4 ms·

> violate causality I'm not suggesting to violate causality, I'm saying there just is no cause. > to solve the measurement problem I don't think there is an

> violate causality I'm not suggesting to violate causality, I'm saying there just is no cause. > to solve the measurement problem I don't think there is any solution. The physical laws of the universe are incomplete, they do not determine what "happens." There are constraints in the form of probabilities, so it's not like anything can happen at any time. But what actually happens, it's spontaneous, un-caused. > huge families of solutions This is a vast area of research that has spanned decades and yielded very little in the way of solutions. Hence my use of the term "boneheaded" above.

wyager 10y ago
> There are constraints in the form of probabilities, so it's not like anything can happen at any time. But what actually happens, it's spontaneous, un-caused. Ah, your problem is that you only seem to be aware of the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations available that work just as well, but don't have anything as inconvenient as nondeterminism. > This is a vast area of research that has spanned decades and yielded very little in the way of solutions. No, you are wrong here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation