4 ms·

I'm from the many-worlds interpretation camp, and this "superdeterminism" business always strikes me as ironic. Proponents of hidden variables, in their desire

I'm from the many-worlds interpretation camp, and this "superdeterminism" business always strikes me as ironic. Proponents of hidden variables, in their desire to explain QM effects, arrived at the idea that there is something that permeates the Universe since the Big Bang and participates in every physical interaction. Existence of this something cannot be directly proven - since we are "inside" of it. How about the "wave function of the Universe"?

effie 5y ago
Their goal is to find the deeper explanation behind wave functions, so obviously going back to wave function, even that of the Universe, is not very appealing to them.
- myridium 5y ago
  Well if they insist on expressing the dynamics of the universe as the minimisation of a global (or local) action functional, then they are already throwing in the towel because that implies a wavefunction of the universe. I'm suspicious that these fringe quantum-physics-deniers just don't understand the mathematics. They want to be relevant but they don't want to learn, so they post wordy, fluffy blog posts targeted at non-professionals. Like Sabine.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    Except she does not "deny" quantum mechanics, and she does understand the math.
myridium 5y ago
Totally agree. It's therapeutic to read this. Last I checked, many-worlds is a consequence of current quantum theory, not a postulate or additional axiom. Yet people treat it like such. Probably because it's 'spooky'. Then indeed it's ironic that they search for alternative explanations which try to say the same thing as many worlds but without saying 'many worlds'.
- naasking 5y ago
  > Last I checked, many-worlds is a consequence of current quantum theory, not a postulate or additional axiom. There is an additional postulate, namely that the state vector is the real world we inhabit. This may seem obvious to you and not amount to postulating much or anything with any substance, but that's a philosophical claim that isn't suggested by the physics. There are also the problems of deriving the Born rule from the existing postulates of MWI. Last I checked, the existing derivations are not fully satisfactory to most physicists.
  - myridium 5y ago
    I'll have to look into those derivations. Thanks. > There is an additional postulate, namely that the state vector is the real world we inhabit. Well, yes, it's a model for the physical world. Refusing to accept that the state vector is the real world we inhabit is tantamount to rejecting the existence of an objective universe, in which case any discussion is moot, or to the outright rejection of quantum theory, which seems irrational. (i.e. "I don't believe the state vector represents our world, despite it being the best physical model of our time")
    - naasking 5y ago
      > Well, yes, it's a model for the physical world. Refusing to accept that the state vector is the real world we inhabit is tantamount to rejecting the existence of an objective universe, in which case any discussion is moot Some physicists consider the wave function to be ontologically inadequate to explain the physical world. See the discussion of "bohmian mechanics being many worlds in denial" for some details and references: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#ObjeResp https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#ObjeResp
      - myridium 5y ago
        It may be inadequate, but the consequences of quantum theory still apply without having to add new postulates. Among those consequences is many worlds.
naasking 5y ago
> Proponents of hidden variables, in their desire to explain QM effects, arrived at the idea that there is something that permeates the Universe since the Big Bang and participates in every physical interaction. Actually that's not correct. In Bohmian mechanics the wave function is not actually real, it merely describes a law of motion. You're doing what many MWIers do, and applying the ontology of MWI to other ontologies and concluding they assume redundancies. That's just not how it works.

effie 5y ago

Their goal is to find the deeper explanation behind wave functions, so obviously going back to wave function, even that of the Universe, is not very appealing to them.

myridium 5y ago
Well if they insist on expressing the dynamics of the universe as the minimisation of a global (or local) action functional, then they are already throwing in the towel because that implies a wavefunction of the universe. I'm suspicious that these fringe quantum-physics-deniers just don't understand the mathematics. They want to be relevant but they don't want to learn, so they post wordy, fluffy blog posts targeted at non-professionals. Like Sabine.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Except she does not "deny" quantum mechanics, and she does understand the math.

myridium 5y ago

Totally agree. It's therapeutic to read this. Last I checked, many-worlds is a consequence of current quantum theory, not a postulate or additional axiom. Yet people treat it like such. Probably because it's 'spooky'. Then indeed it's ironic that they search for alternative explanations which try to say the same thing as many worlds but without saying 'many worlds'.

naasking 5y ago
> Last I checked, many-worlds is a consequence of current quantum theory, not a postulate or additional axiom. There is an additional postulate, namely that the state vector is the real world we inhabit. This may seem obvious to you and not amount to postulating much or anything with any substance, but that's a philosophical claim that isn't suggested by the physics. There are also the problems of deriving the Born rule from the existing postulates of MWI. Last I checked, the existing derivations are not fully satisfactory to most physicists.
- myridium 5y ago
  I'll have to look into those derivations. Thanks. > There is an additional postulate, namely that the state vector is the real world we inhabit. Well, yes, it's a model for the physical world. Refusing to accept that the state vector is the real world we inhabit is tantamount to rejecting the existence of an objective universe, in which case any discussion is moot, or to the outright rejection of quantum theory, which seems irrational. (i.e. "I don't believe the state vector represents our world, despite it being the best physical model of our time")
  - naasking 5y ago
    > Well, yes, it's a model for the physical world. Refusing to accept that the state vector is the real world we inhabit is tantamount to rejecting the existence of an objective universe, in which case any discussion is moot Some physicists consider the wave function to be ontologically inadequate to explain the physical world. See the discussion of "bohmian mechanics being many worlds in denial" for some details and references: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#ObjeResp https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#ObjeResp
    - myridium 5y ago
      It may be inadequate, but the consequences of quantum theory still apply without having to add new postulates. Among those consequences is many worlds.

naasking 5y ago

> Proponents of hidden variables, in their desire to explain QM effects, arrived at the idea that there is something that permeates the Universe since the Big Bang and participates in every physical interaction. Actually that's not correct. In Bohmian mechanics the wave function is not actually real, it merely describes a law of motion. You're doing what many MWIers do, and applying the ontology of MWI to other ontologies and concluding they assume redundancies. That's just not how it works.