Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20200214154305/@comment-32182236-20200214181339

Ah, okay. Since it's already indeterminate, you don't need to present any evidence to claim it's indeterminate.

Exactly. To bring it to a quantum analogy, remember that an object starts in superposition, and only collapses when an observation is made (though we don't need to be the observers).

Likewise, a proposition starts as an indeterminate value (Spoiler:This is quantum superposition in disguise), and collapses into a definite value when the event is finalized. In our field of knowledge, it collapses once a proof or disproof is found or made.

Just like quantum mechanics, though, we're not exactly sure what the superposition is. All three main interpretations have counterparts here, all which are compatible with what I gave you.

Copenhagen:It's literally in superposition until we observe the proof, collapsing it. (Of course, Copenhagen was a "shut up and calculate", so in this case, we can use it as a "shut up and theorize"..)

Many-Worlds:It's both true and false-True in one world, and false in another. We need to find out what world we're in through observation.

De Broglie-Bohm:The value was definite from the start:Our observations just give us knowledge of what was already determined to happen. (Just like actual pilot wave theory, though, this isn't really all that likely:It'd require superdeterminism to be true to even work. However, in terms of evidence already present in Undertale, this is actually more likely. Even still, we can't just ignore the fact that we don't know yet, the fact that real superpositions almost certainly do exist, and we still need our quantum decoherence, so we might as well still use the superposition value. Get theorizing, guys.)