3 ms·
> 4. To keep the discussion focused, in this post I’d like to exclude answers along the lines of “but what if QM is merely an approximation to something else?,”
by _Nat_ 5y ago
> 4. To keep the discussion focused, in this post I’d like to exclude answers along the lines of “but what if QM is merely an approximation to something else?,” [...] imagine that, as fantastical as it sounds, QM were not only exactly true, [...]
Seems like an absurd, conceptually-crippling stipulation, analogous to asking why [the fine-structure-constant is exactly 1/137](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Numerological_explanations_and_multiverse_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Numero... ).
I mean, while one might reasonably wonder why alpha~=1/137, wondering why alpha=1/137 exactly doesn't seem like a simplification but rather a different question that'd invite a different sort of reasoning.
- octoberfranklin 5y agoDude, what are you talking about, the fine structure constant is exactly 1/137. The TimeCube [1] told me so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
- rocqua 5y agoThis limitation is not because Scott things to know with certainty QM is true. This limitation is because Scott is wondering "Is there a way to explain QM in a way that makes QM an obvious conclusion". That is an interesting question regardless of whether QM is true.
- platz 5y ago#4 isnt about the accuracy of the fine structure constant. #4 is about limiting the discussion to QM as opposed to dealing the claim that QM is incomplete - that maybe the only reason it gives us probabilities for events is because its incomplete, and maybe theres a deeper theory that would supersede QM; this line of reasoning would not be productive to scott's initial question, which is focused on the nature of QM, given that it is true in a fundamental way.