Live data from Hacker News

Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

frontiersin.org

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

#21
post #20
post #18

I would so love for this to be true, but it's far outside my area of expertise. The important thing, though, is there have to be useful experimental predictions. The only reason I could ever reconcile my understanding of reality with QM is that it's an extremely good theory for making predictions.

QM interpretations don't really make predictions. They all use the same underlying math. They just rearrange the terms so that some of them correspond to something familiar, with the hopes of minimizing the confounding effects of the others. They're all like trying to fold a map onto a globe: somewhere, something isn't going to fit. You just try to squeeze it into the parts you don't care as much about. Except somebo…

I didnt mean quantum interpretations (which are boring to me). I mean: transisitor theory is quantum theory and we wouldn't have developed the transistor to the point we have if QM wasn't a great model for solid state physics.

Nobody thinks event outcomes are distributed FTL, that's the whole point of QM.

Re: Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

#22
post #21
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QM interpretations don't really make predictions. They all use the same underlying math. They just rearrange the terms so that some of them correspond to something familiar, with the hopes of minimizing the confounding effects of the others. They're all like trying to fold a map onto a globe: somewhere, something isn't going to fit. You just try to squeeze it into the parts you don't care as much about. Except somebo…

I didnt mean quantum interpretations (which are boring to me). I mean: transisitor theory is quantum theory and we wouldn't have developed the transistor to the point we have if QM wasn't a great model for solid state physics. Nobody thinks event outcomes are distributed FTL, that's the whole point of QM.

There are interpretations that make use of FTL communications, though they're not the most popular (and still don't actually allow you to communicate FTL).

It was just a way of making a contrast with superdeterminism, but I think I was talking at cross-purposes, so I made my own point moot. Sorry 'bout that.

Re: Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

#23
post #22
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didnt mean quantum interpretations (which are boring to me). I mean: transisitor theory is quantum theory and we wouldn't have developed the transistor to the point we have if QM wasn't a great model for solid state physics. Nobody thinks event outcomes are distributed FTL, that's the whole point of QM.

There are interpretations that make use of FTL communications, though they're not the most popular (and still don't actually allow you to communicate FTL). It was just a way of making a contrast with superdeterminism, but I think I was talking at cross-purposes, so I made my own point moot. Sorry 'bout that.

If there's an interpretation that implies events are transmitted using FTL, then that interpretation almost certainly predicts that we could exploit the phenomenon (in the same way we exploit many other QM phenomena) to send data FTL. Much as I would like that to be true, until somebody shows it with an experiment the community can understand, believe, and reproduce, such theories are ... not useful.

Re: Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

#24
post #23
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are interpretations that make use of FTL communications, though they're not the most popular (and still don't actually allow you to communicate FTL). It was just a way of making a contrast with superdeterminism, but I think I was talking at cross-purposes, so I made my own point moot. Sorry 'bout that.

If there's an interpretation that implies events are transmitted using FTL, then that interpretation almost certainly predicts that we could exploit the phenomenon (in the same way we exploit many other QM phenomena) to send data FTL. Much as I would like that to be true, until somebody shows it with an experiment the community can understand, believe, and reproduce, such theories are ... not useful.

I was referring to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

which uses FTL terminology, but doesn't support FTL communications. So it's not "real" FTL.

Re: Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

#25
post #24
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's an interpretation that implies events are transmitted using FTL, then that interpretation almost certainly predicts that we could exploit the phenomenon (in the same way we exploit many other QM phenomena) to send data FTL. Much as I would like that to be true, until somebody shows it with an experiment the community can understand, believe, and reproduce, such theories are ... not useful.

I was referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory which uses FTL terminology, but doesn't support FTL communications. So it's not "real" FTL.

De Broglie Bohm is highly underrated. It's deterministic but nonlocal, so it's not FTL (we agree on that). Personally, I prefer it to the Copenhagen interpretation and it even makes some interesting predictions that are supported by experiment. I see DBB as being on a continuum of deterministic theories.

Re: Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clearly evident by the fact brain damage can radically alter your personality. That wouldn't make sense with free will. Definitely, in the sense of some "other" thing other than your brain making the decisions. Its clearly our brains doing the thinking and deciding. >You aren't one individual part of the system that has everything fed into you, you are the entire whole of moving parts in unison perceiving itse…

Eh, if you don't get it you don't get it. I'll give it one more try to explain myself clearly: You are entering the question assuming your experience is a single point. But that feeling and thought only exists because there is the emergent abstraction of the state of your brain having that feeling and thought. You perceive a singular point of existence because that is the only way your existence can be perceived by t…

> we've established that your "soul" cannot change the system, it's an observer

That's only one possibility actually. Its very possible if there is some "soul" that it interacts with the system. As we know from QM, measurement changes the measured - there's no way to measure/perceive something without interacting with it in some way. But its possible that a philosophical zombie would actually not have the same perception and would not act the same. They might do most of the same things, but they may not be able to talk about the same kind of perceptual experience with coherent clarity.

> Your brain cannot actually understand anything about its observer

How do you know?

> if you, say, take hard drugs, the state of that system can be different and you may not feel a singular perception point

That's pretty interesting. Does taking enough acid get you there?

> because you have a human ego and your biological brain evolved to think of itself as a single construct with an individual perception

Maybe so, but even knowing that, it doesn't explain how it happens, only that it happens.

> you're still stuck in the mindset that you have a soul that can affect your thoughts

I'm not sure I believe in a soul, but in thinking about this kind of stuff, a soul-like thing does seem a lot more plausible to me than it did before I thought about the phenomenal experience in depth.

> Every combination of everything would have its own "perception" of existence in my philosophy

How does this relate to your thoughts on the brain, where you said the brain evolved to think of itself as a singular being with a singular perception. Surely this doesn't apply to, for example, rocks.

> "I" exist because my brain exists. I cannot not exist because my brain does exists. That state is real. It has to be this way.

I don't think anyone's arguing that you don't exist. Nor is anyone arguing that the phenomenal experience isn't real. The question is how is it created, not whether.

> Your example of you and the chair is poor

Ok.. harsh...

> You are not experiencing the existence of individual parts of your brain or the chair and you as one thing, because your brain does not include that state and therefore the experience cannot be interpreted by a physical thing.

So what evidence is there that such a combination of experience even exists? If no being we can interact with can tell us about that experience, I don't think we can say whether or not it exists.

Post reply on HN