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.
M. Dilger /
npub1ac…9p35c
2024-05-05 11:10:29
Author Public Key
npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35cPublished at
2024-05-05 11:10:29Event JSON
{
"id": "d07c1f38f29b56faa17f3e2bc2bd6d9f4e8bc160c65f3d103d3fb195f1ab6f74",
"pubkey": "ee11a5dff40c19a555f41fe42b48f00e618c91225622ae37b6c2bb67b76c4e49",
"created_at": 1714907429,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Hope at last: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06986\n\nI'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).\n\nThis 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.",
"sig": "3dd7ee42ac692574eb2461043eb7aa351ac01843a74946c25f756157f72f9814e618362940ea326226afd42e713276343750118c8f682983e0187502be1e684e"
}