The article doesn't mention two great features on iOS:
- Move cursor by tap-and-hold on soace bar
- tap-tap for word selection and tap-tap-tap for sentence selection.
Isn't the explanation for this that the world actually does work in some way or other and that it's not just infinite chaos and so if you keep throwing parameters at some
problem, you will eventually stumble upon the "real" structure, but that's no guarantee of when that occurs, and with which parameters?
The reason you want to over-parameterize your model is that it protects you from "bad bounce" learning trajectories. You effectively spread out your overfitting risk until it's pretty close to 0.
Or at least that's the way I like to think of it.
The next step is to better compress the resulting model
in a simpler, less computationally costly network.
If you read between the lines, it's clear that Spotify was able to make a normal watch app. But they wanted to make one that had special functionality not yet allowed by Apple, for any app, not just Spotify.
But what does 'corresponds more closely to the mathematics' mean? The relevant point is just that the mathematics, alone, doesn't settle the theoretical question.
In general, it's hard to use Occam's razor in a non-question-begging way.
Precisely how to understand causation is controversial.
But I'll just say that most philosophers don't find anything incoherent in the idea of nonlocal causation. (Hume's classic attack on local causation might be worth a look.) See BoiledCabbages comment for a nice explanation of a model that involves nonlocal causation.
> we have to assume some sort of isomorphism between the map (our theory) and the territory (the world)
But a mathematical model != a theoretical model. The very same mathematical model will be compatible with uncountably many theoretical models. (By 'theoretical model' I mean something like 'an interpretation of what the math is representing'.)So you can't read off theoretical structure from mathematical structure. And so you can't read off the structure of the world from mathematical structure.
> if you already accept "superposition" at the level of quantum states, you don't have to invoke anything new to deal with so-called "collapse"
All three interpretations of QM 'accept' superposition, construed as a mathematical construct. What's at issue is how this mathematical construct maps onto reality.
If you mean something more by 'accepting superposition', you have to spell out what that is. And doing that just leads you right back to the three different interpretations.
The standard story about measurement/observation and quantum collapse is not the only interpretation of the available data.
There are, broadly, three kinds of interpretations of what's 'really' going on behind the scenes:
1. Collapse - The world exists in an indeterminate state until observation occurs, when the world collapses into one a single determinate state. The probabilities of quantum mechanics map onto the the different parts of the unobserved indeterminate state.
2. Many Worlds - Quantum phenomena cause the world the branch into multiple worlds. The probabilities of quantum mechanics represent the 'share' of reality that branches in each direction.
3. Hidden variables - The probabilities of quantum mechanics are artifacts of our inability to know all the relevant variables. Measurement necessarily involves causal contact, and causal contact will always disturb some of the relevant variables in unpredictable ways. It would be cool if we could observe what goes on when measurement occurs, but to do that would require measurement! So we're stuck with hidden variables.
The public tends to hear the collapse interpretation most often. Physicists tend to like the many worlds interpretations. Philosophers of science tend to like the hidden variables interpretation, because the other options require an incoherent metaphysics. (I'm a Philosophy PhD student.)
People say that the hidden variables interpretation is ruled out on experimental grounds, but this is demonstrably false. Experimental data shows that hidden variables, if they exist, violate locality:
Locality - Causal interaction is a local phenomena. No action at a distance.
So long as you're willing to abandon locality, hidden variables can work. Given that the other two interpretations posit equally weird things, abandoning locality won't seem so weird.
For more on this, see Tim Maudlin's excellent paper, "Three Measurement Problems"
I'm no expert, but I think this is a "known bug". Russian oligarchs buying property in London, for instance, is a big reason for that market's insane prices.
One 'solution' is property taxes, which disincentivizes buying property that you leave unoccupied. Planet Money had a good episode on the property tax and how it's a surprisingly effective tax.