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

31–40 of 80 posts

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

#31

Post by colordrops »

AgentME wrote: post #23

My understanding of QM is only surface-level, so there may be subtleties I'm missing, but this presentation's arguments against the many-worlds interpretation seem pretty weak. Page 28 grudgingly alludes to the idea that MWI could be simpler than other theories ("Objection based on surprisingly common misconception that standard QM defined solely by Schrödinger's equation ... It is only within a many-worlds framework…

Occam's razor is so commonly misused and abused. It seems to be more often used to support whatever pet theory someone has rather than as an impartial tool.

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

#32

Post by colordrops »

Koshkin wrote: post #2

I am sure that laymen like it - because it seems to offer an "intuitive" picture of the wave-particle dualism. Problem is, neither QFT nor modern deeper theories such as strings gain anything from this kind of metaphysical image.

I'm layman but am biased against it being true as it is not as fun and exotic as many worlds, regardless of merit.

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

#33

Post by justinpombrio »

Xcelerate wrote: post #26
justinpombrio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> if you make some reasonable assumptions Not everyone agrees on what is "reasonable". I have no problem giving up locality, but "true" randomness (i.e., information generated without an algorithm) seems like a philosophical cop out. Note that something can also be globally deterministic but indeterministic from the perspective of a subsystem. In this sense, the universe would appear random as far as we're concerned,…

The probability of an event depends on your knowledge. Whether something is deterministic is a question of probability. Hence whether something is deterministic can depend on your knowledge. If the universe is deterministic to its simulator but random to us, I would call it random. Besides this difference in terminology, I think we agree.

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

#34

Post by stephengillie »

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…

Going to piggyback with a question unrelated to yours but tangental to the topic:

What about the universes in the multiverse where 'multiverse theory' is wrong, and there is no multiverse? Are they islands? Are they like multiverse 'diodes' which may allow only one-way travel into that universe, but from which return to the larger multiverse is impossible?

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

#35

Post by deepnotderp »

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…

Check out Andrew Friedman's work on "Closing the Free Will Loophole". It might be interesting.

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by deepnotderp »

hossbeast wrote: post #20
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.

Copy-on-Write

No, it would have to be a true semantic fork I believe.

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

#39

Post by jakeva »

stephengillie wrote: post #34
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…

Going to piggyback with a question unrelated to yours but tangental to the topic: What about the universes in the multiverse where 'multiverse theory' is wrong, and there is no multiverse? Are they islands? Are they like multiverse 'diodes' which may allow only one-way travel into that universe, but from which return to the larger multiverse is impossible?

This sounds a lot like the question of "does the set of all sets contain itself?" which is naturally a part of Russell's paradox. I can't offer more, but I don't think the concepts are dissimilar.

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

#40

Post by QAPereo »

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…

Real physics nerd, non-popsci answer: everything that is obersed rather than conjectured about the universe implies that it has no "outside" and your question is a bit like asking what is North of the North Pole. It just isn't a meaningful concept, like "before the big bang" or "what did the universe expand into."
Post reply on HN