Hacker News Reader

Comment by grebc | Hacker News Reader

I am just a lay person so a lot of the maths is over my head for all of this, but I do try to follow the best I can.

Do you ever ponder that the maths that you try to distill into the “laws of physics” is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system?

For example when you capture a gorgeous sunrise/sunset in a photo, and despite you doing every trick under the sun to get a good angle/lighting etc, the photo is never as good as what you experienced in person.

Or maybe you just never experienced the sunrise/sunset shrug.

View on HN

QM provides the most accurate and verifiable predictions in human history. The follow on from that is that my thoughts can be conveyed to you over a sea of quivering electrons. The one catch is that you must accept that when you are not looking the universe does its evolving in a way that is inimical to your conceptualizations.

You have beautiful way of writing. Do you have a blog?

Thank you so much, I don't.

Just want to +1 and would subscribe if you start one

Thank you for trying.

What were you hoping for?

I apologise as I replied in a shirty manner and deleted as I thought better of it.

I don’t think we’ll be able to really discuss the matter so have a good night!

The idea is that there is no "complicated system", or at least that you are not permitted to concieve of one without describing it in physical detail.

> is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system?

I think you're asking questions that some are afraid to ask.

It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain.

Fundamentally, I don't see how you can use continuous math to explain a discrete system.

"It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain."

No, here we are discussing the formalism without approximations associated with an instance of its approximate application.

And QM says "The map is the terrain".

QM is many things

You might want to be a little more specific, and rely less on approximations.

I am aware of what the Copenhagen interpretation states, thanks

To what approximations do you refer?

Here we discard Copenhagen and move forward.

Take your pick

Schrodinger/Dirac/Feynman.

A wave is a product, trigonometric functions do not exist.

Gerard hooft was on Curt Jaimungal's youtube channel a while back, I generally agree with him, discrete systems cannot be explained by real numbers, only integers

Not following youtube, sorry.

uhuh, well I'm sure you know how to use a search engine

Reply on news.ycombinator.com