I am partial to the idea that the quantum state is a state of knowledge (about a system that we can only observe during the time slices in which we exist, and with uncertainty about our own state), but Nielsen opens an important discussion that is rarely make explicit.https://twitter.com/AndreasAtETH/status/1073455979919040512 …
I think I can see how to recover a decent Lorentz invariance and in the limit Minkowski space, but have no proof. I don't need ontologically branching universes at every quantum event, but there are could be new big bangs going in the gaps of our expanding universe.
-
-
Here we are operating from different information basis and orientations. There may be common ground using evolution of knowledge and epistomology. Ontology ( not computatational ontol.) is not meaningful to me these days. Cannot know thing in itself.
-
There is a difference between a mathematical description that makes you use more symbols and an ontological description that makes you use more memory. It is not obvious to me that the universe needs more state in every step (even though it is possible).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.