Is there anything wrong with the cybernetic interpretation of quantum mechanics by Ross Rhodes?

Question

The interpretation is outlined here

It certainly gives a good logical explanation of most quantum oddities.

Answer 1

Let's go through what happens in this article. The author lays out a series of what he or she calls "quantum puzzles". This phrase is not defined, but one may infer the definition from the sentence,

Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations.

The author proposes an analogy to explain these "quantum puzzles", that the universe is a simulation run in some computer. He or she then goes on to propose that this analogy is the actual nature of reality.

---

Obviously I can't pick apart every sentence of the article, so I will address what I see as the main problem with this computer analogy: it was proposed to answer questions no one asked. These "quantum puzzles" aren't things that need to be explained at all, even though the author of the page may find them counterintuitive.

For example, there is no conceptual problem with light having no "medium". Light is an oscillation of the electromagnetic field. For a discussion of this idea, see Why don't electromagnetic waves require a medium?

As another example, there is no such thing as the "collapse of the wave function", at least not as commonly presented in the popular physics literature. For a discussion, see On the nature of the collapse of the wave function and, in particular, the answer by Lubos Motl.

Some of the "quantum puzzles" don't even seem puzzling to the author. For instance, he or she describes in general terms what it means for particles to be indistinguishable. No questions are asked or problems raised about this property. But the author feels it necessary to analogize this to some high-level operation on a computer.

I have lots of other problems with this article, but I think the above discussion is enough. The analogy made in the article doesn't explain anything at all that isn't already well-understood.