Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 80 posts

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#11

Post by Rhapso »

olegkikin wrote: post #9

I have an unrelated question to the physics nerds. Is it even possible to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not from inside the universe? Let's imagine a simplified example. I give you two sets of numbers (let's pretend they are atom coordinates). One set is purely random, another one is generated with a very simple formula (example: f(n) = SHA256(N + salt)). I will give you as many of the numbers as…

with certainty? no. There always exists the possibility that random numbers will follow a given pattern.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#12

Post by Houshalter »

Govindae wrote: post #10
olegkikin wrote: post #9

I have an unrelated question to the physics nerds. Is it even possible to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not from inside the universe? Let's imagine a simplified example. I give you two sets of numbers (let's pretend they are atom coordinates). One set is purely random, another one is generated with a very simple formula (example: f(n) = SHA256(N + salt)). I will give you as many of the numbers as…

Any randomness could in principle be predetermined. God could have rolled the dice ahead of time.

It can also be explained by branching. Run a simulation of a universe, and every time a random bit is required, fork into two separate processes. One where the "random" bit is 1 and another where the bit is 0. From the inside, it would seem indistinguishable from true randomness. But the system as a whole is purely deterministic.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#13

Post by quickben »

olegkikin wrote: post #9

I have an unrelated question to the physics nerds. Is it even possible to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not from inside the universe? Let's imagine a simplified example. I give you two sets of numbers (let's pretend they are atom coordinates). One set is purely random, another one is generated with a very simple formula (example: f(n) = SHA256(N + salt)). I will give you as many of the numbers as…

No. There is even a proof we can't know the rules outside that formed these rules.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#14

Post by hasenj »

Houshalter wrote: post #12
Govindae wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any randomness could in principle be predetermined. God could have rolled the dice ahead of time.

It can also be explained by branching. Run a simulation of a universe, and every time a random bit is required, fork into two separate processes. One where the "random" bit is 1 and another where the bit is 0. From the inside, it would seem indistinguishable from true randomness. But the system as a whole is purely deterministic.

How would forking occur? Forking requires copying data. Does the universe get cloned infinitely many copies all the time? That's quite an extraordinary claim.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#15

Post by quickben »

hasenj wrote: post #14
Houshalter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be explained by branching. Run a simulation of a universe, and every time a random bit is required, fork into two separate processes. One where the "random" bit is 1 and another where the bit is 0. From the inside, it would seem indistinguishable from true randomness. But the system as a whole is purely deterministic.

How would forking occur? Forking requires copying data. Does the universe get cloned infinitely many copies all the time? That's quite an extraordinary claim.

You have to consider his concept as an analogy. Infinity is a thing inside this universe, it may not be outside.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#16

Post by hasenj »

quickben wrote: post #15
hasenj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would forking occur? Forking requires copying data. Does the universe get cloned infinitely many copies all the time? That's quite an extraordinary claim.

You have to consider his concept as an analogy. Infinity is a thing inside this universe, it may not be outside .

The problem is not with infinity per se.

If the universe gets cloned one time every second that would still be a huge claim.

A million times every nanosecond is even a bigger claim.

Now imagine how many states the universe can be in, and how many times a second can be meaningfully divided.

If you can solve the "one clone every second" then I would be satisfied.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#17

Post by justinpombrio »

Govindae wrote: post #10
olegkikin wrote: post #9

I have an unrelated question to the physics nerds. Is it even possible to determine whether the universe is deterministic or not from inside the universe? Let's imagine a simplified example. I give you two sets of numbers (let's pretend they are atom coordinates). One set is purely random, another one is generated with a very simple formula (example: f(n) = SHA256(N + salt)). I will give you as many of the numbers as…

Any randomness could in principle be predetermined. God could have rolled the dice ahead of time.

Amazingly, we have an experiment that shows that this is not the case, if you make some pretty reasonable assumptions. It's based on Bell's theorem. Your statement is very intuitive, and the fact that it may be wrong is very surprising.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Bell_inequa...

EDIT: tone.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#18

Post by madhadron »

Barrin92 wrote: post #8
meri_dian wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equivalently we can say that neither QFT nor string theory gains anything from the empty hand-waviness of the copehagen interpretation, Everett's many-world's, etc.

Those also don't really play a role in the professional life of a physicist, nowadays you really do stare at computer screens a lot and try to find things in data, it's not like physicists sit around and discuss many-world theory as part of their day job. These are just the popular things that make it out into public discourse

Depends on the physicist. Those working on foundations of quantum mechanics do. There just aren't many of them.

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#19

Post by [deleted] »

hasenj wrote: post #14
Houshalter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be explained by branching. Run a simulation of a universe, and every time a random bit is required, fork into two separate processes. One where the "random" bit is 1 and another where the bit is 0. From the inside, it would seem indistinguishable from true randomness. But the system as a whole is purely deterministic.

How would forking occur? Forking requires copying data. Does the universe get cloned infinitely many copies all the time? That's quite an extraordinary claim.

[deleted]

Re: Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]

#20

Post by hossbeast »

hasenj wrote: post #14
Houshalter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be explained by branching. Run a simulation of a universe, and every time a random bit is required, fork into two separate processes. One where the "random" bit is 1 and another where the bit is 0. From the inside, it would seem indistinguishable from true randomness. But the system as a whole is purely deterministic.

How would forking occur? Forking requires copying data. Does the universe get cloned infinitely many copies all the time? That's quite an extraordinary claim.

Copy-on-Write
Post reply on HN