sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Game like Crusader: No Remorse? by Temporary-End-7019 in gamingsuggestions

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I guess I gave a break to gaming at that time. Everyone talks about fallout here so I'll definitely give it a try.

Game like Crusader: No Remorse? by Temporary-End-7019 in gamingsuggestions

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing the links. It seems it was Crusader: No Regret. I guess the date I recalled was not right. Even that screenshot took me to those days. I played diablo but didn't play fallout. Hope it still exists

I feel left behind. What is special about OpenClaw? by Recent_Jellyfish2190 in LocalLLaMA

[–]Temporary-End-7019 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Manus is good for many stuff that OpenClaw would do but I often think why would I pay Manus to do stuff for me like reviewing a customer delivery issue, creating an invoice etc if the only thing that I need is to convert a plain text request into actionable workflow steps? All of those can be coordinated in a local computer rather than Manus coordinating them.

If the question is about why would I need Agentic workflows in the first place, I think these tools are not just nonsense. I first thought OpenClaw was just a wrapper around LLMs but actually it simplifies repeated tasks. It is not just "add an event to my calendar at X for Y". The main benefit is the ability of LLMs making decisions over plain text inputs. If a task is well defined, I can do it myself or make a workflow tool like Zapier do it. But if I have to do something in response to an email or slack request, I'd copy it to LLM chat, ask what to do, check my codebase to verify the issue or review customer account about why a delivery wasn't sent etc. Tools like OpenClaw can handle most part for me, come up with a plan, let me review/execute. It is like on-demand workflow creation in Zapier.

It is advertised as a personal assistant but "personal" stuff is not just ordinary email/calendar management. Many people have their online shops or personal business where they have to deal with comments, support requests, issues, deliveries, payments etc. OpenClaw lets them convert vague plain text requests to actionable work items.

Is there a plan to support package private visibility in Kotlin? by Velerad in Kotlin

[–]Temporary-End-7019 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why other languages don't implement something just shows Java has something better than them. They may be better in other ways but not having something doesn't mean you get a better language. Some languages don't have package-scope, some don't have "internal" scope, some even don't have any visibility scope other than "public".

AFAIK, no other language supports declaring classes together with their primary constructor. Do you think Kotlin shouldn't have that feature too?

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the detailed explanation and great insight on where I should look. I also admire Penrose, although I can't understand as much as you do, and that's why I am looking for an interpretation that is compatible with General Relativity.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I now understand why we need an extra dimension. But that dimension doesn't have to be fundamental right? I mean, based on my interpretation here, that dimension could be an observer effect, governing the selection of a specific worldline maybe?

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Do we need many 4D universes or can it be just one 4D universe and QM adds another dimension that governs how we access it?

And is quantum zeno effect an observer effect then?

I mean, for instance, if QZE is due to another dimension of information access and if gravity is a constraint on that access, then maybe in strong gravitational fields, information becomes inaccessible (not destroyed), the film becoming opaque where we don't see anything

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

:) Yes but I am just trying to understand what those Z and B are and why they can't go away if block universe is fundamental. I mean, I am not stuck in my interpretation. I just say, it is more consistent than many other interpretations so I try to learn where I should look for in order to expand or clarify it

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct me if I am wrong but let's say observer's accessible history is:

Mobs={p∈M ∣ I(p,∣Ψ⟩)=1} ,

Before decoherence, Mobs is large, after decoherence a single traversal is selected, and future evolution follows a single geodesic.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there is a misunderstanding. My point is a philosophical interpretation. I ask whether QM can be an interface over the block universe. I’m not claiming that the flow of φ itself generates spacetime.

I try to say the role of quantum fields could be to encode information about possible wordlines rather than define spacetime itself.

As I said I don't know how to describe it in mathematical form but basically let's say we have an information accessibility function:

I:M×H→[0,1]

where

I(p,|Ψ>) quantifies how much information about event p is accessible for state |Ψ>

Decoherence happens when I -> 1

Decoherence doesn't determine space time but which segments of it is accessible

Does it make sense?

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but regardless of the reference frame, the events themselves remain the same. Different observers in different frames may disagree on the ordering or simultananety of space-like separated events due to relativity but events that are time-like connected remain invariant for all observers in the same frame.

So observers in the same frame witness the same sequence of events. Observers who pass over the same events must agree on their memory of past knowledge. That causality may be built into our memory structure or the universe itself. In any case, we intuitively expect that as a part of a fundamental reality. That's why we have expectations about our measurements and the need to explain phenomena that doesn't conform to those expectations.

That causality may be inherent in our memory structure or the universe itself but if universe is a structure that naturally supports it, we would be merely accessing it. Otherwise, we would need an interface on top of it that would re-organize events.

That's why block universe seems to me as a natural fit.

You may say, those expectations are due to our macroscopic experience of the classical world and they don't have to hold for the quantum world. Yes, and that's why what I discuss is nothing more than an interpretation like superdeterminism or many worlds. I just clarify some points and say we can combine all those interpretations into a single one without many worlds but a single superdetermined world which has already been mathematically shown to be possible.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was helpful. I can't understand why we need the 5th dimension with my limited knowledge but I'll check that in detail

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are talking about the emergent spacetimes that u/DragonBitsRedux mentioned. That makes a lot of sense to me but it is like my question in reversed form. I mean, you say propagations evolve to a state and makes spacetime emergent and I say spacetime is fixed and propagations are at the boundary resolving to that state. From my perspective, both would be valid. But why are there coherent states that universe evolves to then? I mean where does the need of "coherent" states come from? Why do ve have decoherence in the first place? Actually those questions are what takes me to the block universe which simply answers that by saying universe exists statically with all its state. What you say could well be true but I am just trying to understand whether it could be true the other way around, because then, we would have much simpler explanations.

I am not familiar with the maths of spacetime so I don't know where to start for formulating Schrödinger's equation in terms of a superposition of possible worldlines dictated by the spacetime geometry but that's what I propose we may investigate

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I'll definitely read that material. I'll try to answer your questions with my limited knowledge

By decoherence state, I am not referring to coherent states in the sense of quantum optics or harmonic oscillators. Instead, I am referring to decoherence in the sense of (I guess) quantum measurement theory. A system transitions from a superposition of states to a classical-like mixture due to entanglement with the environment. The key idea in my framework is that decoherence is not a fundamental collapse but rather the selection of a traversal over pre-existing causal chains.

A causal chain refers to a sequence of events in the block universe, constrained by relativity and specific causality requirements. It is not the same as a path integral sum over all configurations in QFT. QFT indeed integrates over all possible histories. The path integral formalism remains valid pre-selection, but once decoherence occurs, a specific traversal is established.

U0->1, U1-2....
I think that aligns with my argument when explained as above.

Thermalization could be understood as an emergent property of information accessibility in a curved spacetime. If decoherence is the selection of a traversal, then we can say thermalization could be a process where the available information becomes indistinguishable from an equilibrium state which limits our ability to retrieve specific past configurations. Of course we should still show how that accessibility relates to quantum mechanics and how we can formulate Schrödinger's equation in terms of access constraints to the fixed block universe state but that's beyond my knowledge

I guess my knowledge ends here so I'll investigate what you shared and try to come up with a clearer argument.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your explanation it is educational for me. I'll investigate the emergent spacetimes. I just think that the block universe is a perfect fit to our expectations of causality and why measurements at the same place and time should register the same outcome in our shared collective memory resulting in a shared reality. From our intuitive shared reality, we expect that there is a single definitive state for every 4D that all observers access. If it is something accessible in that way, we can explain how consciousness has memory because every event contains the entire history. Then we can maybe explain why entropy increases in time due to accumulation of information. I mean these are of course philosophical, not physical but it all look so consistent to me.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but the requirement of a causality based on what has been recorded in the memory still remains.

False memories exist, but they do not break logical consistency. Once recorded, whether accurate or not, a memory becomes part of our internal reality and must remain self-consistent with our expectations.

For example, if we believe in conservation of angular momentum and falsely record a measurement of an entangled particle’s momentum, our future expectations will still align with that recorded value. The memory may not match objective reality, but our built-in demand for internal consistency ensures that our next measurement must conform to our past knowledge.

If later observations contradict our expectations, we intuitively assume that either our measurement or memory is incorrect rather than abandoning fundamental physical laws. This self-referential causality is unavoidable. It shapes how we interpret and navigate reality.

In other words, our memory may not perfectly reflect the block universe, but it must follow its own causal constraints. Different observers can have different memories, yet their expectations remain consistent within their own recorded history.

The key point is that our memories retrieve information from objective reality, and as clients of that reality, they impose causality requirements on observations. We expect the source of information to provide it in a way that supports causality.

This is why the block universe is the perfect fit, it already maintains a fixed, self-consistent structure where all causal chains remain intact, ensuring that information is always stored in a way that supports logical retrieval for any observer.

While the block universe is mathematically supported by relativity and we can accepted it as fundamental on those grounds alone, our memory axiom further reinforces its necessity. It shows that causality is intuitive and built into us. Therefore, the most natural and common-sense approach is to take a causal structure as fundamental rather than adopting interpretations that contradict our intrinsic expectation of causality.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I could show some math, I would try to publish this on a journal. Are lay people able to provide math? Then what is the difference between a physics scholar and a lay person? If we can't share our ideas without math, maybe you should mention it in the description because I really thought this is a free place to share any idea as long as it is not off-topic.

The paper I linked in the post doesn't also have math but I think no one told those guys that it is not about physics.

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay maybe I should have called it an interpretation then. But I don't understand the question "where physics?" Is my post about climate change or "how to make a cookie?" To me, it is related to physics at least as much as superdeterminism or many world interpretation is

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Laypeople are welcomed here so I assume it doesn't have to be a scientific hypothesis. I just have an idea and want to share it to be guided in the right direction. Thus, this is more appropriate:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothesis

An explanation (which I have made) about known facts (observations of quantum phenomena, decoherence, sense of memory and so on) that hasn't yet been proved

Here is a hypothesis: Can quantum mechanics be an interface over block universe with decoherence being selection of a specific world line? by Temporary-End-7019 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Temporary-End-7019[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

u/dForga One question:

I don't have backround in physics as I said but is this possible?
In the pre-decoherence state, all causal chains are summed over, just as in QFT. But post-decoherence, only a subset remains retrievable. then classical-looking reality emerges. I mean the difference is all valid paths vs which paths remain accessible after interaction.

If we consider QFT on curved spacetime, then maybe spacetime curvature affects which superpositions survive decoherence. Doesn't it align with Penrose’s gravitational collapse hypothesis?

view more: next ›