Ah, gotcha.
No, that's not what superdeterminism is. You are importing a whole lot of baggage about what it means to understand things "as quantum mechanical systems". You are also making the same mistake that Tim Maudlin does about the implications of Bell inequality violations. He thinks that the EPR criterion of reality is "analytically" true, and he's wrong. Since you have recommended Maudlin elsewhere on Lemmy (as well as promulgating the myth that a singular "Copenhagen interpretation" exists), I'm going to do something else than try conversing with you further.
Something is missing here:
damages their users’ critical thinking and mental acuity whilst , all
The very unscientific sampling I did just now suggests that those complexity classes which Wikipedia covers, it covers better than the Zoo does anything. Of course, the Zoo has room for #P/lowpoly and LOGWANK and all the other classes that are attested in one paper apiece.
And we don’t want to introduce all the complexities of solving disagreements on Wikipedia.
wait for it
There should also be some kind of support for multiple AIs disagreeing with each other.
"The Torment Nexus definitely has positive uses. I personally use it frequently for looking up song lyrics and tracking my children's medication doses. I find it helpful."
From the comments:
I wonder if you could do something similar with all peer-reviewed scientific publications, summarizing all findings into an encyclopedia of all scientific knowledge.
True believers are fucked in the head.
The issue of interpretation is wildly unresolved. Scratch any question in "quantum foundations", and you end up in the territory of debates like whether mathematics is invented or discovered. Lovely fuel for online discussion threads, but by the same token, also exactly the kind of thing that many physicists try to ignore whenever possible. Even so, there are views that are very hard to argue for. The implication of Bell's theorem (and a host of related results: Gleason, Kochen--Specker, ...) is that you can't find a consistent layer beneath quantum mechanics, not without something like a conspiracy of hidden causes propagating backwards in time. In other words, the hidden layer you postulate has to look baroquely nonclassical itself in order to be consistent with the real experimental data. 't Hooft occupies a position way out on the fringe, one that many people (including me) would say amounts to giving up on science and declaring that everything happens the way it does because Amon-Ra wills it.
I suppose one prominent thing is his book, Quantum Computing Since Democritus. I know of various other books about quantum information/computing, written from a physicist perspective. There are David Mermin's Quantum Computer Science: An Introduction (Cambridge UP, 2007) and Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak's Quantum Computing: A Gentle Introduction (MIT Press, 2014). If anyone knows a decent undergrad introduction to Gödel incompleteness and its relation to the halting problem, that would probably cover a lot of the rest, apart from what I recall as rather shallow pseudophilosophical faffling. (I am going off decade-old memories and the table of contents here.)
The Sinfest subreddit does have some real gems.
What's he doing with the hammer and chisel? According to this comic, you become a Christian by signing a contract that you believe will improve your life (or death, I guess). Several tiny undead Jewish skeletons will then enter through your mouth, and your eyes will become screens that display religious symbols. How will woodworking tools help with any of this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/sinfest/comments/1mvcffn/comment/n9plpf5/
Variations on this theme have probably come up repeatedly in promptfondler circles.