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 …
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Do you have a problem with Deutsch's multiverse explanation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
I don't understand Deutsch so far. The parts I understand seem obvious, but I still fail to get the point of the whole enterprise. I am sure it is my fault and it will click. (His perspective on QM is different than mine, but I am less qualified than him to have a perspective.)
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
My guess is that the parts that sound obvious are primarily Popper and so nothing new to you. Same for Darwin/Dawkins/Turing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
If I would describe my own perspective, it is basically a finitist version of the Church Turing thesis as the fundamental law, and you can derive physics by generating all universe states and recovering the universe that must contain us as a thread by following its memories.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
It is all integers, and you get quantum effects due to there being no space and no definite observer state, and irreducible uncertainty of the observer about its own ground state.
6 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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).
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.