4 ms·
That's not right. The combination of 1) local 2) realist 3) determinism has been disproven by Bell's theorem. But I it's still a "pick two" kind of choice. I
by GolDDranks 11y ago
That's not right. The combination of
1) local
2) realist
3) determinism
has been disproven by Bell's theorem. But I it's still a "pick two" kind of choice.
I, personally think that by Occam's razor, the Everett interpretation ("Many Worlds") makes the most sense, because it's simplest. And actually it retains all of the above three, but it introduces "self-locating uncertainty" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907), which effectively has the same kind of effect from our perspective.
- chrischen 11y agoIf you subscribe to many-worlds, then you subscribe to quantum theory, which means you subscribe to quantum indeterminacy. Non-determinism is literally the name of the principle.
- bendbro 11y agoIs quantum indeterminacy related to the Uncertainty Principle? Also, isn't it assumed that quantum effects don't bubble up to the classical level?
- zardo 11y agoBut the only thing that's undetermined is which universe you will find yourself in. In many worlds the multiverse is determined. It's a space-time graph (tree?) with a root at the start of time and leaves at infinity.
- miltondts 11y agoBell's theorem has not proven anything because it assumes free will.[1] This has not been shown to exist. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism