3 ms·

This reads to me as a cogent defense of one particular interpretation: Everett. All is clear and logical except the part where Aaronson endorses the opinion th

This reads to me as a cogent defense of one particular interpretation: Everett. All is clear and logical except the part where Aaronson endorses the opinion that Everett isn’t wrong, but grandiose (whatever this means). In justification, it seems he is pushed into further twisted locutions. He speaks of what “breathes fire” into branches of the wave function and says that the question of existence of other branches is “above the pay grade of physics”. Breathing fire and pay grade of physics? How much simpler to just assert that yes evolution is unitary at all times and, yes, this implies many classical branches.

baja_blast 4y ago
I feel like Everett is a way of trying to fit quantum mechanics with the block universe concept i.e. the past and future exist simultaneously. But I like the idea proposed by Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin who reasoned that when you our universe is finite and inherently imprecise that “time really passes and new information is created.” which fits with having to update after quantum collapse because new information has been introduced. https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clu...