On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which
>> leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox:
>> 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects
>> 2. Measurements have more than one outcome
>> In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or
>> many-world's is true.
>> Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant
> laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears
> to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.)
> Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's
> transactional interpretation.
Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation,
it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional
interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new
things outside of standard QM.
Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all
observations in QM. Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night
believing the universe is small and that they are unique?
> There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the
> can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint.
Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems
to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced
(against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be
determined by something operating external to that mind.
I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is
inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a
computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited
to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If
hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided
to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on
interval of 2^n or less.
It is provable that no deterministic process limited to a fixed quantity of
memory (and therefore a fixed number of states) can go through more than
2^n states without repeating, so either the randomness in QM will repeat,
or the observer will get to states where their choices cannot be made to
continue to agree with quantum measurements.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.