News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On the Nature of Time by skissane on Tuesday October 08, 2024 @07:53PM (#41783048)
We don’t know for a fact that QM contains irreducible indeterminism. If many worlds is true, then QM is ultimately deterministic. Same if hidden variables is true. A large class of local hidden variable theories have been ruled out by Bell’s theorem, but non-local hidden variable theories survive it (such as the Bohm interpretation and the transactional interpretation), as do local hidden variable theories which deny the Bell theorem’s assumptions about the nature of measurement, such as superdeterminist local hidden variable theories.
Re:On the Nature of Time by goatlover on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @12:29AM (#41784509)
An MWI universe would be hard to simulate though. There's an unknown vast number of branches.
Re:On the Nature of Time by zeven7 on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @03:47AM (#41785482)
Maybe with a quantum computer in a larger multi worlds universe?
Re:On the Nature of Time by FrustratedMonky on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @07:57AM (#41786899)
Wasn't the Noble prize last year for eliminating local hidden variables? That spooky action at a distance does occur?

And for many worlds. Doesn't it punt randomness into other universes, but doesn't help us solve for results in our own individual universe. Since we can't measure what happens in the other universe we don't really know. If there were two results, and one is in one universe, and one in our universe, sure we determinedly know both results. But we don't know which universe we are in, so instead of a random result, now we have 2 answers and 2 universes, but now randomly don't know where we are?

Re:On the Nature of Time by kaibee on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @12:23PM (#41789680)
> now we have 2 answers and 2 universes, but now randomly don't know where we are?

We are in both. Both universes are equally real. Each 'copy' of you knows it's in the universe where the result matches the observation.

Re:On the Nature of Time by FrustratedMonky on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @01:08PM (#41790197)
I'm pretty sure this is not true. Nobody has proven this.

If in my universe I could always predict the correct results, then we would just have determinism, and I could predict exactly when an atom would decay. There would be no need for statistics.

Some high level background that might help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-syaCoqkZA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=433tAfO4dbA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvG1A795tqE

Re:On the Nature of Time by skissane on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @06:02PM (#41793178)
> Wasn't the Noble prize last year for eliminating local hidden variables? That spooky action at a distance does occur?

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was for experimental verification of Bell's theorem. The experiment did not rule out superdeterministic local hidden variables; superdeterministic local hidden variables does not violate Bell's theorem, since Bell's theorem assumes "free will" (that there is no correlation between arbitrary choices made by an experimenter and the state of the system being measured), but superdeterminism is the denial of that assumption.