Via Geomblog, I see that David Deutsch has won the 2005 $100,000 Edge of Computation Science Prize (see the post here.) Here is the award citation:
Although the general idea of a quantum computer had been proposed earlier by Richard Feynman, in 1985 David Deutsch wrote the key paper which proposed the idea of a quantum computer and initiated the study of how to make one. Since then he has continued to be a pioneer and a leader in a rapidly growing field that is now called quantum information science.
Presently, small quantum computers are operating in laboratories around the world, and the race is on to find a scalable implementation that, if successful, will revolutionize the technologies of computation and communications. It is fair to say that no one deserves recognition for the growing success of this field more than Deutsch, for his ongoing work as well as for his founding paper. Among his key contributions in the last ten years are a paper with Ekert and Jozsa on quantum logic gates, and a proof of universality in quantum computation, with Barenco and Ekert (both in 1995).
One reason to nominate Deutsch for this prize is that he has always aimed to expand our understanding of the notion of computation in the context of the deepest questions in the foundations of mathematics and physics. Thus, his pioneering work in 1985 was motivated by interest in the Church-Turing thesis. Much of his recent work is motivated by his interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, as we see from his 1997 book.
Congrats to David Deutsch!
Disgusting.
Interesting opinion.
I guess this means any person who has ever received a sum of $100K and not immediately donated it to the help the third world, or those in need, is disgusting?
I’m interested because there must be a line somewhere, and I’m guessing that every person who has access to this blog is pretty much on the side of the line that we should, for lack of a better word, call privileged. Should every such person give up all they own, which they may think is meger, to help those less fortunate? I think that is the only consistent interpretation I can make from this remark.
Or is there some more interesting reason why you think giving this award to David Deutsch is disgusting?
grumpy
I criticized this prize in the strongest terms before it was awarded to Deutsch, so my opinion of Deutsch has nothing to do with this. I’ve explained the revulsion I feel for The Edge and for this prize in my previous posts. Let me expand on some of my previous comments
(1)Frivolous:
Giving a large monetary prize to an already well placed and relatively affluent person fulfills no purpose in my mind. Give him a medal or a plaque. Donate the money to the victims of the many disasters that occurred this *particularly* bad year. How many lives could be saved by buying $100K of winterizing materials for the earthquake victims of Kashmir? 50? 100? Or else, set up some scholarships for promising and needy students in computer science.
(2)Self-Centered:
I can’t respect a jury that awards a large financial prize to one of its members. Or an organization, like The Edge, that awards such a prize to one of its own. The standard practice is to exclude members of the organization.
(3)Pretentious, Pompous, Arrogant
To me, The Edge consists of a bunch of pompous individuals, trying to impress each other, to no purpose. It is certainly not an edgy organization or publication. For one thing, edgy internet publications (like blogs or Slashdot or newsgroups) allow the public to post comments. That is the ethos of the internet. But the editor of the Edge is too arrogant to allow this. He must think there is nothing the outside public can tell him or the members of the edge that they don’t already know. Well, he must have never listened to NPR, where often the most interesting comments are made by call-in listeners, not by the so called experts.
Sweet. Thanks for the response Tucci.
I have a bit of a problem with (1), simply because I believe “we are all sinners” when it comes to not sacrificing enough to help others. Well certainly there are people who are not in this category, but they are few and far between, and I am totally in awe and jealous of their ability to sacrifice. Me I’d rather start at the $2 billion dollars per week being spent in Iraq than the $100K being spent by a rich guy.
I hear in (2) echos of Feynmans famous fight with being on the National Academy of the Sciences. And it’s something I can sympathize with. I suppose this is why I most admire awards given to young researchers. Because this has a greater(?) potential to pay off in the long run for interesting new science.
As for (3), I can say I share similar feelings in some manner about the Edge. On the other hand, there are people who are “members” of the edge who I think are amazingly interesting and fascinating people. I believe that David Deutsch is one such person (even if I do disagree with him over his work on the multiverse!) I believe many of the members of the Edge do it in spite of the seeming arrogance of belonging to such an organization, because being a member brings them in contact with other very interesting people. I wish it was as easy as walking up to the man or woman on the steet to find people who have thought deeply and creatively about anything, but it is my opinion that this just isn’t true. Can I really have a conversation with the call in listeners about the many-worlds hypothesis? (OK, perhaps on other issues I’m selling the call in listeners short!) Yep, I’m a firm member of the meritocracy. Sad, but true. Such a long way from my roots in rural America.