<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1005.5173/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1005.5173/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6264414</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:1005.5173:6264414</guid><pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:06:16 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1005.5173/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item><item><title>No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power — mentioned by Xcelerate</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6264403</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1005.5173:6264403</guid><pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:04:08 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; but how can we know for sure that it&amp;#x27;s intrinsic randomness? We can&amp;#x27;t be sure (even though Luboš Motl disagrees). The universe may not be intrinsically random if superdeterminism is true. However, this isn&amp;#x27;t a popular idea in physics; in fact Gerard t&amp;#x27;Hooft is the only Nobel prize winner I can think of that supports this idea. Local hidden variable theories have almost all been ruled out by experiment in the last few decades (the same kind of theory Einstein was trying to find). There&amp;#x27;s still some loopholes, but, eh... Colbeck and Renner have written a pretty powerful paper that given the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1005.5173/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
