mikedilger on Nostr: Hope at last: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06986 I've never been happy with the ...
Hope at last: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06986
I've never been happy with the possible ways of explaining QM. Non-locality was my 'best' choice but I still didn't like it. I really didn't like throwing out reality. And superdeterminism is just dumb (not that it's not possible, in that sense I think superdeterminism is actually likely -- but there is no compelling reason to believe it would be "just so" as to precisely fuck up all our experiments).
This is the first theory I've read that seems right to me. It's Berkson's bias, an illusion of weirdness that only applies to ensembles, in combination with T-symmetry.
I've never been happy with the possible ways of explaining QM. Non-locality was my 'best' choice but I still didn't like it. I really didn't like throwing out reality. And superdeterminism is just dumb (not that it's not possible, in that sense I think superdeterminism is actually likely -- but there is no compelling reason to believe it would be "just so" as to precisely fuck up all our experiments).
This is the first theory I've read that seems right to me. It's Berkson's bias, an illusion of weirdness that only applies to ensembles, in combination with T-symmetry.