When two fields are completely unrelated, combining the two will not give you truth- rather, it will give you an incorrect perspective. For instance, if I were to apply a lesson of physics -"A body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it"- to the stock market, I'd be a poor man. Or if I made the superficial connection in my head between human memory and computer memory, I might be led to believe that computers are likely to lose any data which is not used. The principles of one field are not likely applicable in another, unless that field is closely related. One can make an analogy between them, to be sure, but that analogy is just a way of simplifying an issue to better understand it, not in itself truth. To think otherwise is a mildly amusing type of foolishness that leads to incorrect perspectives.
The way quantum physics deals with causality is limited to a quantum level. It has no meaning on any other level. The "breaking of causality" you mention in adventures is an entirely different issue, a fact you don't see because of this incorrect perspective of yours. In fact, the example you gave did not break causality at all- it just put a puzzle in between your input and the game's output. In that section, causality remains intact; it's just the rules which have changed. And the player solves the puzzle not by abandoning causality, but by figuring out what the new rules are. This is not an idea which has much potential beyond that specific puzzle- use it too much, and it's overkill. In other words, it's just a one-time gimmick, as has been noted. And there is no connection between these two concepts.
|
