4 ms·

A nice and compelling argument in that paper: "The classical Liouville equation is linear in the probability density due to conservation of probability. But thi

A nice and compelling argument in that paper: "The classical Liouville equation is linear in the probability density due to conservation of probability. But this linearity says nothing whatsoever about whether the dynamics of the underlying system from which the probability density derives is also linear. Hence, for example, chaotic dynamical systems, despite their nonlinear dynamics, obey the same linear equation for probability density. To us, this close formal similarity between the two equations strongly suggests that quantum physics, too, is only the linear probabilistic description of an underlying nonlinear deterministic system." But, similarities in equations surely can be misleading ;)

tomxor 7y ago
> linear probabilistic description of an underlying nonlinear deterministic system. The math is way over my head, but this sub-statement resonates with me deeply and has been my crude but overarching view of the physical world and our interpretations of it for a long time - except applied more broadly - as a description of the interaction between multiple layers of abstractions of reality (whether the things behind those designated abstractions are natural or human made, e.g transistors for digital logic, a "deterministic" quantized layer created atop a non-deterministic one). It is layered because each deterministic one is only effectively deterministic by being predictable "enough" in a highly uniform way. The next layer then often becomes viewed from a probabilistic perspective again due to chaotic interactions of the previous one (often computationally irreducible). The lack of access to massive initial state and in-feasibility to compute prediction based on the underlying mechanisms are the only reason we switch back to the probabilistic view at these non-fundamental levels of abstraction. Now I understand quantum physics is not supposed to be such a layer, because we didn't start out with an existing working concept of what's underneath it in the way we know whats underneath equations for some statistical mechanics for example - but from the perspective of a complete amateur the idea of superdeterminism seems quite natural! - yet at the same time I can't help wonder if there is yet another probabilistic layer underneath :)

tomxor 7y ago

> linear probabilistic description of an underlying nonlinear deterministic system. The math is way over my head, but this sub-statement resonates with me deeply and has been my crude but overarching view of the physical world and our interpretations of it for a long time - except applied more broadly - as a description of the interaction between multiple layers of abstractions of reality (whether the things behind those designated abstractions are natural or human made, e.g transistors for digital logic, a "deterministic" quantized layer created atop a non-deterministic one). It is layered because each deterministic one is only effectively deterministic by being predictable "enough" in a highly uniform way. The next layer then often becomes viewed from a probabilistic perspective again due to chaotic interactions of the previous one (often computationally irreducible). The lack of access to massive initial state and in-feasibility to compute prediction based on the underlying mechanisms are the only reason we switch back to the probabilistic view at these non-fundamental levels of abstraction. Now I understand quantum physics is not supposed to be such a layer, because we didn't start out with an existing working concept of what's underneath it in the way we know whats underneath equations for some statistical mechanics for example - but from the perspective of a complete amateur the idea of superdeterminism seems quite natural! - yet at the same time I can't help wonder if there is yet another probabilistic layer underneath :)