Imagine a quantum mechanical structure of many possible branchings. Imagine this structure’s graph has a one way event horizon. But as computation unfolds/progresses, another graph creates a connection to it so it is no longer a one way event horizon. This “other’ graph would be the observer. The connection would be caused by the observation. The observer derives information and thus causes it to no longer be one way. The observing/measuring creates information in the observer ‘graph’ thus causing a connection. [Appreciate readers bearing with any incorrect uses of terminology, and considering the idea.] Note: Inspired by Stephen Wolfram’s Virtual ICM Seminar.
Stephen Wolfram posits that “Space is a hyper-graph that is defined by just a connection between things.”* I think historically it’s been hard to understand what goes on with the double slit experiment because people think about it in terms of what’s happening between the photon and the observer in that they have this idea that there’s a physical distance. Whereas if you think about it from the standpoint of computation it’s not a space or distance issue, but a matter of information and computation. The computational perspective eliminates the weirdness. From this view it’s naturally how one would expect a double slit experiment should behave. [*Virtual ICM Seminars Stephen Wolfram, minute 35, June 18, 2020]
The traditional way of thinking of ‘space’ or ‘distance’ also drives “spooky action at a distance”. Reframing the interaction in computational space removes this distance and some of the spookiness. That still leaves entanglement to be explained in this computational space framework/view.