91–100 of 209 posts
Show, don't tell. I don't know how things work in physics (maybe they need a grant) but in mathematics, if you make a ruckus without any actual mathematics, then people ignore you. If you have a proof or text that does something substantial, then people do ignore you at first but in the long run the best mathematical base of knowledge takes preference.
I find this Quora answer convincingly reflects my thinking as to why Superdeterminism can't possibly be correct given Bell’s theorem[1] Skimming the actual paper[2] I'm not really seeing a convincing explanation, this in particular just strikes me as hard to believe / failing Occam's razor: The belief that such tests tell us something about (the implausibility of) Superdeterminism goes back, once again, to the idea t…
I'm not sure if everything being deterministic is an abhorrent, invalid option, but I also don't see why reality has to be local. I mean, the limitation of light speed is something that exists to make a consistent theory, not something that somehow has value in itself...? My problem is probably not just a lack of math, but a lack of taste.
I find this Quora answer convincingly reflects my thinking as to why Superdeterminism can't possibly be correct given Bell’s theorem[1] Skimming the actual paper[2] I'm not really seeing a convincing explanation, this in particular just strikes me as hard to believe / failing Occam's razor: The belief that such tests tell us something about (the implausibility of) Superdeterminism goes back, once again, to the idea t…
I'm not sure if everything being deterministic is an abhorrent, invalid option, but I also don't see why reality has to be local. I mean, the limitation of light speed is something that exists to make a consistent theory, not something that somehow has value in itself...? My problem is probably not just a lack of math, but a lack of taste.
The limitation of causation to a constant speed is well proven in experiments, and seems to be a fundamental aspect of the universe at large scales. If this same limitation doesn't hold at small scales then either:
1. There must be some cutoff between large scale and small scale, and small scale events can't influence large scale events. 2. Instantaneous action at a distance exists at large scales as well, and so our theories are wrong (we need a new theory to explain the observations of the speed of light etc.).
This is all not to mention that we have not noticed any particle moving past the speed of light, and that we have measured the same constant speed of light at quantum levels as well (a photon measured from a moving detector has the same speed as one measured from a static detector).
So that way lies nothing good. On the other hand, rejecting local realism doesn't mean that QM rejects the speed of light being constant - quantum entanglement can't carry information, so it can't produce actions at a distance.
Also, note that the most common interpretation of QM is neither local nor 'real' - that is, it implies both that particles have no definite state until they are measured, and that QE propagates at infinitite speed. That is, when you fire two entangled photons, neither of the photons has any value for polarization until they are measured; however, when one is measured, it acquires a particular spin, and the other one also acquires the corresponding spin instantaneously, possibly on the other side of the galaxy.
Now, one problem with all this is that it is extremely non-intuitive, and does not apply to the large-scale world (an apple is red whether I look at it or not). Related to the second issue, there is the problem of measurement: in a theory which rejects realism, the act of measurement has a fundamental physical effect, but there is no explanation for this mechanism, it is simply postulated. Note that a photon interacting with another photon is not measurment, they will each retain a superposition of states until a measurement happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may find this interesting https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9cgBF6BQ2TRB3Hy4E/and-the-wi...
Wait, is MWI compatible with superdeterminism? That is, the sequence above seems to show that MWI is an effective way to calculate, but does not actually rule out superdeterminism underneath it — just like ordinary quantum mechanics is an effective way to calculate in certain domains of applicability but cannot effectively claim to be the “underlying reality”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simpler (as in fewer rules; not that it results in a "simpler" smaller world) than a lot of other interpretations: it doesn't need to specify an explicit concept of wave collapse.
Instead it does have to specify the explicit concept of how these many worlds fork off from each other. MWI is a lot more mind-boggling if you truly think about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm definitely not distinguishing between determinism and superdeterminism. The wikipedia page on superdeterminism starts out: "In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a hypothetical class of theories that evade Bell's theorem by virtue of being completely deterministic" Logically, something that is "completely deterministic" would have to be...deterministic, no? Does superdeterminism go to 11?
Superdeterminism is determinism, plus a radically different way of thinking about experimental results. To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see if yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if everything being deterministic is an abhorrent, invalid option, but I also don't see why reality has to be local. I mean, the limitation of light speed is something that exists to make a consistent theory, not something that somehow has value in itself...? My problem is probably not just a lack of math, but a lack of taste.
> I mean, the limitation of light speed is something that exists to make a consistent theory, not something that somehow has value in itself...? The limitation of causation to a constant speed is well proven in experiments, and seems to be a fundamental aspect of the universe at large scales. If this same limitation doesn't hold at small scales then either: 1. There must be some cutoff between large scale and small s…
What I don't get at all is the bit about quantum entanglement not carrying any information. Apparently, that has to do something with the fact that the collapse of the wave function is a random process? But, if you have probability then you have information, yes? What's the explanation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say it like so: pi has many transcendental neighbors, which are in no way related to pi. But e and pi, despite being numerically distant, are in one sense "close" - related - via Euler's formula. So there's a "local closeness" - the arithmetic difference of pi and its neighbor - but also a "relationship closeness" where pi and e are intimately linked. Perhaps quantum states obey the relationship closeness, no…
> But e and pi, despite being numerically distant, are in one sense "close" - related - via Euler's formula. So there's a "local closeness" - the arithmetic difference of pi and its neighbor - but also a "relationship closeness" where pi and e are intimately linked. I don't understand how Euler's formula establishes a special relationship. You can compute a function of any two numbers. Where f(a,b) = a^{ib}, then f(e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no evidence MWI is the best guess compared to other interpretations
It's simpler (as in fewer rules; not that it results in a "simpler" smaller world) than a lot of other interpretations: it doesn't need to specify an explicit concept of wave collapse.
A much more detailed way of saying about the same thing as the above sentence: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-m...