I’ve been coming across a lot of Scott Aaronson‘s writing lately, namely:

- He’s skeptical about D-Wave
- Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong
- Eight Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof Is Wrong
- Soap bubbles don’t prove P=NP
- Has there been progress of the P vs. NP question?
- Who can name the bigger number?

I enjoyed what I read, so I picked up his book from earlier this year entitled Quantum Computing since Democritus. I’ve only read the preface so far, and a few things that he said stuck out.

He remarks that when he was preparing lectures (that eventually became the book), that to him “it was self-evident that the human brain is nothing other than a ‘hot, wet Turing machine.'” He tries to make other connections between computational complexity theory and “the big questions”:

…computational complexity lets us systematically take ‘deep philosophical mysteries’ about the limits of knowledge, and convert them into ‘merely’ insanely difficult unsolved mathematical problems…[such as the P versus NP problem]

Here’s a presentation that he gave for TEDxCaltech on computational complexity with a Richard Feynman theme.