I don't understand how you can study this shit when there are so many massive implications and there is no actual decision on what it all means. Everyone likes the Copenhagen interpretation because it's basic and makes the engineers happy, but it does fuck all to actually explain what's going on. It doesn't bother to properly address the measurement problem. The many-worlds hypothesis gets rid of collapse and measurement entirely, but leads to implications which make no sense. The fact that there's a disconnect between science (classical physics) and mathematics (quantum mechanics) and still no proper answer is infuriating. We're being told that centuries of science doesn't exactly check out anymore at the fundamental level, but there's still no decision on what this means at the fundamental philosophical level. It's legitimately a joke just how juvenile some of this shit is because the scientific community won't come to a decision on what's actually going on. All that I can conclude is that math is purely concerned with dealing with potential things rather than actual things. If you apply QM at the universal level, it mathematically checks out, but it gives you a universe where everything happens. That does not correspond with us having a single intelligible universe. So it seems that math is fundamentally about predicting the future, and so a universe of only math is a universe where everything exists, so that anything can be properly expressed even if it never actually happens.
There is no proper interpretation of quantum mechanicsInterpretation is used to make something you don't understand resemble something you do understandSimiles and examples aren't the truth, they're learning aidsThe human brain is made to understand and work with the normal 3D world at the human scale. QM is far outside of that. You cannot intuitively understand QM, and trying to interpret it just hides the truth behind a layer of metaphorYou want to understand QM? Learn the math, use the math.
>>16856849>if you want to understand a thing, reject the goal of understanding and focus on symbol shufflingYou've gained a delusion of understanding by convincing yourself that understanding doesn't mean what it means. Analogies and metaphors are the root of understanding and the substance of truth. "The math" means nothing.
>>16856876Your brain just isn't wired to have an intuition of WM any more than it is wired to comprehend 5D space or omnidirectional time. We evolved to do animal things at animal scales. You can lie to yourself and make up stories but the only real accurate understanding of WM is through math.
>>16856811The problem is that scientists these days are too dumb to work it out. I could easily work it out within a few hours, probably less, but I've got more important things to do
>>16856878>Your brain just isn't wired to have an intuition of WM any more than it is wired to comprehend 5D space or omnidirectional time.Is it wired to have an intuition for how to drive a truck or how to kite-surf? What about an intuition for trigonometry, or chess, or boolean algebra? When your brain is wired with some intuition, they call it an instinct. But general intelligence isn't a collection of instincts. Its essence is in the nimble generalization of structures and relationships, their application across domains. General intelligence builds up new intuitions on top of old ones, hence it is general. To measure the depth of your understanding of an idea, test how integrated it is with other ideas. It really comes down to how many useful metaphors and analogies you can find. To know a thing is to know what that thing is like.
>>16856897Then stick with your fucking useless metaphors. Incredible how you think you're so smart that you should be able to grasp quantum mechanics intuitively when you can't even understand the math
>>16856900>mindless symbol shuffler fails to grasp anything of what it has readPar for the course.
>>16856849Math isn't reality though, it's a language that describes reality. The fact that QM works means that the math backing QM describes reality, but the way it works seems to contradict what we know about reality i.e. classical physics. If the math says "at the fundamental level things exist in multiple states simultaneously" then that's the truth about reality. The problem shows up because it doesn't match my experience of reality. It doesn't make sense to say "well you just can't grasp it" when we can clearly grasp all sorts of abstract ideas. So we have ideas, but we don't yet have a clear picture of how the whole system works.
>>16856811Because there are multiple possibilities which are experimentally indistinguishable or hard to distinguish. Many-works is one. There's also pilot waves, objective collapse, and weak values. Until someone finds experimental evidence that one is better than the others, which may not even be possible, the question will remain open.
>>16856945*Many worlds is one.
>>16856811>it does fuck all to actually explain what's going onAs opposed to "WHOAAAAAH INFINITE PARALLEL UNIVERSES WOOOAAAAAAH EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME WOOOOOOAAAAAAH I'M SOOOOO SPECIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!"?
>>16856811Because all "interpretations" implicitly assume that human memory is (mostly) consistent. They think we don't "observe" superposition because we don't remember observing superposition. I'm saying we observe superposition constantly and just don't remember the inconsistent parts.This is the only "interpretation" of QM that removes unwarranted assumptions (human memory is stable) rather than adding more.
>>16856811we must invent, Quantum...TWO!
>>16856955How is what you just wrote different from many-worlds?
>>16856955You're a genius, anon, but I'm afraid you fell short of taking your insight to its ultimate conclusion. Reality is actually incoherent. There are no real patterns in nature. It's just that your incoherent brain deludes you into thinking you are making consistent observations that allow you to infer any physical laws at all. Since we've discarded the consistency of memory, we can now safely discard anything based on this consistency, including physics and language.
>>16856955Every time a photon bounces,Multiverse memory drops in ounces.Garbage collection nice and neat,Intelligent squids now walking my beat.I do not blink at this odd site,Cause internal consistency tells me it's right.
>>16856962there's only one world where every outcome is coterminous. not many worlds each where one single outcome exists>>16856972thanks ChatGPT
>>16856974>there's only one world where every outcome is coterminous. not many worlds each where one single outcome existsThe different worlds of many-worlds are only apparent worlds. There is not an actual separation between them. What you are describing is not different from many-worlds.
>>16856974>ChatGPTYou insult me, bro. Blood and THC. No LLM.
>>16856979The MWI is local realist, thus giving rise to the preferred basis problem. My interpretation is non-realist
the only measurement problem here is measuring my patience for silly threadsall you're doing is sampling likelihoods from hilbert space, that's all, that is IT. whatever hosts quantum physics behaves like a hilbert space, in the same way that our world to us looks like a euclidean space.
>>16857001>hatever hosts quantum physics behaves like a hilbert space, in the same way that our world to us looks like a euclidean space.Euclidean space is a Hilbert space, you laughable pseud.
>>16856992Non-realist about what? What are you claiming isn't real? The wave function / state vector? Something else?
>>16857039The absolute state of this board is unreal.
>>16856811Because none of the different interpretations have succeeded in making a testable prediction that could distinguish it from the others. That isn't to say they never will, but we're not there yet.I don't think we're likely to start weeding out answers until we have a fundamentally better grasp of the statistical behavior of highly nonlinear systems.
Why are you all so afraid of this man?
>>16856945Many worlds has just been falsified by the stochastic-quantum correspondence that proves the wavefunction and its superpositions do not have ontologically content. Once the wavefunction is discarded, there is no reason to entertain many worlds.
>>16857195>that proves the wavefunction and its superpositions do not have ontologically content. Once the wavefunction is discarded,You're saying the wave function isn't real? How does that work?
Anything but the Penrose interpretation is cope
>>16857241The wavefunction is just a mathematical tool for encoding what is really an indivisible stochastic process in a simpler way. But in exchange for making the mathematical formulatiom easier to work with, it makes the ontology murkier by replacing the stochastic process with a hilbert space representation and complex wavefunction. This is just a trade-off of clarity for pragmatism, but one can prove a mathematical correspondence between indivisiblr stochastic systems and unitarily evolving quantum ones via the stinespring dilation theorem. What this proves once and for all is that the wavefunction is just a mathematical tool. We should NOT take it seriously.Many worlds derives its purported strengths and validity on the realism of the wavefunction.Once and for all, Many worlds has been falsified.
>>16856904Hi. I'm back and I see that everyone is arguing about the "meaning" of quantum mechanics by denying every interpretation that doesn't fit within their own preconceived notions of how the world works and "should" work. So much for the human intellect which can comprehend anything no matter how outlandish and different from our normal daily livesI'm sure you learned nothing from this thread and will keep of looking for an easy and comfortable explanation (that isn't true) instead of doing the math
>>16857195Every time I hear someone say this about an interpretation, I look into it and they're full of shit.
>>16856992I'm aware that deeply confused people use "local realist" as if it were a technical term with a well-established meaning. I'm asking what *you* mean by it.
>>16857192Has he figured out how to compute conditional probabilities involving three times yet?
>>16856811I think all of QM is flawed in this way. I disagree with all the quantum mechanical wave-like nature descriptions of electrons. Instead I posit the following:>Probabilities are fundamental>Abandon schrödingers equation>Write a new equation based purely on probabilitiesThis completely removes any retarded discussions of interpretations of psi from the discourse.
>>16856897>Ackshually general intelligence is highly specific>General intelligence is depth, not breadth>This depth breeds breadthKek imagine being this retarded.
>>16857345>i literally can't understand anything i read80 IQ board.
>>16857351On the contrary, my melaninated friend. You don't even know how to green text kek>But I did write green text Get breakfast'd nibba
>>16857267>people are arguing about things therefore my generic 80 IQ talking point is trueNow go look at any thread about anything on any board. So much for the human intellect which can comprehend anything, by your symbol-shuffling monkey "logic".
>It really comes down to how many useful metaphors and analogies you can find. To know a thing is to know what that thing is like.
>>16857356>i'm also literally a redditor
>>16857359I accept your concession
>>16857361I accept your circumcision.
>>16857244Stinespring dilation does not convert quantum theory into classical stochastic theory. It works only within quantum theory, not from outside it. Classical stochastic systems cannot reproduce quantum interference, Bell violations, or contextuality. Wavefunctions cannot be purely epistemic per PBR and other no-go theorems.
>>16856811too many anti semites believe qm is deterministic
>>16856811Because there is no falsifiable hypothesis for either interpretation.
>>16857654Superdeterminism is a meme and only female youtuber grifters believe in it.
>>16857430I recommend you read the papers for more detail but the correspondence is very simple since by definition you can always construct a unistochastic system from the.modulus square of a unitary system. Barandes uses the stinespring dilation to show that from dilating the Hilbert space you can show that every indivisible system is a subsystem if a unitary one. He then goes into detail.in these papers about how one can construct a Hilbert space representation from an indivisible stochastic system and this just corresponds to quantum theory.This doesn't contradict PBR because the indivisible stochastic system literally contains all the properties of the hilbert space representation. The point ia that it can be rigorously shown you can always convert this Hilbert solpace representation into an indivisible stochastic process with all the relevant quantum properties (or vice versa).This definitively shows that the most paraimonious perspective is that the wavefunction is just a mathematical tool for representing an underlying stochastic process which is what is carrying all the quantum properties. A stochastic process like this has a direct correspondence to intuitive classical configurations. No wavefunctions needed. Many Worlds is on the ropes because now it is provable you don't need complex state vectors to do quantum theory.This is a paradigm shift.
>>16857325You can't do this in quantum theory so this is an empty criticism. If he was able to do that then it wouldn't be quantum theory.
>>16857320Look at the papers. Its not bullshit. Its very rigorous work and he even gives exaamples going through in detail.
>>16857673Which papers?
QM makes a lot more sense when you accept our "reality" is a literal computer simulation that doesnt bother rendering small details unless someone bothers to check.
>>16857672>start with system in chosen initial state>observe it twice>quantum mechanics easily gives the conditional probabilitiesIf you don't know basic quantum mechanics, keep your ignorant opinion to yourself.
>>16857671>Many Worlds is on the ropes because now it is provable you don't need complex state vectors to do quantum theory.That's a far shot from it being "falsified".>>16857673So you're talking about Barandes' work? When I last checked it out, it was interesting, but had problems like >>16857325 and certainly didn't falsify many-worlds. And you seem to already be backpedaling from that claim.
>>16856811Quantum field theory predicts gravitons but cant find them, and cant even construct an experiment that would until we get solar system sized particle accelerators.General relativity unites everything and would already explain everything, but it breaks down under extreme conditions like the origin of spacetime or the "infinite" collapse of it in hyper dense regions and stops making sense.Both are fundamentally contradictory and incompatible with each other, yet they both have the power to explain nearly everything in reality.Then there's politics to consider. A lot of these old farts worked alongside each other during WW2 and personally knew people like Bohm and Einstein and Heisenberg and so forth. They were in group photos together, shaking hands and shit like that. These guys have loyalties and biases that haunt their intuitions and make them bicker over pointless bullshit because they dont want to admit they were wrong. And since they control the money, they control the research and the progress. So, progress is slowed down artificially by a lot of beaurocracy and legacies that refuse to die.We probably already have working theories that solve all this shit that just get handwaved away or swept away by ALUMNI who dont give a fuck what you think and just want you to be a human calculator working on proving THEM right. And if you want grant money to work on your own research you can fuck right off.
>>16857703Lol well if that is what you mean then you can obviously do that in indivisible stochastic processes... dumbass
>>16857678The ones by Jacob Barandes>>16857709Lol that anon is wrong and it has no other problems.
>>16856849> Interpretation is used to make something you don't understand resemble something you do understandSimiles and examples aren't the truth, they're learninglol and mathematical formulas are the truth? Remember that prior to Galileo they had bizarre calculations on how the planets were moving. Math checked out but it was complete bullshit of course. But enjoy your ‘wave function collapse’ and ‘virtual photon exchange’!
>>16856900> Incredible how you think you're so smart that you should be able to grasp quantum mechanics intuitively when you can't even understand the mathI think I have a pretty good intuition on why my car goes vroooom without knowing any formula behind it
>>16856924>The fact that QM works means that the math backing QM describes realityNo it backs observation but that is not reality
>>16857763I skimmed through his latest paper and he still doesn't have that. You would need what he calls a "realizer" for that.
As far as I can tell both of the following would constitute "realizers" for his vague-ass model:-a universe following the many-worlds interpretation, except that at any moment one of the worlds is randomly selected to be the current actual world-a universe following a pilot-wave interpretationSo he's solved nothing.
>>16857908The one-time conditional probabilties give you probabilities for measuring at some time. Once you measure, you get new conditional probabilities for measurements at future times. You then measure again and get new conditional probabilities. So you can do this as much as you want for multiple times.>>16857915Many Worlds can't constitute realizers.
>>16858240>The one-time conditional probabilties give you probabilities for measuring at some time. Once you measure, you get new conditional probabilities for measurements at future times. You then measure again and get new conditional probabilities. So you can do this as much as you want for multiple times.This is wrong. Once you drop the assumption that the system is Markovian, as Barandes does, you can no longer justify that sort of reasoning. An obvious counterexample is the first model (many-worlds + randomly-selected current world) in >>16857915.
>>16857192His interview with Sean Carroll didn't make him look great
>>16856897Your brain is not wired to understand the GHZ experiment nor any non trivial application of the Kochen Specker theorem.
>>16858288It is not wrong. You can do that and it will give you the same predictions as quantum theory, but the statistics just won't be divisible... like quantum theory. Many Worlds can never be a counterexample because its literally just orthodox QM so its going yo be empirically identical. Its just that with the indivsible-quantum correspondence, there is no need to entertain stupid multiple universes.
>>16858554Let's go over this in more detail.>Once you measure, you get new conditional probabilities for measurements at future times.What we want is [math]p(i,t|j_1,t_1;j_2,t_2)[/math], a prediction of the future time t conditioned on the present [math]t_1[/math] and the past [math]t_2[/math]. What an "indivisible stochastic process" gives us is [math]p(i,t|j_1,t_1)[/math], a prediction of the future based on the present, and you only have this if the present time [math]t_1[/math] is a "division event." If the system is Markovian you can assume these are equal. Barandes says the system is not necessarily Markovian. Furthermore, Barandes seems to think the division events other than the beginning of the universe are emergent behavior and are only division events in an approximate sense. If this made sense it would be possible to assume only one division event [math]t_0[/math] at the beginning and figure everything else out based on the [math]p(i,t|j_0,t_0)[/math] that we can calculate with quantum mechanics. Both models 1 and 2 in >>16857915 are consistent with said [math]p(i,t|j_0,t_0)[/math], but give wildly different values for [math]p(i,t|j_1,t_1)[/math].
>>16858568Umm preparations and measurements are division events so you just prepare thr system and measure it twice. Very simple.
>>16857325Why would you even want to do that? Just don't do it
>>16857712People who knew Born and Einstein personally are all deadThey don't control anything because they are deadWhat the fuck are you talking about
>>16858572>preparations and measurements are division eventsIf you take that as a postulate, you need to explain what measurement is, and now we've just got another way of talking about quantum mechanics that doesn't solve any problem. If you think it's emergent behavior, it doesn't work out for the reason I described.>>16858572I want to be able to predict how my actions in the future will affect my well-being at a later time in the future.>>16857915>>16858568A technical addendum in order for model 2 (the pilot-wave one) to make sense: We'll need to use a different set of possible states for time [math]t_0[/math] than we use for other times. At time [math]t_0[/math] the initial state of the universe is one of the states in our basis, and we expect it to be in that state with 100% probability. At other times the possible states are the eigenstates of the set of beables we've chosen. This is a bit unnatural, but I don't think it breaks the argument I'm making. Also, in contrast to vanilla pilot-wave theory which is deterministic, we choose the initial values of the beables randomly according to the Born rule. In other words, we assume the universe is in quantum equilibrium from the start.
>>16858587>If you take that as a postulatthey aren't postulatesany initial conditioning time is trivially going to look like a preparation statistically it just gives you some probabilities for some configuration at an initial time and then future probabilities conditioned on that timeits in built into the the theory that measurements produce division eventsmeasurements are literally just interactions between two stochastic systems as long as they are correlated in the right way so one looks like it is measuring the other with a perfect correlation between their configurations. and whats nice about this fact is then you can like do all sorts of funny kind of measurements like weak measurements, partial measurements, anything you like really just by modifying what kind of systems you are using and their interactions.
>>16858612If the idea that measurements produce division events emerges from the theory rather than being a postulate, show me what part of the theory rules out one or both of the two realizers.
>>16858614The many worlds realizer is retarded. Yeah, you could do thst but why would you? The only motivation for many worlds is the realism of the wavefunction. If the wavefunction is not real you have no honest reason to prefer many worlds.Bohm? Yeah could be a realizer but advantage over Bohm is again don't need wavefunction and Bohmian mechanics is non-local which makes it harder for special relativity.
>>16858618The question is not whether you find these realizers plausible. It's whether an indivisible stochastic process pins down its realizers enough to get divisibility at measurement times as emergent behavior.
>>16858619measurement division events have nothing to do with divisibilitymany worlds is implausible if there is no wavefunction
>>16858851They're called division events because you have divisibility there (for the system under consideration).
>>16858964sorry i meant realizers
>>16859134Obviously divisibility at a time not taken to be a division event a priori is a property of the realizer. Maybe there's an argument showing that whether a system is divisible at a given time [math]t_1[/math] is independent of which realizer is chosen, but I'm doubtful. The argument I read in one of Barandes' papers only convinces me that at least one realizer is divisible at a measurement. At the very least there can be different realizers that give different values for [math]p(i,t|j_1,t_1)[/math].I'm not saying Barandes isn't onto something, but his ideas need more work. Maybe there's a natural criterion on the realizers that will make things work out.
>>16859168Is it correct to say that Barandes’ theory doesn’t yield anything new, it just establishes a better way to interpret QM without invoking black magic?
>>16859168you dont need to think about realizers, iys a distraction. you dont need them
>>16859249Yes. Thats the USP
>>16859326Second question, what’s the mathematically correct way to do QM? Wave mechanics or matrix mechanics, or is there another way?
>>16856811Because all interpretations lead to the same results, if they didn't then they would be easy to tell apart. Ultimately an "interpretation" is what you feel like. This is why the majority are still "shut up and calculate", because even if you pick a particular interpretation, every experiment you do, every calculation you do will be exactly the same as under a different interpretation.The "interpretations of quantum mechanics" is fully a branch of philosophy.
>>16859538i mean theres like over half a dozen ways of doing qm
>>16857344What's wrong with Schrödinger's equation
>>16857344>Probabilities are fundamentalBayesian or Frequentist?
>>16860861bayesofcours
>>16860726It tracks the evolution of a completely unphysical quantity. It'd be like assigning a whole field of interpretations and philosophies surrounding the magnetic potential used in electrodynamics. It's ridiculous on its face. Yet when it comes to qm, people somehow believe it's a worth wasting years to discuss these interpretations. >>16860861Frequentist. Though I'd have to think more about how individual electrons can have knowledge of the probability function. Nonetheless it's better than Bayesian faggotry.
okay here's the real reason. i got a 36 on the act just to start, off the charts when I was five 99.9 percentile every test, but kimberly syracuse from ashland is a rapist
If the wave function collapses, how does it uncollapse
>>16861299When the observation ends.
>>16861299ask jason berenges
