Unfortunately the correct simulation hypothesis not only can explain how, but also why. There are many wrong formulations of the sim hypothesis, but when done right it can explain almost everything. For example, Constructor Theory is in fact an instance of the simulation hypothesis done quite right, as it avoids the computational problem by stating that the universe is not computed but is itself a “constructor”, which is a computer that can manipulate matter (simplified). Although I agree that Quantum Physics is incomplete, I also don’t think there has to be an underlaying classical picture.
There must be an underlying deterministic system.
- We don’t know what it is yet.
- Quantum mechanics is incomplete, not wrong — it hides deeper rules.
- His belief is based on logic, not current experimental proof.
In short, he says we don’t know what it is, but it’s something out there.
potamic · 1h ago
Very interesting. Isn't this calling for hidden variables again? I thought physicists largely dropped the idea in favour of Copenhagen interpretation. As a layman, this is exciting. Quantum mechanics really puts a barrier in terms of understanding through intuition, and if this leads to some new interpretation that is more "digestible", it might open up more things to access and learn about.
AndrewOMartin · 59m ago
As far as I can tell, it's Bell's Theorem which shows that results we see can't be the result of hidden variables, so either this guy is throwing out this very well known and uncontroversial point, or he's doing something a bit more subtle.
I ain't no physicist but I learned about Bell's Theorem from a video where Feynman is explaining it in terms of boxes with buttons and lights on them, while dressed in a tracksuit. The audience keep asking questions so he goes over the idea about two dozen times, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this case.
AndrewDucker · 43m ago
He seems to have decided there has to be a classical basis underlying quantum results. But offers no reasoning as to why he believes this. I'm sceptical.
ktallett · 41m ago
I mean this much is clear within the physics community that we haven't found a complete understanding of quantum physics. We can explain what we can test and view but that is it. Wrong is such a strong term but I am sure some aspects will be revised with new information. We won't be spot on with everything.
I would recommend reading Chiara Marletto's book on Constructor Theory which is an attempt at breaking physics into fundamental can and can nots, which is a start for the next step of determining the missing physical rules.
jurschreuder · 2h ago
I think our numerical system is a bit like Fahrenheit.
Fahrenheit draws a line between three points and assumes a "law in nature". This was false (short answer).
The fact that there are things like PI for a circle means our numerical system has been invented before we had any knowledge about quantum quantities for lack of a better word (like autonomous autos X).
Math is wrong. But it's gotten this "holy" status of almost defining intelligence, like Latin is to English.
It's clearly wrong (to me at least) but it's such a big part of "smart" people's egos.
There must be an underlying deterministic system. - We don’t know what it is yet. - Quantum mechanics is incomplete, not wrong — it hides deeper rules. - His belief is based on logic, not current experimental proof.
In short, he says we don’t know what it is, but it’s something out there.
I ain't no physicist but I learned about Bell's Theorem from a video where Feynman is explaining it in terms of boxes with buttons and lights on them, while dressed in a tracksuit. The audience keep asking questions so he goes over the idea about two dozen times, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this case.
I would recommend reading Chiara Marletto's book on Constructor Theory which is an attempt at breaking physics into fundamental can and can nots, which is a start for the next step of determining the missing physical rules.
Fahrenheit draws a line between three points and assumes a "law in nature". This was false (short answer).
The fact that there are things like PI for a circle means our numerical system has been invented before we had any knowledge about quantum quantities for lack of a better word (like autonomous autos X).
Math is wrong. But it's gotten this "holy" status of almost defining intelligence, like Latin is to English.
It's clearly wrong (to me at least) but it's such a big part of "smart" people's egos.