4 ms·
If that were true, what difference would it make? We would do everything exactly the same as how we would otherwise. There's also no way of testing your hypothe
by guerrilla 3y ago
If that were true, what difference would it make? We would do everything exactly the same as how we would otherwise. There's also no way of testing your hypothesis becauase of that. It might fit well in a good hard sci-fi novel though.
"Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object."
- mg 3y agoIn quantum theory, it surprisingly was possible to test the hypothesis that things don't have a state before we measure them and then they stick to that state. So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that we can test it for other "secrets of the universe".
- guerrilla 3y agoThis isn't true. This is exactly why we have multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics.
- mg 3y agoThere are always infinite interpretations of everything. But the "no hidden variables" theory is the most popular and well tested theory about whether things have a state before we measure it. And it postulates that they don't.
- guerrilla 3y agoIt's not tested at all. No local hidden variables is just a priori true though. It's not part of any interpretation. All of them are subject to it. This is irrelevant though because there are alternatives to local hidden variables like pilot wave theory, the so-called many words interpretation, relationalism (i.e. inherent nondeterminism) and there's no way to test between any of them.
- mg 3y agoIt's not tested at all This is what Wikipedia says about hidden variables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Many Bell tests have been performed and they have shown results incompatible with the constraints imposed by local hidden variables.
- guerrilla 3y agoIn any case, your point is moot.