7 ms·

I don’t get why people overcomplexify quantum physics. Can’t everything be explained by the future holding more data than the present and past? Like if you vie

I don’t get why people overcomplexify quantum physics. Can’t everything be explained by the future holding more data than the present and past? Like if you view time as another physical dimension, you are not surprised by the world when you start exploring what is on let say on your left. The rest of the bed, floor, wall, outside of the house. And if you lose your cat, the universe didn’t magically split in multiple dimensions but the cat state is somewhere on your left. If you consider time just as a 4th dimension already written, you don’t need to make complex theories.

blueprint 4y ago
i think it's because they're in denial about parts of themselves which they don't want to see properly. quantum makes plenty of sense. for someone to claim it doesn't is a self contradiction.
canjobear 4y ago
This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  I mean it does, but it's a total violation of unitarity and OP doesn't appear to realize that nor understand its implications.
  - hartator 4y ago
    Enlighten us. I am saying that time is an human construct and don't fundamentally exist in a linear past/present/future way. Which is a simple explanation to all quantum events.
mjburgess 4y ago
If the future "holds more data" than the past then it's random with respect to the past, by definition. This is one of the major interpretations of QM. So if we have a function from past states to future states, we can't, eg., which of two past states occured (dead, alive). However, those who hold a many-worlds view (or chaos-theory view) do not believe you can just "insert data", since to do so is essentially equivalent to a blind miracle. To believe the future "holds more data" is to believe that at each instance things are happening without any prior cause, all of the time, and this is fundamentally inexplicable. "the future holds more data" view therefore basically gives up on the possibility of science in this case, indeed as a view, it can always be offered in place of a scientific explanation, and amounts to saying "its inexplicable"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- blueprint 4y ago
  Such a good comment. But I have a question for you. You said this is 'one of the major interpretations' of QM. But if the hypothetically greater future data is not observable by anything outside of the universal wavefunction, then is it not the case that the entire system is evolving without external observation, i.e., the system itself does not have to be able to verify that it "knows" what outcome will occur for it to be able to generate new data by a causal mechanism. So it sounds like randomness is not proven by what you said is definition, alone. Is this what you meant by it being "one of the" interpretations of QM?
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    Well I define random to mean whenever P(X|Y) is neither always 1 nor 0, or to put that in causal modal terms: given an exhaustive description of all possible causes of Y, say X, then if X causes Y, *NECESSARILY* Y given X causation is a form of necessity, necessarily Y occurs or it doesnt In this case P(Future|Past) and P(Past|Future) are somewhere between 0 and 1. This isnt consistent with causation. ie., All possible information about all possible causes of Y (the future), say X (the past) are insufficient to gaurentee any given Y (any particular future). The "interpretation" element of QM is to say that we are really in this case, ie., that we have X = all possible information. There are several ways of denying that P(Y|X) in the case of QM should be read this way. You can say X is incomplete, either by saying there is non-local information we don't have, or global information we don't have. Of the "global" kind, which of many worlds we are in is a kind of global ignorance. So that if we had, P(Y|X, which-world) then we'd observe P(Y|X, whichworld) = either 1 or 0 --- as with classical mechanics P(CatDead|PoisonBox, worldA) = 1 P(CatDead|PoisonBox, worldB) = 0 etc. and, eg., P(F|G,M,m,r) = 1 if F=GMm/r^2
    - blueprint 4y ago
      what do you mean by the term information? My question is, rather, whether a system needs to be able to know it knows that information for it not to still be causal. Because it doesnt observe its whole wavefunction

blueprint 4y ago

i think it's because they're in denial about parts of themselves which they don't want to see properly. quantum makes plenty of sense. for someone to claim it doesn't is a self contradiction.

canjobear 4y ago

This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Enginerrrd 4y ago
I mean it does, but it's a total violation of unitarity and OP doesn't appear to realize that nor understand its implications.
- hartator 4y ago
  Enlighten us. I am saying that time is an human construct and don't fundamentally exist in a linear past/present/future way. Which is a simple explanation to all quantum events.

mjburgess 4y ago

If the future "holds more data" than the past then it's random with respect to the past, by definition. This is one of the major interpretations of QM. So if we have a function from past states to future states, we can't, eg., which of two past states occured (dead, alive). However, those who hold a many-worlds view (or chaos-theory view) do not believe you can just "insert data", since to do so is essentially equivalent to a blind miracle. To believe the future "holds more data" is to believe that at each instance things are happening without any prior cause, all of the time, and this is fundamentally inexplicable. "the future holds more data" view therefore basically gives up on the possibility of science in this case, indeed as a view, it can always be offered in place of a scientific explanation, and amounts to saying "its inexplicable"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
blueprint 4y ago
Such a good comment. But I have a question for you. You said this is 'one of the major interpretations' of QM. But if the hypothetically greater future data is not observable by anything outside of the universal wavefunction, then is it not the case that the entire system is evolving without external observation, i.e., the system itself does not have to be able to verify that it "knows" what outcome will occur for it to be able to generate new data by a causal mechanism. So it sounds like randomness is not proven by what you said is definition, alone. Is this what you meant by it being "one of the" interpretations of QM?
- mjburgess 4y ago
  Well I define random to mean whenever P(X|Y) is neither always 1 nor 0, or to put that in causal modal terms: given an exhaustive description of all possible causes of Y, say X, then if X causes Y, *NECESSARILY* Y given X causation is a form of necessity, necessarily Y occurs or it doesnt In this case P(Future|Past) and P(Past|Future) are somewhere between 0 and 1. This isnt consistent with causation. ie., All possible information about all possible causes of Y (the future), say X (the past) are insufficient to gaurentee any given Y (any particular future). The "interpretation" element of QM is to say that we are really in this case, ie., that we have X = all possible information. There are several ways of denying that P(Y|X) in the case of QM should be read this way. You can say X is incomplete, either by saying there is non-local information we don't have, or global information we don't have. Of the "global" kind, which of many worlds we are in is a kind of global ignorance. So that if we had, P(Y|X, which-world) then we'd observe P(Y|X, whichworld) = either 1 or 0 --- as with classical mechanics P(CatDead|PoisonBox, worldA) = 1 P(CatDead|PoisonBox, worldB) = 0 etc. and, eg., P(F|G,M,m,r) = 1 if F=GMm/r^2
  - blueprint 4y ago
    what do you mean by the term information? My question is, rather, whether a system needs to be able to know it knows that information for it not to still be causal. Because it doesnt observe its whole wavefunction