4 ms·
>but that position is necessarily hidden from observation. I call this an IPU, an Invisible Pink Unicorn. But why expect that all state of the universe be open
by hackinthebochs 7y ago
>but that position is necessarily hidden from observation. I call this an IPU, an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
But why expect that all state of the universe be open to observation? This seems counter-intuitive to me. It seems far more reasonable that there necessarily are facts about an implementation that no supervening system can determine from within that system. For example, there are facts about a physical computer that no software running on that computer could deduce. So the fact that a QM theory posits state that is in principle off-limits to observation doesn't seem like a reductio, but the expected case.
- lisper 7y agoThat's a good point, but remember, this is about rhetoric, not physics. The question is not whether hidden state exists (it clearly does) but what kind of story you want to tell about it. If you find it enlightening to think about hidden state as position, and you don't mind accepting all of the difficulties that entails (like having to choose a preferred foliation), then by all means go for it. But that is very different from saying that this story is actually true. The only reason to prefer Bohm over a similar story that ascribes the randomness to a literal invisible pink unicorn making decisions about experimental outcomes is aesthetics.