3 ms·
Do I understand correctly that you're claiming it's "at least exponentially unlikely" (so to speak) for a fully-deterministic-since-the-Big-Bang model to result
by dataflow 4y ago
Do I understand correctly that you're claiming it's "at least exponentially unlikely" (so to speak) for a fully-deterministic-since-the-Big-Bang model to result in a superdeterministic world? Or to rephrase, something along the lines of: "a vanishingly small set of evolution trajectories from a fully-deterministic-since-the-Big-Bang would result in a superdeterministic world that would explain ours"?
- rocqua 4y agoNo, I wasn't talking about superdeterminism at all. My point is that the evolution of the waveform is deterministic. Waveform collapse is where lots of theories introduce indeterminism. I propose a theory in which waveform collapse is technically deterministic. My proposition is that the process is deterministic but chaotic. With the simultaneous state of all other particles determining how this collapse happens. Making it deterministic, but truly impossible to predict without a picture perfect representation of the outcome.