https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_9609002/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13402387urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_9609002:13402387Sun, 15 Jan 2017 04:49:57 GMT<p>One of the issues with engaging with Yudkowsky&#x27;s posts is how verbose his arguments are. Fortunately, for something as well formalized as quantum mechanics, there&#x27;s a succinct counter-example: A formalism of quantum mechanics that makes perfect sense with neither the idea of wavefunction collapse nor some abundance of ontologically dubious and extravagant entities (alternate universes you can never observe). That formalism is relational quantum mechanics. Accessible overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ In particular, this overview addresses the fundamental difference…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_9609002/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-phhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218829urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_9609002:10218829Tue, 15 Sep 2015 03:34:20 GMT<p>I remember when this came out I found it less than satisfying. Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics, and those axioms are not physical. Rovelli&#x27;s earlier ideas are mathematically equivalent, far more physical and come closer to answering some real questions. http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_9609002/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-ph