|
|
|
|
|
|
by colinsane
1383 days ago
|
|
|
all maps of a physical territory, yes. that’s a consequence of ħ, at the very least. but once you’ve encoded this best of all possible maps, the uncertainties in the map are quantified (like probabilities). you no longer have “unknown unknowns” so you can just carry through all the PDFs and create a true risk assessment. and it’s these unknown unknowns which were, AFAICT, the heart of this article. |
|
|
Not really. If it's a consequence of anything, it's a consequence of relativity and the finite speed of light: you literally cannot know all of the information you would need to construct the "perfect map" you describe, because you only have access to information from a limited portion of the universe.
Quantum uncertainty just makes it worse, since even in the finite portion of the universe you have access to, you cannot know the exact state.
> once you’ve encoded this best of all possible maps
There is no such thing. Even leaving aside the relativity issue I raised above, non-commuting quantum observables are incompatible, so there is no single "best possible map" taking quantum uncertainty into account.
> you no longer have “unknown unknowns”
This is impossible. First, information outside your past light cone is always "unknown unknowns". Second, even if we limit attention to the data in our past light cone, someone can always measure a quantum observable that doesn't commute with the ones you have data on and invalidate your current model.