Meriasek
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
Problem is that quantum mechanics are rather abstract and frankly weird. It's weird mathematics that are somehow real and observable, but the weird hippy shit only comes in at the interpretations of said mechanics. Particularly when it comes to wave function collapse. So basically, the fundamental quantum mechanical equation, the Schrödinger equation, deals with complex wave functions. Unlike, say, the Maxwell equations that describe electromagnetic waves, the Schrödinger wave function is a complex function that isn't something directly tangible in reality. It only collapses into a real measurement value when you observe it somehow. This is where it gets a bit weird and easily misunderstood, because we tend to ascribe a certain will and consciousness to "observe", but the quantum mechanical measurement really means any form of interaction. The wave function collapse and its results can be observed (the famous double slit experiments for example, and pair entanglement), but they're... Weird and we don't really know where they come from. There are several interpretations, the most common being that the Schrödinger equation describes a probability wave that collapses into a real value. So the equation describes something abstract, not something tangible.quantum physics likes to get corrupted by new age hippy gobbedygook because they're both more or less jewish relativism. jewish relativism could be summed up succintly with the idea that "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound" which sounds smart but it's objectively just incorrect. the same thing applies to quantum mechanics, i've heard countless times that quantum concepts like the pauli exclusion principle, uncertainty principle, and wave function collapse are manifestations of how consciousness influences the universe.
ontologically it doesn't matter if you or a rube goldberg machine opens schrodinger's box, the cat will be dead every time.
Like the theory of relativity by Einstein, which is also not very intuitive and annoying to do the math more, but sadly also found to be pretty damn solid with experimental evidence. We all wished it wasn't because it'd make physics a lot easier, but nope, shit's sadly real.
Fun fact about the tree in the forest, one could say that if nobody is there to observe the tree falling, it'll be in a state of quantum superposition and be both standing and fallen at the same time. In reality, of course, it definitely fell because the wave function collapsed by all the interaction with its surroundings (not to mention that the wave function description doesn't really hold up for macroscopic objects anyway, where quantum mechanics become commensurate with classical mechanics).
You can probably argue with information density that you can't "simulate" or describe the entirety of the universe down to the last elementary particle because you can't actually put that much information into code somehow. Maybe each subsequent universe in the cycle gets a little bit smaller or has to use increasingly restrictive weird physics like quantum mechanics and relativity to optimize the required information density... It's simulations all the way down, and at the bottom the universe is basically Conway's Game of Life because its parent universe is marginally bigger.@Meriasek has already replied and though I would question whether one can extrapolate from 'no description can be complete and self-consistent' to 'a thing described cannot be complete and self-consistent', he has firstly already self-critiqued and secondly, I honestly kind of like his idea of the Universe being self-contradictory. Every fucking else thing is, so As Above, So Below?(I feel like reality is conceptually below description but that's probably an intuitive approach developed from modelling systems half my life).


