army1987 comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 02:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (600)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 August 2012 09:24:19AM *  1 point [-]

Either you reexpress MWI in a form where there is no splitting, just self-contained histories each of which is internally relativistic

Huh? This is what I've always¹ taken MWI in a relativistic context...

  1. Just kidding. More like, since the first time I thought about the issue after graduating (and hence having an understanding of SR and QM devoid of the misconceptions found in certain popularizations).

Anyway, I'll have to read the works by 't Hooft when I have time. They look quite interesting.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 06 August 2012 08:13:34AM 0 points [-]

In 1204.4926 the idea is that a quantum oscillator is actually a discrete deterministic system that cycles through a finite number of states. Then in 1205.4107 he maps a cellular automaton onto a free field theory made out of coupled quantum oscillators. Then in 1207.3612 he adds boolean variables to his CA (previously the cells were integer-valued) in order to add fermionic fields. At this point his CA is looking a little like a superstring, which from a "worldsheet" perspective is a line with bosonic and fermionic quantum fields on it. But there are still many issues whose resolution needs to be worked out.