and can detect our interactions with it and responds accordingly retroactively (against time's arrow)
-
-
like, in one sense that is in fact more parsimonious than Copenhagen or many worlds' "spookiness"
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Forgive me for jumping in here; enthralling conversation I happened across . . .
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @ebdibit @arthur_affect and
Got me thinking that part of the key to understanding the quantum world might be . . .
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @ebdibit @arthur_affect and
figuring out what exactly *is* probability.
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
my layman's take on it is that the many worlds model sounds most parsimonious
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
saying that this is the best description of how it works isn't the same
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
as saying infinite "parallel universes" actually exist though
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
especially since what we know abt quantum effects is that they overwhelmingly cancel out
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
into a singular "most likely" and indeed deterministic universe at the macro scale
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
the question of whether "possible worlds" actually "exist" pre-dates quantum physics
-
-
and imo it's fairly independent of it
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
modal realism isn't necessary for the MWI and the MWI doesn't support it as much as ppl think
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes - Show replies
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.