3 ms·
> he is asking whether a substantively similar universe could have conceivably been built without QM. thats what I wrote QM must be the obvious conclusion (com
by platz 5y ago
> he is asking whether a substantively similar universe could have conceivably been built without QM.
thats what I wrote QM must be the obvious conclusion (compared to X)
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoBut he's not asking whether or not QM is the obvious conclusion when trying to explain the data we have. He's asking why a creator/creation process would use QM in a universe rather than something else.
- platz 5y ago2 sides of the same question. its a special case of the cases described here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30117928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30117928.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoI don't think so. Here's Scott from further down his own comment section: > Most importantly, people keep wanting to justify QM by reminding me about specific difficulties with the classical physics of the 19th century: for example, the ultraviolet catastrophe. To clarify, I never had any quarrel with the claim that, starting with 19th-century physics (especially electromagnetism), QM provided the only sensible completion. But, to say it one more time, what would’ve been wrong with a totally different starting point—let’s say, a classical cellular automaton? Sure, it wouldn’t lead to our physics, but it would lead to some physics that was computationally universal and presumably able to support complex life (at least, until I see a good argument otherwise).