3 ms·

No, I don't think that's correct. I'm not a professional but.. despite unitarity and maybe CPT symmetry, I think that a given "past" (by which I think we mean t

No, I don't think that's correct. I'm not a professional but.. despite unitarity and maybe CPT symmetry, I think that a given "past" (by which I think we mean the universal wavefunction at some t?) has no way of recording what its own state is. If measurements were to be done of subsets or the whole of the wavefunction, then it would, I imagine, contribute to the state of the wavefunction so as to evolve it. But keep in mind as well when we say "data" we're talking about state which can be measured, aren't we? Maybe some state can't be observed; and, the "universe" also definitely limits its own certainty anyway.

kgwgk 4y ago
> when we say "data" we're talking about state which can be measured, aren't we? I don't know! If the "data" is about the state of the universe (i.e. the wavefunction) the "data" doesn't really change because of unitarity. You may be talking about something else - but it's not clear what.
- blueprint 4y ago
  what time it is here changes from one moment to the next. and there are also horizons. you dont have all the data about things yet you operate. just trying to help
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    but we already knew yesterday what time would be tomorrow - there is no new data in that sense
    - blueprint 4y ago
      obviously not true - in so many ways. what exactly in a wavefunction knows whether it will encounter other wavefunctions? i think what you're claiming leads to many contradictions.
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        The only thing that I claim is that hartator wrote about the future holding more data than the present and past and it’s unclear what that would mean in a deterministic universe represented by a pure quantum state under unitary evolution. What is data? How do you establish -given a wave function- the amount of data that it holds? What are you claiming exactly?
        blueprint 4y ago
        But our universe, as well as a theoretically deterministic universe, necessarily, certainly contain many mixed states. And, I didn't use the term data first. But when I used that word I was trying to transmit the meaning of "content", "substance", or character, nature, or what exists in the matter/issue. What is in the principle of a system's operation. How do I establish given a wave function the amount of data that it holds? A wave function doesn't exactly contain data. You either prescribe a wavefunction, or try to model one based on hypothetical constraints, or you can attempt to guess what an existing actual wavefunction was through measurement. As I mentioned I think when we say data we're usually talking about what is measured. But there is something more that exists than what is measured. Something that you could say is invisible doesn't not exist if it determines everything else that exist. If you understand everything about an object or a system you can prescribe an exact wavefunction. But we do not understand everything about what is in the objects for which we have tried to prescribe wavefunctions. What am I claiming exactly? I was not claiming anything, although now I have made a claim at the start of this comment; but I was asking a question as to whether 'mjburgess' was merely phrasing his original comment to make it seem to the careless reader or undiscerning eye that '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.' was actually "If the future "holds more data" than the past then it's random with respect to the past, by all possible definitions (implicitly). This a conclusion finally reached by physicists after having studied QM, rather than merely one possible interpretation given the best theory available so far.' but they indeed did not write that.

kgwgk 4y ago

> when we say "data" we're talking about state which can be measured, aren't we? I don't know! If the "data" is about the state of the universe (i.e. the wavefunction) the "data" doesn't really change because of unitarity. You may be talking about something else - but it's not clear what.

blueprint 4y ago
what time it is here changes from one moment to the next. and there are also horizons. you dont have all the data about things yet you operate. just trying to help
- kgwgk 4y ago
  but we already knew yesterday what time would be tomorrow - there is no new data in that sense
  - blueprint 4y ago
    obviously not true - in so many ways. what exactly in a wavefunction knows whether it will encounter other wavefunctions? i think what you're claiming leads to many contradictions.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      The only thing that I claim is that hartator wrote about the future holding more data than the present and past and it’s unclear what that would mean in a deterministic universe represented by a pure quantum state under unitary evolution. What is data? How do you establish -given a wave function- the amount of data that it holds? What are you claiming exactly?
      - blueprint 4y ago
        But our universe, as well as a theoretically deterministic universe, necessarily, certainly contain many mixed states. And, I didn't use the term data first. But when I used that word I was trying to transmit the meaning of "content", "substance", or character, nature, or what exists in the matter/issue. What is in the principle of a system's operation. How do I establish given a wave function the amount of data that it holds? A wave function doesn't exactly contain data. You either prescribe a wavefunction, or try to model one based on hypothetical constraints, or you can attempt to guess what an existing actual wavefunction was through measurement. As I mentioned I think when we say data we're usually talking about what is measured. But there is something more that exists than what is measured. Something that you could say is invisible doesn't not exist if it determines everything else that exist. If you understand everything about an object or a system you can prescribe an exact wavefunction. But we do not understand everything about what is in the objects for which we have tried to prescribe wavefunctions. What am I claiming exactly? I was not claiming anything, although now I have made a claim at the start of this comment; but I was asking a question as to whether 'mjburgess' was merely phrasing his original comment to make it seem to the careless reader or undiscerning eye that '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.' was actually "If the future "holds more data" than the past then it's random with respect to the past, by all possible definitions (implicitly). This a conclusion finally reached by physicists after having studied QM, rather than merely one possible interpretation given the best theory available so far.' but they indeed did not write that.