The Hawking Paradox (Part 4)

A discussion on the life of Stephen Hawking and the topic of information loss in a black hole.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Hawking
• Paradox
• Stephen
• Black
• Hole
• Information
• Loss

[gabrown87]

8:30 on is absolutely beautiful



[craigz06]

I can't imagine the degree of his bravery.

[OddOpinion]

Stephen Hawkings disease is almost like a black hole, its almost like he knew something to prove himself but his brain came to a state where he himself could no longer conceive it.

[TheBobathon]

@BagarozziBoi Hunches aside, I agree with all of that. My take is that while we have a variety of interpretations all of which are consistent with reality, 'reality' (if such a thing can even be defined in any way that would satisfy our little minds) is most likely more profound and strange than any one of them. I tend to think more in terms of entanglement-as-measurement because I just find it easier. And I like it... until I think too much about its ontology! I try not to take it seriously :-)

[BagarozziBoi]

In many-worlds interpretations there is no randomness or free will, you perceive the macroscopic branch that you're in by the weak anthropic principal that hey, you had to get some branch, so here's your one and it's fairly typical. To me many-worlds seems like a retreat back to the Newtonian past, albeit with a nature that is rather profligate with the ol' universes, so I lean towards OR (i.e. QM being incomplete), but it's just a hunch.

[BagarozziBoi]

The entanglement-as-measurement viewpoint is *explicitly* a many-worlds interpretation of QM, even though many off its proponents don't like to draw attention to the fact. In this picture there is no objective "collapse of the wavefunction", which is seen as a statistical convenience for throwing away the parts of the state that represent the alternative macroscopic outcomes, now that they have become effectively inaccessible parallel worlds (with negligible residual interference).

[BagarozziBoi]

Such interpretations of QM are *strictly* deterministic and linear: the deterministic unitary evolution of the (never collapsing) wavefunction is the whole picture. The non-deterministic non-linear part of QM comes from actual wavefunction collapse ("objective reduction") .. if such a mechanism exists. There are various ideas but nothing concrete yet, which is why many-worlds is so popular .. it requires no extension to existing theory.

[TheRationalizer]

@clancym1

My comment was a joke. Schrödinger's cat was an analogy for how on the quantum level things seem to be in every state at the same time until such a point that we interact with them in order to measure them (i.e. "look at them")

[clancym1]

@TheRationalizer schrodinger's cat experiment was a reductio ad absurdum proof that it's improbable that uncertainty has effects on the macro-scale; not an actual thought experiment explaining the uncertainty principle. i'm not a physics major or anything, i'm simply a messenger from the land of rationalism.

TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS DOOD, WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL THING

[reallyflasshy]

@WritingFighter Juan Maldecena i think ?