Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heisenberg deduced the famous uncertainty principle which shows that there exist several conjugated quantities that can never be measured precisely at the same time. Further, Copenhagen interpretation gives a new perspective about quantum mechanics, which claims that particles do not have properties like position or momentum until people measure it. Hence, the famous EPR paradox was proposed to question the realism and locality of Quantum mechanics, which leads to the Hidden Variable explanation. However, this theorem was proved wrong by John Bell in 1964 with Bell Inequality. In addition, Hidden Variable Interpretation was developed by De Broglie and Bohm, they came up with the Bohmian Mechanics, which can be considered as Non-local Hidden Variable theorem. This interpretation gives physical meaning to waves. Unlike Copenhagen Interpretation, this theorem claims that particles do have a determined position. Some people may argue that it can be proved contradicted by using the Turing method (self-reference). Because if the algorithm represented by physics law described Hidden Mechanics to determine particles’ state, then the future is determined and predictable. Therefore, another algorithm can be established based on that, which will lead to “Liar Paradox”. This article will briefly introduce the uncertainty principle and some interpretations about quantum mechanics. Furthermore, this article will combine some ideas in Alan Turing’s Halting Problem to the universe of non-local hidden variables as a thought experiment, which involve self-reference, to give an interesting result of locality and determinism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".