On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you >> also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a >> given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous >> state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the >> infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8 >> billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that >> would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their >> instruments in such a way that they always *INCORRECTLY* conclude that >> things can *NOT* be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely >> impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the >> largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite >> number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in >> which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial >> condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And >> if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing >> scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead >> to the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do >> seem to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the >> initial conditions were even further restrained such that we set our >> instruments correctly on all experiments *EXCEPT* when the experimenters >> try to test for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set them >> incorrectly. That's why I don't understand how anyone can take this >> seriously. That is why I think superdeterminism is bullshit. >> > > *> Bell seemed to think that super determinism meant that the mind of the > experimenters was determined along with everything else, which he described > as a lack of “free will”* > I can't comment about that because I've never been able to figure out what people mean by "free will". > *it seems he meant by this lack of randomness in their minds* > But a lack of randomness is what you'd expect a mind to produce, at least a mind that was working properly, that's why when somebody does something we don't understand we say "why did you do that?" And if they can't give a good answer, a good reason, a good cause, to that then we say that their behavior was unreasonable. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> eep > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1U_SL3dKT3swRHDjsnOAcq4t469VqBiLaej0Bng9ePOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
