The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics · HackerPapers discussions

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by miltondts

Sat, 09 Jul 2022 12:39:55 GMT

Regarding global conspiracy: "Explicit construction of Local Hidden Variables for any quantum theory up to any desired accuracy" https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04335 Regarding unfalsifiable, from [0] "If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." By "such quantum computers" he means computers that can run Shor's algorithm. "...but factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to exist."…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by T-A

Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:21:15 GMT

> Just because he does not say explicitly "[GR and QM] are compatible", does not mean opposite. It also doesn't mean what you are claiming. To have a meaningful discussion about the incompatibility of GR with QM, you first need to know how they are incompatible. Reproducing classical electromagnetism with the Kaluza-Klein trick from 1919 [1] has nothing to do with it. QM deals with unit vectors in a state space, operators acting on those vectors, and observables whose values can not all be known simultaneously [2]. The hole left by the observer's limited knowledge about the state of the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by miltondts

Tue, 14 Apr 2020 22:16:07 GMT

I'm not sure if that is the case or not but if that is the prediction then they are in good company. Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft also has a cellular automaton theory and one of his conclusions is: "If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." By "such quantum computers" he means computers that can run Shor's algorithm. "...but factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by zakk

Tue, 14 Apr 2020 22:14:05 GMT

This is absolutely fascinating. Even just a demonstration that rule application on hypergraphs is expressive enough to potentially describe (for some rule yet to be found) Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is incredibly exciting in my opinion. Arguably string theory is in a similar situation: a very powerful framework that could potentially describe reality if accurately utilized. Also, notably Gerard 't Hooft has been working on a very similar topic recently: Quantum Mechanics described in terms of cellular automata [0]. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by skosch

Fri, 13 Mar 2020 01:28:24 GMT

This is very exciting. To a computer scientist, superdeterminism seems like the most elegant solution to most of the current problems in physics. But it has always been firmly out of the mainstream, perhaps because it runs directly counter to our human experience. Gerard t'Hoofts framing of the universe as a cellular automaton (https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548) is relatively intuitive, but still only a rough sketch. Hopefully, Hossenfelder and Palmer now publicly arguing for superdeterminism will recruit some more bright minds to fleshing out these models into workable theories.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by miltondts

Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:29:42 GMT

The kind of superdeterministic theories proposed by t'Hooft are falsifiable. From [0] "If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." By "such quantum computers" he means computers that can run Shor's algorithm. "...but factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to exist." As for the author of the article I've never seen a clear proposal but it appears the idea is to do repeated…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by Grieverheart

Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:52:02 GMT

Funny, a couple of days ago I googled about superdeterminism again to see if there are any developments and came across Hossenfelder's and Palmer's paper on arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462 . Strangely enough, even though I've studied theoretical Physics, the fact that some of Quantum mechanic's claims are based on assumptions such as the fact we have free will, were never really discussed except in a course in the Philosophy of science I took, which, unfortunately, was not very scientific. I actually never heard about superdeterminism until I read one of Gerard 't Hooft's papers (see…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by not_kurt_godel

Sat, 12 Oct 2019 19:09:42 GMT

I think you'd probably be interested in Gerard 't Hooft's latest work: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 It's rather, shall we say, controversial (that is: widely rejected by his peers), but it's an attempt to construct a framework through which the laws of the universe can be interpreted as deterministic which leverages the sorts of epistemological concepts you seem to be interested in. (That being said: I personally find "is there an amoeba on Europa?" to be supremely interesting, but to each their own.)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by mikhailfranco

Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:34:07 GMT

I think SW became too obsessed with the mathematical and computational approach to CA, while (as usual) 't Hooft pursued his physics intuitions to create a candidate CA theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 I say as usual, because G'tH had already formulated the holographic principles that would allow space-time (hence GTR) to be encoded non-locally over a graph. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026 There need not be a preferred reference frame if the space-time events do not occur at individual nodes in the graph, but emerge at scales much larger than the graph, with some holographic or…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by miltondts

Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:19:23 GMT

From [0] "If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." By "such quantum computers" he means computers that can run Shor's algorithm. "...but factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to exist." by Gerard 't Hooft - Nobel Prize in Physics [0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 EDIT: See page 79 of the referenced paper for the detailed argument.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by naasking

Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:10:06 GMT

> I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by 't Hooft https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by T-A

Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:53:00 GMT

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2017071... https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by wolfgke

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:15:53 GMT

Then read "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by Gerard 't Hooft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft), which tries to formulate a superdeterministic version of quantum mechanics based on cellular automata (i.e. much more discrete): > https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 EDIT: also cf. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by goldenkey

Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:12:19 GMT

That's really cool. I see how you sort of built in decay through age. I think the golden information principles for emergent life are easier to find than biological ones, but of course the requirements of space, time, etc are much larger when ones' simulation is at a lower level of abstraction. It really is a question of level of emergent behavior versus level of base behavior. Even QM can be emergent from deterministic automata. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by wolfgke

Sun, 22 Jan 2017 01:17:49 GMT

> With quantum computing there are also no real signs that a quantum computer will beat a "classical" computer at anything any time soon. It always was and still is very difficult to get quantum systems to scale and you need a large enough system to make a difference and it may be impossible to do so. Again a lot of this is more of an engineering problem though admittedly the line between physics and engineering can be blurry since it's not always clear whether something can't be done because you've reached a fundamental limitation vs. having a clever enough design. The mentioning of quantum…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by miltondts

Sun, 15 Jan 2017 11:46:15 GMT

Actually the kind of superdeterministic theories proposed by t'Hooft are falsifiable. From [0] "If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." By "such quantum computers" he means computers that can run Shor's algorithm. "...but factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to exist." [0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by wolfgke

Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:55:09 GMT

Relevant for those who are interested in the topic: Two rather unusual interpretations if quantum mechanics: - De Brogle-Bohm theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory - Gerard 't Hooft - The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by xorxornop

Sun, 08 Jan 2017 13:33:59 GMT

Check out arXiv:1405.1548v3 The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Gerard ’t Hooft The author is very far from a crank, too, being one of the most important influences in the Standard Model...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — HN submission

Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:25:49 GMT

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

6 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by abdullahkhalids

Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:45:54 GMT

I agree that progress in experimental abilities and QC is really forcing physicists to think carefully about what QM means. In fact the month of May saw three papers by major physicists about these deeper issues in QM [1,2,3] In my own humble capacity as a graduate student in physics, my research is about clearly understanding the divide between classical and quantum physics. On the rewriting of theory, I should have been clearer. I meant that when you rewrite the theory you should think about ontology. Differences in ontology between different rewrites, as well as interpretations of those…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.