/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5835156
No, you will never, ever measure an observable of the universal wave function. Jesus christ, how are you this retarded?

> Now I'm not arguing about whether that collapses the wavefunction of the universe.
You just stated that it did, when you asserted that projection operators were applied to the universal wave function.

> The question is whether the result of my measurement can be predicted.
No it's not, and it never has been. The question is whether, given an initial state of the universal wave function, it will evolve deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation.

You will never, ever be able to predict the result of your measurement, because you don't have the necessary information, and it's impossible to obtain it. So QM is deterministic, because *given this information,* the wave function of the universe, you could (at immense computational expense) predict the result.

It's the exact same situation in Bohmian mechanics. You will never, ever be able to predict the result of your measurement, because you don't have the necessary information, and it's impossible to obtain it. Yet Bohmian mechanics is deterministic, because *given this information,* the Bohmian coordinates in configuration space, you could (at immense computational expense) predict the result.

>>5609397
so a girl probably didn't even flirt with you and you just bumped up her score without her doing any work at all, sexual or academic. holy shit

10/10 im mad