance that gave rise to our Big Bang.  The Level III multiverse is Everett’s many worlds.  Thus, for Tegmark, the Level IV multiverse is a sort of natural culmination of earlier multiverse theorizing.  (Some people might call it a reductio ad absurdum, but Tegmark is nothing if not a bullet-swallower.)

Now, why should you believe in any of these multiverses?  Or better: what does it buy you to believe in them?

As Tegmark correctly points out, none of the multiverses are “theories,” but they might be implications of theories that we have other good reasons to accept.  In particular, it seems crazy to believe that the Big Bang created space only up to the furthest point from which light can reach the earth, and no further.  So, do you believe that space extends further than our cosmological horizon?  Then boom! you believe in the Level I multiverse, according to Tegmark’s definition of it.

Likewise, do you believe there was a period of inflation in the first ~10-32 seconds after the Big Bang?  Inflation has made several confirmed predictions (e.g., about the “fractal” nature of the CMB perturbations), and if last week’s announcement of B-modes in the CMB is independently verified, that will pretty much clinch the case for inflation.  But Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, and others have argued that, if you accept inflation, then it seems hard to prevent patches of the inflating substance from continuing to inflate forever, and thereby giving rise to infinitely many “other” Big Bangs.  Furthermore, if you accept string theory, then the six extra dimensions should generically curl up differently in each of those Big Bangs, giving rise to different apparent values of the constants of physics.  So then boom! with those assumptions, you’re sold on the Level II multiverse as well.  Finally, of course, there are people (like David Deutsch, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Tegmark himself) who think that quantum mechanics forces you to accept the Level III multiverse of Everett.  Better yet, Tegmark claims that these multiverses are “falsifiable.”  For example, if inflation turns out to be wrong, then the Level II multiverse is dead, while if quantum mechanics is wrong, then the Level III one is dead.

Admittedly, the Level IV multiverse is a tougher sell, even by the standards of the last two paragraphs.  If you believe physical existence to be the same thing as mathematical existence, what puzzles does that help to explain?  What novel predictions does it make?  Forging fearlessly ahead, Tegmark argues that the MUH helps to “explain” why our universe has so many mathematical regularities in the first place.  And it “predicts” that more mathematical regularities will be discovered, and that everything discovered by science will be mathematically describable.  But what about the existence of other mathematical universes?  If, Tegmark says (on page 354), our qualitative laws of physics turn out to allow a narrow range of numerical constants that permit life, whereas other possible qualitative laws have no range of numerical constants that permit life, then that would be evidence for the existence of a mathematical multiverse.  For if our qualitative laws were the only ones into which fire had been breathed, then why would they just so happen to have a narrow but nonempty range of life-permitting constants?

I suppose I’m not alone in finding this totally unpersuasive.  When most scientists say they want “predictions,” they have in mind something meatier than “predict the universe will continue to be describable by mathematics.”  (How would we know if we found something that wasn’t mathematically describable?  Could we even describe such a thing with English words, in order to write papers about it?)  They also have in mind something meatier than “predict that the laws of physics will be compatible with the existence of intelligent observers, but if you changed them a little, then they’d stop being compatible.”  (The first part of that prediction is solid enough, but the second part might depend entirely on what we mean by a “little change” or even an “intelligent observer.”)

What’s worse is that Tegmark’s rules appear to let him have it both ways.  To whatever extent the laws of physics turn out to be “as simple and elegant as anyone could hope for,” Tegmark can say: “you see?  that’s evidence for the mathematical character of our universe, and hence for the MUH!”  But to whatever extent the laws turn out not to be so elegant, to be weird or arbitrary, he can say: “see?  that’s evidence that our laws were selected more-or-less randomly among all possible laws compatible with the existence of intelligent life—just as the MUH predicted!”

Still, maybe the MUH could be sharpened to the point where it did make definite predictions?  As Tegmark acknowledges, the central difficulty with doing so is that no one has any idea what measure to use over the space of mathematical objects (or even computably-describable objects).  This becomes clear if we ask a simple question like: what fraction of the mathematical multiverse consists of worlds that contain nothing but a single three-dimensional cube?

We could try to answer such a question using the universal prior: that is, we could make a list of all self-delimiting computer programs, then count the total weight of programs that generate a single cube and then halt, where each n-bit program gets assigned 1/2n weight.  Sure, the resulting fraction would be uncomputable, but at least we’d have defined it.  Except wait … which programming language should we use?  (The constant factors could actually matter here!)  Worse yet, what exactly counts as a “cube”?  Does it have to have faces, or are vertices and edges enough?  How should we interpret the string of 1’s and 0’s output by the program, in order to know whether it describes a cube or not?  (Also, how do we decide whether two programs describe the “same” cube?  And if they do, does that mean they’re describing the same universe, or two different universes that happen to be identical?)

These problems are simply more-dramatic versions of the “standard” measure problem in inflationary cosmology, which asks how to make statistical predictions in a multiverse where everything that can happen will happen, and will happen an infinite number of times.  The measure problem is sometimes discussed as if it were a technical issue: something to acknowledge but then set to the side, in the hope that someone will eventually come along with some clever counting rule that solves it.  To my mind, however, the problem goes deeper: it’s a sign that, although we might have started out in physics, we’ve now stumbled into metaphysics.

Some cosmologists would strongly protest that view.  Most of them would agree with me that Tegmark’s Level IV multiverse is metaphysics, but they’d insist that the Level I, Level II, and perhaps Level III multiverses were perfectly within the scope of scientific inquiry: they either exist or don’t exist, and the fact that we get confused about the measure problem is our issue, not nature’s.

My response can be summed up in a question: why not ride this slippery slope all the way to the bottom?  Thinkers like Nick Bostrom and Robin Hanson have pointed out that, in the far future, we might expect that computer-simulated worlds (as in The Matrix) will vastly outnumber the “real” world.  So then, why shouldn’t we predict that we’re much more likely to live in a computer simulation than we are in one of the “original” worlds doing the simulating?  And as a logical next step, why shouldn’t we do physics by trying to calculate a probability measure over different kinds of simulated worlds: for example, those run by benevolent simulators versus evil ones?  (For our world, my own money’s on “evil.”)

But why stop there?  As Tegmark points out, what does it matter if a computer simulation is actually run or not?  Indeed, why shouldn’t you say something like the following: assuming that π is a normal number, your entire life history must be encoded infinitely many times in π’s decimal expansion.  Therefore, you’re infinitely more likely to be one of your infinitely many doppelgängers “living in the digits of π” than you are to be the “real” you, of whom there’s only one!  (Of course, you might also be living in the digits of e or √2, possibilities that also merit reflection.)

At this point, of course, you’re all the way at the bottom of the slope, in Mathematical Universe Land, where Tegmark is eagerly waiting for you.  But you still have no idea how to calculate a measure over mathematical objects: for example, how to say whether you’re more likely to be living in the first 1010^120 digits of π, or the first 1010^120 digits of e.  And as a consequence, you still don’t know how to use the MUH to constrain your expectations for what you’re going to see next.

Now, notice that these different ways down the slippery slope all have a common structure:

1. We borrow an idea from science that’s real and important and profound: for example, the possible infinite size and duration of our universe, or inflationary cosmology, or the linearity of quantum mechanics, or the likelihood of π being a normal number, or the possibility of computer-simulated universes.
2. We then run with that idea until we smack right into a measure problem, and lose the ability to make useful predictions.

Many people want to frame the multiverse debates as “science versus pseudoscience,” or “science versus science fiction,” or (as I did before) “physics versus metaphysics.”  But actually, I don’t think any of those dichotomies get to the nub of the matter.  All of the multiverses I’ve mentioned—certainly the inflationary and Everett multiverses, but even the computer-simuverse and the π-verse—have their origins in legitimate scientific questions and in genuinely-great achievements of science.  However, they then extrapolate those achievements in a direction that hasn’t yet led to anything impressive.  Or at least, not to anything that we couldn’t have gotten without the ontological commitments that led to the multiverse and its measure problem.

What is it, in general, that makes a scientific theory impressive?  I’d say that the answer is simple: connecting elegant math to actual facts of experience.

When Einstein said, the perihelion of Mercury precesses at 43 seconds of arc per century because gravity is the curvature of spacetime—that was impressive.

When Dirac said, you should see a positron because this equation in quantum field theory is a quadratic with both positive and negative solutions (and then the positron was found)—that was impressive.

When Darwin said, there must be equal numbers of males and females in all these different animal species because any other ratio would fail to be an equilibrium—that was impressive.

When people say that multiverse theorizing “isn’t science,” I think what they mean is that it’s failed, so far, to be impressive science in the above sense.  It hasn’t yet produced any satisfying clicks of understanding, much less dramatically-confirmed predictions.  Yes, Steven Weinberg kind-of, sort-of used “multiverse” reasoning to predict—correctly—that the cosmological constant should be nonzero.  But as far as I can tell, he could just as well have dispensed with the “multiverse” part, and said: “I see no physical reason why the cosmological constant should be zero, rather than having some small nonzero value still consistent with the formation of stars and galaxies.”

At this, many multiverse proponents would protest: “look, Einstein, Dirac, and Darwin is setting a pretty high bar!  Those guys were smart but also lucky, and it’s unrealistic to expect that scientists will always be so lucky.  For many aspects of the world, there might not be an elegant theoretical explanation—or any explanation at all better than, ‘well, if it were much different, then we probably wouldn’t be here talking about it.’  So, are you saying we should ignore where the evidence leads us, just because of some a-priori prejudice in favor of mathematical elegance?”

In a sense, yes, I am saying that.  Here’s an analogy: suppose an aspiring filmmaker said, “I want my films to capture the reality of human experience, not some Hollywood myth.  So, in most of my movies nothing much will happen at all.  If something does happen—say, a major character dies—it won’t be after some interesting, character-forming struggle, but meaninglessly, in a way totally unrelated to the rest of the film.  Like maybe they get hit by a bus.  Then some other random stuff will happen, and then the movie will end.”

Such a filmmaker, I’d say, would have a perfect plan for creating boring, arthouse movies that nobody wants to watch.  Dramatic, character-forming struggles against the odds might not be the norm of human experience, but they are the central ingredient of entertaining cinema—so if you want to create an entertaining movie, then you have to postselect on those parts of human experience that do involve dramatic struggles.  In the same way, I claim that elegant mathematical explanations for observed facts are the central ingredient of great science.  Not everything in the universe might have such an explanation, but if one wants to create great science, one has to postselect on the things that do.

(Note that there’s an irony here: the same unsatisfyingness, the same lack of explanatory oomph, that make something a “lousy movie” to those with a scientific mindset, can easily make it a great movie to those without such a mindset.  The hunger for nontrivial mathematical explanations is a hunger one has to acquire!)

Some readers might argue: “but weren’t quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and Gödel’s theorem scientifically important precisely because they said that certain phenomena—the exact timing of a radioactive decay, next month’s weather, the bits of Chaitin’s Ω—were unpredictable and unexplainable in fundamental ways?”  To me, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.  Quantum mechanics, chaos, and Gödel’s theorem were great science not because they declared certain facts unexplainable, but because they explained why those facts (and not other facts) had no explanations of certain kinds.  Even more to the point, they gave definite rules to help figure out what would and wouldn’t be explainable in their respective domains: is this state an eigenstate of the operator you’re measuring?  is the Lyapunov exponent positive?  is there a proof of independence from PA or ZFC?

So, what would be the analogue of the above for the multiverse?  Is there any Level II or IV multiverse hypothesis that says: sure, the mass of electron might be a cosmic accident, with at best an anthropic explanation, but the mass of the Higgs boson is almost certainly not such an accident?  Or that the sum or difference of the two masses is not an accident?  (And no, it doesn’t count to affirm as “non-accidental” things that we already have non-anthropic explanations for.)  If such a hypothesis exists, tell me in the comments!  As far as I know, all Level II and IV multiverse hypotheses are still at the stage where basically anything that isn’t already explained might vary across universes and be anthropically selected.  And that, to my mind, makes them very different in character from quantum mechanics, chaos, or Gödel’s theorem.

In summary, here’s what I feel is a reasonable position to take right now, regarding all four of Tegmark’s multiverse levels (not to mention the computer-simuverse, which I humbly propose as Level 3.5):

Yes, these multiverses are a perfectly fine thing to speculate about: sure they’re unobservable, but so are plenty of other entities that science has forced us to accept.  There are even natural reasons, within physics and cosmology, that could lead a person to speculate about each of these multiverse levels.  So if you want to speculate, knock yourself out!  If, however, you want me to accept the results as more than speculation—if you want me to put them on the bookshelf next to Darwin and Einstein—then you’ll need to do more than argue that other stuff I already believe logically entails a multiverse (which I’ve never been sure about), or point to facts that are currently unexplained as evidence that we need a multiverse to explain their unexplainability, or claim as triumphs for your hypothesis things that don’t really need the hypothesis at all, or describe implausible hypothetical scenarios that could confirm or falsify the hypothesis.  Rather, you’ll need to use your multiverse hypothesis—and your proposed solution to the resulting measure problem—to do something new that impresses me.

### TIME’s cover story on D-Wave: A case study in the conventions of modern journalism

Thursday, February 6th, 2014

This morning, commenter rrtucci pointed me to TIME Magazine’s cover story about D-Wave (yes, in today’s digital media environment, I need Shtetl-Optimized readers to tell me what’s on the cover of TIME…).  rrtucci predicted that, soon after reading the article, I’d be hospitalized with a severe stress-induced bleeding ulcer.  Undeterred, I grit my teeth, paid the $5 to go behind the paywall, and read the article. The article, by Lev Grossman, could certainly be a lot worse. If you get to the end, it discusses the experiments by Matthias Troyer’s group, and it makes clear the lack of any practically-relevant speedup today from the D-Wave devices. It also includes a few skeptical quotes: “In quantum computing, we have to be careful what we mean by ‘utilizing quantum effects,'” says Monroe, the University of Maryland scientist, who’s among the doubters. “This generally means that we are able to store superpositions of information in such a way that the system retains its ‘fuzziness,’ or quantum coherence, so that it can perform tasks that are impossible otherwise. And by that token there is no evidence that the D-Wave machine is utilizing quantum effects.” One of the closest observers of the controversy has been Scott Aaronson, an associate professor at MIT and the author of a highly influential quantum-computing blog [aww, shucks --SA]. He remains, at best, cautious. “I’m convinced … that interesting quantum effects are probably present in D-Wave’s devices,” he wrote in an email. “But I’m not convinced that those effects, right now, are playing any causal role in solving any problems faster than we could solve them with a classical computer. Nor do I think there’s any good argument that D-Wave’s current approach, scaled up, will lead to such a speedup in the future. It might, but there’s currently no good reason to think so.” Happily, the quote from me is something that I actually agreed with at the time I said it! Today, having read the Shin et al. paper—which hadn’t yet come out when Grossman emailed me—I might tone down the statement “I’m convinced … that interesting quantum effects are probably present” to something like: “there’s pretty good evidence for quantum effects like entanglement at a ‘local’ level, but at the ‘global’ level we really have no idea.” Alas, ultimately I regard this article as another victim (through no fault of the writer, possibly) of the strange conventions of modern journalism. Maybe I can best explain those conventions with a quickie illustration: MAGIC 8-BALL: THE RENEGADE MATH WHIZ WHO COULD CHANGE NUMBERS FOREVER An eccentric billionaire, whose fascinating hobbies include nude skydiving and shark-taming, has been shaking up the scientific world lately with his controversial claim that 8+0 equals 17 [... six more pages about the billionaire redacted ...] It must be said that mathematicians, who we reached for comment because we’re diligent reporters, have tended to be miffed, skeptical, and sometimes even sarcastic about the billionaire’s claims. Not surprisingly, though, the billionaire and his supporters have had some dismissive comments of their own about the mathematicians. So, which side is right? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle? At this early stage, it’s hard for an outsider to say. In the meantime, the raging controversy itself is reason enough for us to be covering this story using this story template. Stay tuned for more! As shown (for example) by Will Bourne’s story in Inc. magazine, it’s possible for a popular magazine to break out of the above template when covering D-Wave, or at least bend it more toward reality. But it’s not easy. More detailed comments: • The article gets off on a weird foot in the very first paragraph, describing the insides of D-Wave’s devices as “the coldest place in the universe.” Err, 20mK is pretty cold, but colder temperatures are routinely achieved in many other physics experiments. (Are D-Wave’s the coldest current, continuously-operating experiments, or something like that? I dunno: counterexamples, anyone? I’ve learned from experts that they’re not, not even close. I heard from someone who had a bunch of dilution fridges running at 10mK in the lab he was emailing me from…) • The article jumps enthusiastically into the standard Quantum Computing = Exponential Parallelism Fallacy (the QC=EPF), which is so common to QC journalism that I don’t know if it’s even worth pointing it out anymore (but here I am doing so). • Commendably, the article states clearly that QCs would offer speedups only for certain specific problems, not others; that D-Wave’s devices are designed only for adiabatic optimization, and wouldn’t be useful (e.g.) for codebreaking; and that even for optimization, “D-Wave’s hardware isn’t powerful enough or well enough understood to show serious quantum speedup yet.” But there’s a crucial further point that the article doesn’t make: namely, that we have no idea yet whether adiabatic optimization is something where quantum computers can give any practically-important speedup. In other words, even if you could implement adiabatic optimization perfectly—at zero temperature, with zero decoherence—we still don’t know whether there’s any quantum speedup to be had that way, for any of the nifty applications that the article mentions: “software design, tumor treatments, logistical planning, the stock market, airlines schedules, the search for Earth-like planets in other solar systems, and in particular machine learning.” In that respect, adiabatic optimization is extremely different from (e.g.) Shor’s factoring algorithm or quantum simulation: things where we know how much speedup we could get, at least compared to the best currently-known classical algorithms. But I better stop now, since I feel myself entering an infinite loop (and I didn’t even need the adiabatic algorithm to detect it). ### Merry Christmas! My quantum computing research explained, using only the 1000 most common English words Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 [With special thanks to the Up-Goer Five Text Editor, which was inspired by this xkcd] I study computers that would work in a different way than any computer that we have today. These computers would be very small, and they would use facts about the world that are not well known to us from day to day life. No one has built one of these computers yet—at least, we don’t think they have!—but we can still reason about what they could do for us if we did build them. How would these new computers work? Well, when you go small enough, you find that, in order to figure out what the chance is that something will happen, you need to both add and take away a whole lot of numbers—one number for each possible way that the thing could happen, in fact. What’s interesting is, this means that the different ways a thing could happen can “kill each other out,” so that the thing never happens at all! I know it sounds weird, but the world of very small things has been known to work that way for almost a hundred years. So, with the new kind of computer, the idea is to make the different ways each wrong answer could be reached kill each other out (with some of them “pointing” in one direction, some “pointing” in another direction), while the different ways that the right answer could be reached all point in more or less the same direction. If you can get that to happen, then when you finally look at the computer, you’ll find that there’s a very good chance that you’ll see the right answer. And if you don’t see the right answer, then you can just run the computer again until you do. For some problems—like breaking a big number into its smallest parts (say, 43259 = 181 × 239)—we’ve learned that the new computers would be much, much faster than we think any of today’s computers could ever be. For other problems, however, the new computers don’t look like they’d be faster at all. So a big part of my work is trying to figure out for which problems the new computers would be faster, and for which problems they wouldn’t be. You might wonder, why is it so hard to build these new computers? Why don’t we have them already? This part is a little hard to explain using the words I’m allowed, but let me try. It turns out that the new computers would very easily break. In fact, if the bits in such a computer were to “get out” in any way—that is, to work themselves into the air in the surrounding room, or whatever—then you could quickly lose everything about the new computer that makes it faster than today’s computers. For this reason, if you’re building the new kind of computer, you have to keep it very, very carefully away from anything that could cause it to lose its state—but then at the same time, you do have to touch the computer, to make it do the steps that will eventually give you the right answer. And no one knows how to do all of this yet. So far, people have only been able to use the new computers for very small checks, like breaking 15 into 3 × 5. But people are working very hard today on figuring out how to do bigger things with the new kind of computer. In fact, building the new kind of computer is so hard, that some people even believe it won’t be possible! But my answer to them is simple. If it’s not possible, then that’s even more interesting to me than if it is possible! And either way, the only way I know to find out the truth is to try it and see what happens. Sometimes, people pretend that they already built one of these computers even though they didn’t. Or they say things about what the computers could do that aren’t true. I have to admit that, even though I don’t really enjoy it, I do spend a lot of my time these days writing about why those people are wrong. Oh, one other thing. Not long from now, it might be possible to build computers that don’t do everything that the new computers could eventually do, but that at least do some of it. Like, maybe we could use nothing but light and mirrors to answer questions that, while not important in and of themselves, are still hard to answer using today’s computers. That would at least show that we can do something that’s hard for today’s computers, and it could be a step along the way to the new computers. Anyway, that’s what a lot of my own work has been about for the past four years or so. Besides the new kind of computers, I’m also interested in understanding what today’s computers can and can’t do. The biggest open problem about today’s computers could be put this way: if a computer can check an answer to a problem in a short time, then can a computer also find an answer in a short time? Almost all of us think that the answer is no, but no one knows how to show it. Six years ago, another guy and I figured out one of the reasons why this question is so hard to answer: that is, why the ideas that we already know don’t work. Anyway, I have to go to dinner now. I hope you enjoyed this little piece about the kind of stuff that I work on. ### Luke Muehlhauser interviews me about philosophical progress Saturday, December 14th, 2013 I’m shipping out today to sunny Rio de Janeiro, where I’ll be giving a weeklong course about BosonSampling, at the invitation of Ernesto Galvão. Then it’s on to Pennsylvania (where I’ll celebrate Christmas Eve with old family friends), Israel (where I’ll drop off Dana and Lily with Dana’s family in Tel Aviv, then lecture at the Jerusalem Winter School in Theoretical Physics), Puerto Rico (where I’ll speak at the FQXi conference on Physics of Information), back to Israel, and then New York before returning to Boston at the beginning of February. Given this travel schedule, it’s possible that blogging will be even lighter than usual for the next month and a half (or not—we’ll see). In the meantime, however, I’ve got the equivalent of at least five new blog posts to tide over Shtetl-Optimized fans. Luke Muehlhauser, the Executive Director of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (formerly the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence), did an in-depth interview with me about “philosophical progress,” in which he prodded me to expand on certain comments in Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity and The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine. Here are (abridged versions of) Luke’s five questions: 1. Why are you so interested in philosophy? And what is the social value of philosophy, from your perspective? 2. What are some of your favorite examples of illuminating Q-primes [i.e., scientifically-addressable pieces of big philosophical questions] that were solved within your own field, theoretical computer science? 3. Do you wish philosophy-the-field would be reformed in certain ways? Would you like to see more crosstalk between disciplines about philosophical issues? Do you think that, as Clark Glymour suggested, philosophy departments should be defunded unless they produce work that is directly useful to other fields … ? 4. Suppose a mathematically and analytically skilled student wanted to make progress, in roughly the way you describe, on the Big Questions of philosophy. What would you recommend they study? What should they read to be inspired? What skills should they develop? Where should they go to study? 5. Which object-level thinking tactics … do you use in your own theoretical (especially philosophical) research? Are there tactics you suspect might be helpful, which you haven’t yet used much yourself? For the answers—or at least my answers—click here! PS. In case you missed it before, Quantum Computing Since Democritus was chosen by Scientific American blogger Jennifer Ouellette (via the “Time Lord,” Sean Carroll) as the top physics book of 2013. Woohoo!! ### 23, Me, and the Right to Misinterpret Probabilities Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 If you’re the sort of person who reads this blog, you may have heard that 23andMe—the company that (until recently) let anyone spit into a capsule, send it away to a DNA lab, and then learn basic information about their ancestry, disease risks, etc.—has suspended much of its service, on orders from the US Food and Drug Administration. As I understand it, on Nov. 25, the FDA ordered 23andMe to stop marketing to new customers (though it can still serve existing customers), and on Dec. 5, the company stopped offering new health-related information to any customers (though you can still access the health information you had before, and ancestry and other non-health information is unaffected). Of course, the impact of these developments is broader: within a couple weeks, “do-it-yourself genomics” has gone from an industry whose explosive growth lots of commentators took as a given, to one whose future looks severely in doubt (at least in the US). The FDA gave the reasons for its order in a letter to Ann Wojcicki, 23andMe’s CEO. Excerpts: For instance, if the BRCA-related risk assessment for breast or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, intensive screening, or other morbidity-inducing actions, while a false negative could result in a failure to recognize an actual risk that may exist. Assessments for drug responses carry the risks that patients relying on such tests may begin to self-manage their treatments through dose changes or even abandon certain therapies depending on the outcome of the assessment. For example, false genotype results for your warfarin drug response test could have significant unreasonable risk of illness, injury, or death to the patient due to thrombosis or bleeding events that occur from treatment with a drug at a dose that does not provide the appropriately calibrated anticoagulant effect … The risk of serious injury or death is known to be high when patients are either non-compliant or not properly dosed; combined with the risk that a direct-to-consumer test result may be used by a patient to self-manage, serious concerns are raised if test results are not adequately understood by patients or if incorrect test results are reported. To clarify, the DNA labs that 23andMe uses are already government-regulated. Thus, the question at issue here is not whether, if 23andMe claims (say) that you have CG instead of CC at some particular locus, the information is reliable. Rather, the question is whether 23andMe should be allowed to tell you that fact, while also telling you that a recent research paper found that people with CG have a 10.4% probability of developing Alzheimer’s disease, as compared to a 7.2% base rate. More bluntly, the question is whether ordinary schmoes ought to be trusted to learn such facts about themselves, without a doctor as an intermediary to interpret the results for them, or perhaps to decide that there’s no good reason for the patient to know at all. Among medical experts, a common attitude seems to be something like this: sure, getting access to your own genetic data is harmless fun, as long as you’re an overeducated nerd who just wants to satisfy his or her intellectual curiosity (or perhaps narcissism). But 23andMe crossed a crucial line when it started marketing its service to the hoi polloi, as something that could genuinely tell them about health risks. Most people don’t understand probability, and are incapable of parsing “based on certain gene variants we found, your chances of developing diabetes are about 6 times higher than the baseline” as anything other than “you will develop diabetes.” Nor, just as worryingly, are they able to parse “your chances are lower than the baseline” as anything other than “you won’t develop diabetes.” I understand this argument. Nevertheless, I find it completely inconsistent with a free society. Moreover, I predict that in the future, the FDA’s current stance will be looked back upon as an outrage, with the subtleties in the FDA’s position mattering about as much as the subtleties in the Church’s position toward Galileo (“look, Mr. G., it’s fine to discuss heliocentrism among your fellow astronomers, as a hypothesis or a calculational tool—just don’t write books telling the general public that heliocentrism is literally true, and that they should change their worldviews as a result!”). That’s why I signed this petition asking the FDA to reconsider its decision, and I encourage you to sign it too. Here are some comments that might help clarify my views: (1) I signed up for 23andMe a few years ago, as did the rest of my family. The information I gained from it wasn’t exactly earth-shattering: I learned, for example, that my eyes are probably blue, that my ancestry is mostly Ashkenazi, that there’s a risk my eyesight will further deteriorate as I age (the same thing a succession of ophthalmologists told me), that I can’t taste the bitter flavor in brussels sprouts, and that I’m an “unlikely sprinter.” On the other hand, seeing exactly which gene variants correlate with these things, and how they compare to the variants my parents and brother have, was … cool. It felt like I imagine it must have felt to buy a personal computer in 1975. In addition, I found nothing the slightest bit dishonest about the way the results were reported. Each result was stated explicitly in terms of probabilities—giving both the baseline rate for each condition, and the rate conditioned on having such-and-such gene variant—and there were even links to the original research papers if I wanted to read them myself. I only wish that I got half as much context and detail from conventional doctor visits—or for that matter, from most materials I’ve read from the FDA itself. (When Dana was pregnant, I was pleasantly surprised when some of the tests she underwent came back with explicit probabilities and base rates. I remember wishing doctors would give me that kind of information more often.) (2) From my limited reading and experience, I think it’s entirely possible that do-it-yourself genetic testing is overhyped; that it won’t live up to its most fervent advocates’ promises; that for most interesting traits there are just too many genes involved, via too many labyrinthine pathways, to make terribly useful predictions about individuals, etc. So it’s important to me that, in deciding whether what 23andMe does should be legal, we’re not being asked to decide any of these complicated questions! We’re only being asked whether the FDA should get to decide the answers in advance. (3) As regular readers will know, I’m far from a doctrinaire libertarian. Thus, my opposition to shutting down 23andMe is not at all a corollary of reflexive opposition to any government regulation of anything. In fact, I’d be fine if the FDA wanted to insert a warning message on 23andMe (in addition to the warnings 23andMe already provides), emphasizing that genetic tests only provide crude statistical information, that they need to be interpreted with care, consult your doctor before doing anything based on these results, etc. But when it comes to banning access to the results, I have trouble with some of the obvious slippery slopes. E.g., what happens when some Chinese or Russian company launches a competing service? Do we ban Americans from mailing their saliva overseas? What happens when individuals become able just to sequence their entire genomes, and store and analyze them on their laptops? Do we ban the sequencing technology? Or do we just ban software that makes it easy enough to analyze the results? If the software is hard enough to use, so only professional biologists use it, does that make it OK again? Also, if the FDA will be in the business of banning genomic data analysis tools, then what about medical books? For that matter, what about any books or websites, of any kind, that might cause someone to make a poor medical decision? What would such a policy, if applied consistently, do to the multibillion-dollar alternative medicine industry? (4) I don’t understand the history of 23andMe’s interactions with the FDA. From what I’ve read, though, they have been communicating for five years, with everything 23andMe has said in public sounding conciliatory rather than defiant (though the FDA has accused 23andMe of being tardy with its responses). Apparently, the key problem is simply that the FDA hasn’t yet developed a regulatory policy specifically for direct-to-consumer genetic tests. It’s been considering such a policy for years—but in the meantime, it believes no one should be marketing such tests for health purposes before a policy exists. Alas, there are very few cases where I’d feel inclined to support a government in saying: “X is a new technology that lots of people are excited about. However, our regulatory policies haven’t yet caught up to X. Therefore, our decision is that X is banned, until and unless we figure out how to regulate it.” Maybe I could support such a policy, if X had the potential to level cities and kill millions. But when it comes to consumer DNA tests, this sort of preemptive banning seems purposefully designed to give wet dreams to Ayn Rand fans. (5) I confess that, despite everything I’ve said, my moral intuitions might be different if dead bodies were piling up because of terrible 23andMe-inspired medical decisions. But as far as I know, there’s no evidence so far that even a single person was harmed. Which isn’t so surprising: after all, people might run to their doctor terrified about something they learned on 23onMe, but no sane doctor would ever make a decision solely on that basis, without ordering further tests. ### Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone Monday, December 2nd, 2013 As the world marked the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, I have to confess … no, no, not that I was in on the plot. I wasn’t even born then, silly. I have to confess that, in between struggling to make a paper deadline, attending a workshop in Princeton, celebrating Thanksgivukkah, teaching Lily how to pat her head and clap her hands, and not blogging, I also started dipping, for the first time in my life, into a tiny fraction of the vast literature about the JFK assassination. The trigger (so to speak) for me was this article by David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com. I figured, if the founder of Salon is a JFK conspiracy buff—if, for crying out loud, my skeptical heroes Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan were both JFK conspiracy buffs—then maybe it’s at least worth familiarizing myself with the basic facts and arguments. So, what happened when I did? Were the scales peeled from my eyes? In a sense, yes, they were. Given how much has been written about this subject, and how many intelligent people take seriously the possibility of a conspiracy, I was shocked by how compelling I found the evidence to be that there were exactly three shots, all fired by Lee Harvey Oswald with a Carcano rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, just as the Warren Commission said in 1964. And as for Oswald’s motives, I think I understand them as well and as poorly as I understand the motives of the people who send me ramblings every week about P vs. NP and the secrets of the universe. Before I started reading, if someone forced me to guess, maybe I would’ve assigned a ~10% probability to some sort of conspiracy. Now, though, I’d place the JFK conspiracy hypothesis firmly in Moon-landings-were-faked, Twin-Towers-collapsed-from-the-inside territory. Or to put it differently, “Oswald as lone, crazed assassin” has been added to my large class of “sanity-complete” propositions: propositions defined by the property that if I doubt any one of them, then there’s scarcely any part of the historical record that I shouldn’t doubt. (And while one can’t exclude the possibility that Oswald confided in someone else before the act—his wife or a friend, for example—and that other person kept it a secret for 50 years, what’s known about Oswald strongly suggests that he didn’t.) So, what convinced me? In this post, I’ll give twenty reasons for believing that Oswald acted alone. Notably, my reasons will have less to do with the minutiae of bullet angles and autopsy reports, than with general principles for deciding what’s true and what isn’t. Of course, part of the reason for this focus is that the minutiae are debated in unbelievable detail elsewhere, and I have nothing further to contribute to those debates. But another reason is that I’m skeptical that anyone actually comes to believe the JFK conspiracy hypothesis because they don’t see how the second bullet came in at the appropriate angle to pass through JFK’s neck and shoulder and then hit Governor Connally. Clear up some technical point (or ten or fifty of them)—as has been done over and over—and the believers will simply claim that the data you used was altered by the CIA, or they’ll switch to other “anomalies” without batting an eye. Instead, people start with certain general beliefs about how the world works, “who’s really in charge,” what sorts of explanations to look for, etc., and then use their general beliefs to decide which claims to accept about JFK’s head wounds or the foliage in Dealey Plaza—not vice versa. That being so, one might as well just discuss the general beliefs from the outset. So without further ado, here are my twenty reasons: 1. Conspiracy theorizing represents a known bug in the human nervous system. Given that, I think our prior should be overwhelmingly against anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory. (This is not to say conspiracies never happen. Of course they do: Watergate, the Tobacco Institute, and the Nazi Final Solution were three well-known examples. But the difference between conspiracy theorists’ fantasies and actual known conspiracies is this: in a conspiracy theory, some powerful organization’s public face hides a dark and terrible secret; its true mission is the opposite of its stated one. By contrast, in every real conspiracy I can think of, the facade was already 90% as terrible as the reality! And the “dark secret” was that the organization was doing precisely what you’d expect it to do, if its members genuinely held the beliefs that they claimed to hold.) 2. The shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby created the perfect conditions for conspiracy theorizing to fester. Conditioned on that happening, it would be astonishing if a conspiracy industry hadn’t arisen, with its hundreds of books and labyrinthine arguments, even under the assumption that Oswald and Ruby both really acted alone. 3. Other high-profile assassinations to which we might compare this one—for example, those of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Yitzchak Rabin…—appear to have been the work of “lone nuts,” or at most “conspiracies” of small numbers of lowlifes. So why not this one? 4. Oswald seems to have perfectly fit the profile of a psychopathic killer (see, for example, Case Closed by Gerald Posner). From very early in his life, Oswald exhibited grandiosity, resentment, lack of remorse, doctrinaire ideological fixations, and obsession with how he’d be remembered by history. 5. A half-century of investigation has failed to link any individual besides Oswald to the crime. Conspiracy theorists love to throw around large, complicated entities like the CIA or the Mafia as potential “conspirators”—but in the rare cases when they’ve tried to go further, and implicate an actual human being other than Oswald or Ruby (or distant power figures like LBJ), the results have been pathetic and tragic. 6. Oswald had previously tried to assassinate General Walker—a fact that was confirmed by his widow Marina Oswald, but that, incredibly, is barely even discussed in the reams of conspiracy literature. 7. There’s clear evidence that Oswald murdered Officer Tippit an hour after shooting JFK—a fact that seems perfectly consistent with the state of mind of someone who’d just murdered the President, but that, again, seems to get remarkably little discussion in the conspiracy literature. 8. Besides being a violent nut, Oswald was also a known pathological liar. He lied on his employment applications, he lied about having established a thriving New Orleans branch of Fair Play for Cuba, he lied and lied and lied. Because of this tendency—as well as his persecution complex—Oswald’s loud protestations after his arrest that he was just a “patsy” count for almost nothing. 9. According to police accounts, Oswald acted snide and proud of himself after being taken into custody: for example, when asked whether he had killed the President, he replied “you find out for yourself.” He certainly didn’t act like an innocent “patsy” arrested on such a grave charge would plausibly act. 10. Almost all JFK conspiracy theories must be false, simply because they’re mutually inconsistent. Once you realize that, and start judging the competing conspiracy theories by the standards you’d have to judge them by if at most one could be true, enlightenment may dawn as you find there’s nothing in the way of just rejecting all of them. (Of course, some people have gone through an analogous process with religions.) 11. The case for Oswald as lone assassin seems to become stronger, the more you focus on the physical evidence and stuff that happened right around the time and place of the event. To an astonishing degree, the case for a conspiracy seems to rely on verbal testimony years or decades afterward—often by people who are known confabulators, who were nowhere near Dealey Plaza at the time, who have financial or revenge reasons to invent stories, and who “remembered” seeing Oswald and Ruby with CIA agents, etc. only under drugs or hypnosis. This is precisely the pattern we would expect if conspiracy theorizing reflected the reality of the human nervous system rather than the reality of the assassination. 12. If the conspiracy is so powerful, why didn’t it do something more impressive than just assassinate JFK? Why didn’t it rig the election to prevent JFK from becoming President in the first place? (In math, very often the way you discover a bug in your argument is by realizing that the argument gives you more than you originally intended—vastly, implausibly more. Yet every pro-conspiracy argument I’ve read seems to suffer from the same problem. For example, after successfully killing JFK, did the conspiracy simply disband? Or did it go on to mastermind other assassinations? If it didn’t, why not? Isn’t pulling the puppet-strings of the world sort of an ongoing proposition? What, if any, are the limits to this conspiracy’s power?) 13. Pretty much all the conspiracy writers I encountered exude total, 100% confidence, not only in the existence of additional shooters, but in the guilt of their favored villains (they might profess ignorance, but then in the very next sentence they’d talk about how JFK’s murder was “a triumph for the national security establishment”). For me, their confidence had the effect of weakening my own confidence in their intellectual honesty, and in any aspects of their arguments that I had to take on faith. The conspiracy camp would of course reply that the “Oswald acted alone” camp also exudes too much confidence in its position. But the two cases are not symmetric: for one thing, because there are so many different conspiracy theories, but only one Oswald. If I were a conspiracy believer I’d be racked with doubts, if nothing else then about whether my conspiracy was the right one. 14. Every conspiracy theory I’ve encountered seems to require “uncontrolled growth” in size and complexity: that is, the numbers of additional shooters, alterations of medical records, murders of inconvenient witnesses, coverups, coverups of the coverups, etc. that need to be postulated all seem to multiply without bound. To some conspiracy believers, this uncontrolled growth might actually be a feature: the more nefarious and far-reaching the conspiracy’s tentacles, the better. It should go without saying that I regard it as a bug. 15. JFK was not a liberal Messiah. He moved slowly on civil rights for fear of a conservative backlash, invested heavily in building nukes, signed off on the botched plans to kill Fidel Castro, and helped lay the groundwork for the US’s later involvement in Vietnam. Yes, it’s possible that he would’ve made wiser decisions about Vietnam than LBJ ended up making; that’s part of what makes his assassination (like RFK’s later assassination) a tragedy. But many conspiracy theorists’ view of JFK as an implacable enemy of the military-industrial complex is preposterous. 16. By the same token, LBJ was not exactly a right-wing conspirator’s dream candidate. He was, if anything, more aggressive on poverty and civil rights than JFK was. And even if he did end up being better for certain military contractors, that’s not something that would’ve been easy to predict in 1963, when the US’s involvement in Vietnam had barely started. 17. Lots of politically-powerful figures have gone on the record as believers in a conspiracy, including John Kerry, numerous members of Congress, and even frequently-accused conspirator LBJ himself. Some people would say that this lends credibility to the conspiracy cause. To me, however, it indicates just the opposite: that there’s no secret cabal running the world, and that those in power are just as prone to bugs in the human nervous system as anyone else is. 18. As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists are absolutely correct that JFK’s security in Dallas was unbelievably poor; that the Warren Commission was as interested in reassuring the nation and preventing a war with the USSR or Cuba as it was in reaching the truth (the fact that it did reach the truth is almost incidental); and that agencies like the CIA and FBI kept records related to the assassination classified for way longer than there was any legitimate reason to (though note that most records finally were declassified in the 1990s, and they provided zero evidence for any conspiracy). As you might guess, I ascribe all of these things to bureaucratic incompetence rather than to conspiratorial ultra-competence. But once again, these government screwups help us understand how so many intelligent people could come to believe in a conspiracy even in the total absence of one. 19. In the context of the time, the belief that JFK was killed by a conspiracy filled a particular need: namely, the need to believe that the confusing, turbulent events of the 1960s had an understandable guiding motive behind them, and that a great man like JFK could only be brought down by an equally-great evil, rather than by a chronically-unemployed loser who happened to see on a map that JFK’s motorcade would be passing by his workplace. Ironically, I think that Roger Ebert got it exactly right when he praised Oliver Stone’s JFK movie for its “emotional truth.” In much the same way, one could say that Birth of a Nation was “emotionally true” for Southern racists, or that Ben Stein’s Expelled was “emotionally true” for creationists. Again, I’d say that the “emotional truth” of the conspiracy hypothesis is further evidence for its factual falsehood: for it explains how so many people could come to believe in a conspiracy even if the evidence for one were dirt-poor. 20. At its core, every conspiracy argument seems to be built out of “holes”: “the details that don’t add up in the official account,” “the questions that haven’t been answered,” etc. What I’ve never found is a truly coherent alternative scenario: just one “hole” after another. This pattern is the single most important red flag for me, because it suggests that the JFK conspiracy theorists view themselves as basically defense attorneys: people who only need to sow enough doubts, rather than establish the reality of what happened. Crucially, creationism, 9/11 trutherism, and every other elaborate-yet-totally-wrong intellectual edifice I’ve ever encountered has operated on precisely the same “defense attorney principle”: “if we can just raise enough doubts about the other side’s case, we win!” But that’s a terrible approach to knowledge, once you’ve seen firsthand how a skilled arguer can raise unlimited doubts even about the nonexistence of a monster under your bed. Such arguers are hoping, of course, that you’ll find their monster hypothesis so much more fun, exciting, and ironically comforting than the “random sounds in the night hypothesis,” that it won’t even occur to you to demand they show you their monster. Further reading: this article in Slate. ### Five announcements Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 Update (Oct. 3): OK, a sixth announcement. I just posted a question on CS Theory StackExchange, entitled Overarching reasons why problems are in P or BPP. If you have suggested additions or improvements to my rough list of “overarching reasons,” please post them over there — thanks! 1. I’m in Oxford right now, for a Clay Institute workshop on New Insights into Computational Intractability. The workshop is concurrent with three others, including one on Number Theory and Physics that includes an amplituhedron-related talk by Andrew Hodges. (Speaking of which, see here for a small but non-parodic observation about expressing amplitudes as volumes of polytopes.) 2. I was hoping to stay in the UK one more week, to attend the Newton Institute’s special semester on Mathematical Challenges in Quantum Information over in Cambridge. But alas I had to cancel, since my diaper-changing services are needed in the other Cambridge. So, if anyone in Cambridge (or anywhere else in the United Kingdom) really wants to talk to me, come to Oxford this week! 3. Back in June, Jens Eisert and three others posted a preprint claiming that the output of a BosonSampling device would be “indistinguishable from the uniform distribution” in various senses. Ever since then, people have emailing me, leaving comments on this blog, and cornering me at conferences to ask whether Alex Arkhipov and I had any response to these claims. OK, so just this weekend, we posted our own 41-page preprint, entitled “BosonSampling Is Far From Uniform.” I hope it suffices by way of reply! (Incidentally, this is also the paper I hinted at in a previous post: the one where π2/6 and the Euler-Mascheroni constant make cameo appearances.) To clarify, if we just wanted to answer the claims of the Eisert group, then I think a couple paragraphs would suffice for that (see, for example, these PowerPoint slides). In our new paper, however, Alex and I take the opportunity to go further: we study lots of interesting questions about the statistical properties of Haar-random BosonSampling distributions, and about how one might test efficiently whether a claimed BosonSampling device worked, even with hundreds or thousands of photons. 4. Also on the arXiv last night, there was a phenomenal survey about the quantum PCP conjecture by Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, and my former postdoc Thomas Vidick (soon to be a professor at Caltech). I recommend reading it in the strongest possible terms, if you’d like to see how far people have come with this problem (but also, how far they still have to go) since my “Quantum PCP Manifesto” seven years ago. 5. Christos Papadimitriou asked me to publicize that the deadline for early registration and hotel reservations for the upcoming FOCS in Berkeley is fast approaching! Indeed, it’s October 4 (three days from now). See here for details, and here for information about student travel support. (The links were down when I just tried them, but hopefully the server will be back up soon.) ### NSA: Possibly breaking US laws, but still bound by laws of computational complexity Sunday, September 8th, 2013 Update (Sept. 9): Reading more about these things, and talking to friends who are experts in applied cryptography, has caused me to do the unthinkable, and change my mind somewhat. I now feel that, while the views expressed in this post were OK as far as they went, they failed to do justice to the … complexity (har, har) of what’s at stake. Most importantly, I didn’t clearly explain that there’s an enormous continuum between, on the one hand, a full break of RSA or Diffie-Hellman (which still seems extremely unlikely to me), and on the other, “pure side-channel attacks” involving no new cryptanalytic ideas. Along that continuum, there are many plausible places where the NSA might be. For example, imagine that they had a combination of side-channel attacks, novel algorithmic advances, and sheer computing power that enabled them to factor, let’s say, ten 2048-bit RSA keys every year. In such a case, it would still make perfect sense that they’d want to insert backdoors into software, sneak vulnerabilities into the standards, and do whatever else it took to minimize their need to resort to such expensive attacks. But the possibility of number-theoretic advances well beyond what the open world knows certainly wouldn’t be ruled out. Also, as Schneier has emphasized, the fact that NSA has been aggressively pushing elliptic-curve cryptography in recent years invites the obvious speculation that they know something about ECC that the rest of us don’t. And that brings me to a final irony in this story. When a simpleminded complexity theorist like me hears his crypto friends going on and on about the latest clever attack that still requires exponential time, but that puts some of the keys in current use just within reach of gigantic computing clusters, his first instinct is to pound the table and shout: “well then, so why not just increase all your key sizes by a factor of ten? Sweet Jesus, the asymptotics are on your side! if you saw a killer attack dog on a leash, would you position yourself just outside what you guesstimated to be the leash’s radius? why not walk a mile away, if you can?” The crypto experts invariably reply that it’s a lot more complicated than I realize, because standards, and efficiency, and smartphones … and before long I give up and admit that I’m way out of my depth. So it’s amusing that one obvious response to the recent NSA revelations—a response that sufficiently-paranoid people, organizations, and governments might well actually take, in practice—precisely matches the naïve complexity-theorist intuition. Just increase the damn key sizes by a factor of ten (or whatever). Another Update (Sept. 20): In my original posting, I should also have linked to Matthew Green’s excellent post. My bad. Last week, I got an email from a journalist with the following inquiry. The recent Snowden revelations, which made public for the first time the US government’s “black budget,” contained the following enigmatic line from the Director of National Intelligence: “We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit internet traffic.” So, the journalist wanted to know, what could these “groundbreaking” capabilities be? And in particular, was it possible that the NSA was buying quantum computers from D-Wave, and using them to run Shor’s algorithm to break the RSA cryptosystem? I replied that, yes, that’s “possible,” but only in the same sense that it’s “possible” that the NSA is using the Easter Bunny for the same purpose. (For one thing, D-Wave themselves have said repeatedly that they have no interest in Shor’s algorithm or factoring. Admittedly, I guess that’s what D-Wave would say, were they making deals with NSA on the sly! But it’s also what the Easter Bunny would say.) More generally, I said that if the open scientific world’s understanding is anywhere close to correct, then quantum computing might someday become a practical threat to cryptographic security, but it isn’t one yet. That, of course, raised the extremely interesting question of what “groundbreaking capabilities” the Director of National Intelligence was referring to. I said my personal guess was that, with ~99% probability, he meant various implementation vulnerabilities and side-channel attacks—the sort of thing that we know has compromised deployed cryptosystems many times in the past, but where it’s very easy to believe that the NSA is ahead of the open world. With ~1% probability, I guessed, the NSA made some sort of big improvement in classical algorithms for factoring, discrete log, or other number-theoretic problems. (I would’ve guessed even less than 1% probability for the latter, before the recent breakthrough by Joux solving discrete log in fields of small characteristic in quasipolynomial time.) Then, on Thursday, a big New York Times article appeared, based on 50,000 or so documents that Snowden leaked to the Guardian and that still aren’t public. (See also an important Guardian piece by security expert Bruce Schneier, and accompanying Q&A.) While a lot remains vague, there might be more public information right now about current NSA cryptanalytic capabilities than there’s ever been. So, how did my uninformed, armchair guesses fare? It’s only halfway into the NYT article that we start getting some hints: The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian’s Web site in June. “Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,” he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted… Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency’s success depends on working with Internet companies — by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware… Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency’s 2013 budget request was to “influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,” the most common encryption method. Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members. Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.” So, in pointing to implementation vulnerabilities as the most likely possibility for an NSA “breakthrough,” I might have actually erred a bit too far on the side of technological interestingness. It seems that a large part of what the NSA has been doing has simply been strong-arming Internet companies and standards bodies into giving it backdoors. To put it bluntly: sure, if it wants to, the NSA can probably read your email. But that isn’t mathematical cryptography’s fault—any more than it would be mathematical crypto’s fault if goons broke into your house and carted away your laptop. On the contrary, properly-implemented, backdoor-less strong crypto is something that apparently scares the NSA enough that they go to some lengths to keep it from being widely used. I should add that, regardless of how NSA collects all the private information it does—by “beating crypto in a fair fight” (!) or, more likely, by exploiting backdoors that it itself installed—the mere fact that it collects so much is of course unsettling enough from a civil-liberties perspective. So I’m glad that the Snowden revelations have sparked a public debate in the US about how much surveillance we as a society want (i.e., “the balance between preventing 9/11 and preventing Orwell”), what safeguards are in place to prevent abuses, and whether those safeguards actually work. Such a public debate is essential if we’re serious about calling ourselves a democracy. At the same time, to me, perhaps the most shocking feature of the Snowden revelations is just how unshocking they’ve been. So far, I haven’t seen anything that shows the extent of NSA’s surveillance to be greater than what I would’ve considered plausible a priori. Indeed, the following could serve as a one-sentence summary of what we’ve learned from Snowden: Yes, the NSA is, in fact, doing the questionable things that anyone not living in a cave had long assumed they were doing—that assumption being so ingrained in nerd culture that countless jokes are based around it. (Come to think of it, people living in caves might have been even more certain that the NSA was doing those things. Maybe that’s why they moved to caves.) So, rather than dwelling on civil liberties, national security, yadda yadda yadda, let me move on to discuss the implications of the Snowden revelations for something that really matters: a 6-year-old storm in theoretical computer science’s academic teacup. As many readers of this blog might know, Neal Koblitz—a respected mathematician and pioneer of elliptic curve cryptography, who (from numerous allusions in his writings) appears to have some connections at the NSA—published a series of scathing articles, in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society and elsewhere, attacking the theoretical computer science approach to cryptography. Koblitz’s criticisms were varied and entertainingly-expressed: the computer scientists are too sloppy, deadline-driven, self-promoting, and corporate-influenced; overly trusting of so-called “security proofs” (a term they shouldn’t even use, given how many errors and exaggerated claims they make); absurdly overreliant on asymptotic analysis; “bodacious” in introducing dubious new hardness assumptions that they then declare to be “standard”; and woefully out of touch with cryptographic realities. Koblitz seemed to suggest that, rather than demanding the security reductions so beloved by theoretical computer scientists, people would do better to rest the security of their cryptosystems on two alternative pillars: first, standards set by organizations like the NSA with actual real-world experience; and second, the judgments of mathematicians with … taste and experience, who can just see what’s likely to be vulnerable and what isn’t. Back in 2007, my mathematician friend Greg Kuperberg pointed out the irony to me: here we had a mathematician, lambasting computer scientists for trying to do for cryptography what mathematics itself has sought to do for everything since Euclid! That is, when you see an unruly mess of insights, related to each other in some tangled way, systematize and organize it. Turn the tangle into a hierarchical tree (or dag). Isolate the minimal assumptions (one-way functions? decisional Diffie-Hellman?) on which each conclusion can be based, and spell out all the logical steps needed to get from here to there—even if the steps seem obvious or boring. Any time anyone has tried to do that, it’s been easy for the natives of the unruly wilderness to laugh at the systematizing newcomers: the latter often know the terrain less well, and take ten times as long to reach conclusions that are ten times less interesting. And yet, in case after case, the clarity and rigor of the systematizing approach has eventually won out. So it seems weird for a mathematician, of all people, to bet against the systematizing approach when applied to cryptography. The reason I’m dredging up this old dispute now, is that I think the recent NSA revelations might put it in a slightly new light. In his article—whose main purpose is to offer practical advice on how to safeguard one’s communications against eavesdropping by NSA or others—Bruce Schneier offers the following tip: Prefer conventional discrete-log-based systems over elliptic-curve systems; the latter have constants that the NSA influences when they can. Here Schneier is pointing out a specific issue with ECC, which would be solved if we could “merely” ensure that NSA or other interested parties weren’t providing input into which elliptic curves to use. But I think there’s also a broader issue: that, in cryptography, it’s unwise to trust any standard because of the prestige, real-world experience, mathematical good taste, or whatever else of the people or organizations proposing it. What was long a plausible conjecture—that the NSA covertly influences cryptographic standards to give itself backdoors, and that otherwise-inexplicable vulnerabilities in deployed cryptosystems are sometimes there because the NSA wanted them there—now looks close to an established fact. In cryptography, then, it’s not just for idle academic reasons that you’d like a publicly-available trail of research papers and source code, open to criticism and improvement by anyone, that takes you all the way from the presumed hardness of an underlying mathematical problem to the security of your system under whichever class of attacks is relevant to you. Schneier’s final piece of advice is this: “Trust the math. Encryption is your friend.” “Trust the math.” On that note, here’s a slightly-embarrassing confession. When I’m watching a suspense movie (or a TV show like Homeland), and I reach one of those nail-biting scenes where the protagonist discovers that everything she ever believed is a lie, I sometimes mentally recite the proof of the Karp-Lipton Theorem. It always calms me down. Even if the entire universe turned out to be a cruel illusion, it would still be the case that NP ⊂ P/poly would collapse the polynomial hierarchy, and I can tell you exactly why. It would likewise be the case that you couldn’t break the GGM pseudorandom function without also breaking the underlying pseudorandom generator on which it’s based. Math could be defined as that which can still be trusted, even when you can’t trust anything else. ### Twitl-Optimized Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 Today I experiment with “tweeting”: writing <=140-character announcements, but posting them to my blog. Like sending lolcat videos by mail Last week at QCrypt in Waterloo: http://2013.qcrypt.net This week at CQIQC in Toronto: http://tinyurl.com/kfexzv6 Back with Lily in between While we debate D-Wave, ID Quantique et al. quietly sold ~100 quantum crypto devices. Alas, market will remain small unless RSA compromised One speaker explained how a photon detector works by showing this YouTube video: http://tinyurl.com/k8x4btx Couldn’t have done better Luca Trevisan asks me to spread the word about a conference for LGBTs in technology: www.outforundergrad.org/technology Steven Pinker stands up for the Enlightenment in The New Republic: “Science Is Not Your Enemy” http://tinyurl.com/l26ppaf Think Pinker was exaggerating? Read Leon Wieseltier’s defiantly doofusy Brandeis commencement speech: http://tinyurl.com/jwhj8ub Black-hole firewalls make the New York Times, a week before the firewall workshop at KITP (I’ll be there): http://tinyurl.com/kju9crj You probably already saw the Schrodinger cat Google doodle: http://tinyurl.com/k8et44p For me, the ket was much cooler than the cat While working on BosonSampling yesterday, (1/6)pi^2 and Euler-Mascheroni constant made unexpected unappearances. What I live for ### The SuperScott and Morgan Freeman FAQ Monday, August 5th, 2013 Update (Sept. 3): When I said that “about 5000 steps” are needed for the evolutionary approach to color an 8×8 chessboard, I was counting as a step any examination of two random adjacent squares—regardless of whether or not you end up having to change one of the colors. If you count only the changes, then the expected number goes down to about 1000 (which, of course, only makes the point about the power of the evolutionary approach “stronger”). Thanks very much to Raymond Cuenen for bringing this clarification to my attention. Last week I appeared on an episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, a show on the Science Channel. (See also here for a post on Morgan Freeman’s Facebook page.) The episode is called “Did God Create Evolution?” The first person interviewed is the Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe. But not to worry! After him, they have a parade of scientists who not only agree that Chuck Darwin basically had it right in 1859, but want to argue for that conclusion using ROBOTS! and MATH! So, uh, that’s where I come in. My segment features me (or rather my animated doppelgänger, “SuperScott”) trying to color a chessboard two colors, so that no two neighboring squares are colored the same, using three different approaches: (1) an “intelligent design” approach (which computer scientists would call nondeterminism), (2) a brute-force, exhaustive enumeration approach, and (3) an “evolutionary local search” approach. [Spoiler alert: SuperScott discovers that the local search approach, while not as efficient as intelligent design, is nevertheless much more efficient than brute-force search. And thus, he concludes, the arguments of the ID folks to the effect of "I can't see a cleverer way to do it, therefore it must be either brute-force search or else miraculous nondeterminism" are invalid.] Since my appearance together with Morgan Freeman on cable TV raises a large number of questions, I’ve decided to field a few of them in the following FAQ. Q: How can I watch? Amazon Instant Video has the episode here for$1.99.  (No doubt you can also find it on various filesharing sites, but let it be known that I’d never condone such nefarious activity.)  My segment is roughly from 10:40 until 17:40.

Q: Given that you’re not a biologist, and that your research has basically nothing to do with evolution, why did they ask to interview you?

Apparently they wanted a mathematician or computer scientist who also had some experience spouting about Big Ideas.  So they first asked Greg Chaitin, but Chaitin couldn’t do it and suggested me instead.

Q: Given how little relevant expertise you have, why did you agree to be interviewed?

To be honest, I was extremely conflicted.  I kept saying, “Why don’t you interview a biologist?  Or at least a computational biologist, or someone who studies genetic algorithms?”  They replied that they did have more bio-oriented people on the show, but they also wanted me to provide a “mathematical” perspective.  So, I consulted with friends like Sean Carroll, who’s appeared on Through the Wormhole numerous times.  And after reflection, I decided that I do have a way to explain a central conceptual point about algorithms, complexity, and the amount of time needed for natural selection—a point that, while hardly “novel,” is something that many laypeople might not have seen before and that might interest them.  Also, as an additional argument in favor of appearing, MORGAN FREEMAN!

So I agreed to do it, but only under two conditions:

(1) At least one person with a biology background would also appear on the show, to refute the arguments of intelligent design.
(2) I would talk only about stuff that I actually understood, like the ability of local search algorithms to avoid the need for brute-force search.

I’ll let you judge for yourself to what extent these conditions were fulfilled.

Q: Did you get to meet Morgan Freeman?

Alas, no.  But at least I got to hear him refer repeatedly to “SuperScott” on TV.

Q: What was the shooting like?

Extremely interesting.  I know more now about TV production than I did before!

It was a continuing negotiation: they kept wanting to say that I was “on a quest to mathematically prove evolution” (or something like that), and I kept telling them they weren’t allowed to say that, or anything else that would give the misleading impression that what I was saying was either original or directly related to my research.  I also had a long discussion about the P vs. NP problem, which got cut for lack of time (now P and NP are only shown on the whiteboard).  On the other hand, the crew was extremely accommodating: they really wanted to do a good job and to get things right.

The most amusing tidbit: I knew that local search would take O(n4) time to 2-color an nxn chessboard (2-coloring being a special case of 2SAT, to which Schöning’s algorithm applies), but I didn’t know the constant.  So I wrote a program to get the specific number of steps when n=8 (it’s about 5000).  I then repeatedly modified and reran the program during the taping, as we slightly changed what we were talking about.  It was the first coding I’d done in a while.

Q: How much of the segment was your idea, and how much was theirs?

The chessboard was my idea, but the “SuperScott” bit was theirs.  Luddite that I am, I was just going to get down on hands and knees and move apples and oranges around on the chessboard myself.

Also, they wanted me to speak in front of a church in Boston, to make a point about how many people believe that God created the universe.  I nixed that idea and said, why not just do the whole shoot in the Stata Center?  I mean, MIT spent \$300 million just to make the building where I work as “visually arresting” as possible—at the expense of navigability, leakage-resilience, and all sorts of other criteria—so why not take advantage of it?  Plus, that way I’ll be able to crack a joke about how Stata actually looks like it was created by that favorite creationist strawman, a tornado passing through a junkyard.

Needless to say, all the stuff with me drawing complexity class inclusion diagrams on the whiteboard, reading my and Alex Arkhipov’s linear-optics paper, walking around outside with an umbrella, lifting the umbrella to face the camera dramatically—that was all just the crew telling me what to do.  (Well, OK, they didn’t tell me what to write on the whiteboard or view on my computer, just that it should be something sciencey.  And the umbrella thing wasn’t planned: it really just happened to be raining that day.)

Q: Don’t you realize that not a word of what you said was new—indeed, that all you did was to translate the logic of natural selection, which Darwin understood in 1859, into algorithms and complexity language?

Yes, of course, and I’m sorry if the show gave anyone the impression otherwise.  I repeatedly begged them not to claim newness or originality for anything I was saying.  On the other hand, one shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming that what’s obvious to nerds who read science blogs is obvious to everyone else: I know for a fact that it isn’t.

Q: Don’t you understand that you can’t “prove” mathematically that evolution by natural selection is really what happened in Nature?

Of course!  You can’t even prove mathematically that bears crap in the woods (unless crapping in the woods were taken as part of the definition of bears).  To the writers’ credit, they did have Morgan Freeman explain that I wasn’t claiming to have “proved” evolution.  Personally, I wish Freeman had gone even further—to say that, at present, we don’t even have mathematical theories that would explain from first principles why 4 billion years is a “reasonable” amount of time for natural selection to have gotten from the primordial soup to humans and other complex life, whereas (say) 40 million years is not a reasonable amount.  One could imagine such theories, but we don’t really have any.  What we do have is (a) the observed fact that evolution did happen in 4 billion years, and (b) the theory of natural selection, which explains in great detail why one’s initial intuition—that such evolution can’t possibly have happened by “blind, chance natural processes” alone—is devoid of force.

Q: Watching yourself presented in such a goony way—scribbling Complicated Math Stuff on a whiteboard, turning dramatically toward the camera, etc. etc.—didn’t you feel silly?

Some of it is silly, no two ways about it!  On the other hand, I feel satisfied that I got across at least one correct and important scientific point to hundreds of thousands of people.  And that, one might argue, is sufficiently worthwhile that it should outweigh any embarrassment about how goofy I look.