On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 6/18/2018 3:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Block time plus MWI means universes aren't created, they're all already >>> there. >>> >> >> >> *Seems like super-determinism to me. You're making a distinction with no >> difference. AG * >> > > Superdeterminism says you and a remote partner could decide to use the > digits of Pi to pseudorandomly select angles of measurement in a Bell > experiment, then decide to use the digits of Euler's number. Yet somehow, > the universe knew you and your friend had this agreement to use these > digits of these constants, > > > You keep anthropomorphizing the universe to make super-determinism sound > ridiculous. It's nothing more that taking determinism completely > seriously, no free will by experimenters. The choice of you and your > friend was determined by the past. That's all determinism means. > > It's not just me. The first person who proposed this loophole around Bell also immediately discarded it as ridiculous. If super-determinism means the same thing as determinism, why add the "super-" qualifier? Here is a write up <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/does-some-deeper-level-of-physics-underlie-quantum-mechanics-an-interview-with-nobelist-gerard-e28099t-hooft/> in scientific american about t'Hooft's idea: *The dramatic version is that free will <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-physics-free-will> is an illusion. Worse, actually. Even regular determinism–without the “super”–subverts our sense of free will. Through the laws of physics, you can trace every choice you make to the arrangement of matter at the dawn of time. Superdeterminism adds a twist of the knife. Not only is everything you do preordained, the universe reaches into your brain and stops you from doing an experiment that would reveal its true nature. The universe is not just set up in advance. It is set up in advance to fool you. As a conspiracy theory, this leaves Roswell and the Priory of Sion in the dust.* I've taken it one step further. By using the digits of Pi or Euler's number, it's not just reaching into your brain, since our brain did not determine those digits. It requires a universe setup in advance to know the digits of Pi, and to take into account the knowledge that you are using the digits of Pi to pseudorandomly set the angles of the measurement devices, and produce statistics (that were super determined at the time of the big bang) to fool you by reproducing the quantum statistics with super-determined hidden variables. If you see super-determinism as nothing more than determinism I think you are missing something. This is a pre-established harmony of the highest order, requiring a massive information content per particle interaction (each particle has to contain knowledge, presumably up to and including all other knowledge about the entire universe up to that point). For example: 1. Take the deep-field image from Nasa, or the CMB data from all 360 degrees. 2. Use that as a seed to the Hash-DRBG (NIST defined deterministic random bit generator) 3. Use the output of the Hash DRBG to select the angles for each iteration of a Bell experiment Now each particle has to be aware of the entire arrangement of remote galaxies in a particular direction looked at by the Hubble Telescope, in order to properly establish a hidden variable at the time of its creation. The article I linked says only 3 people take the idea seriously. I don't imagine this number to grow because it means giving up on any hope of scientific progress (the same excuse can be used to avoid having to take seriously the result of any experiment). At its best it is saying "God made it that way", at its worst it is saying "God is trying to fool us". I think t'Hooft's issue is he likes locality so much he is willing to adopt a completely strange theory to preserve it, but for some reason doesn't like many-worlds, or doesn't see (or believe) that locality can be preserved under it. In the article, t'Hooft also doesn't seem very confident in his own ideas, it sounds more like he knows he is just playing with ideas, rather than strongly defending them. Again from the article: *"I’m asking questions all the time. One of the questions I’m asking all the time is: Are we doing things right? Am I doing things right? The books that I read, are they correct? Maybe I’m wrong in some basic way. I know that I’m not entirely correct because I haven’t got the correct theory. But I continue asking questions."* In my view, a priori super-determinism fails on statistical grounds. The number of possible super-determined universes is so much smaller (exponentially so over time) than the set of "regularly determined" universes, that the probability we are living within a super determined universes is effectively zero. such that when it generated single pairs of photons, those photons would > have just the right properties for QM statistics to not be violated. Also, > the universe knew when you would decide to switch to use Euler's number, > which perhaps was decided by the closing price of the stock market, all > this information the universe knew and took into account when generating > paired photons and embedding a single hidden variable with that photon. > > > Yes, because all those things were determined by what came before them. > > By what means do you propose that the closing price of the stock market or the hash of an image produced by NASA factor into the creation of a particle pair? > This is what Superdeterminism implies. Superdeterminism is very different > from regular/plain "determinism", which every physical theory is (with the > sole exception of wave function collapse). > > > All other physical theories assume that experimenters can make free > choices independent of the past history of the world. > > > Science relies on a universe that doesn't try to fool us and allows for repeatable results when you repeat the same experiment. Super-determinism requires giving up both of these. It is an abandonment of science as a means of progressing. Jason -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
