On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 6/19/2018 6:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > 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.* > > > Yes, they explain that the "super" means Alice and Bob cannot make > independent spacelike decisions because their decisions are the product of > common events in the (distant) past and that product is *determined*. > I sometimes can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate or not. > > > 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, > > > Why is that a problem? The digits are determined and the choice to use > them is determined. Bruno's theory requires "the universe to know" the > solutions to sets of Diophantine equations. > It requires only an independent existence of arithmetical truth. > > > 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. > > > Again with the anthropomorphizing. The universe is just following its > deterministic laws; it's not fooling anybody. > It's fooling us into believing in non-locality QM when QM isn't really true. In that sense super-determinism is self-defeating, to believe it means one is forced to discard the very theory it is meant to explain. It is a bit like epiphenominalism that way. > > > 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 > > > No, it certainly requires no more information than required to define a > block universe and potentially much less since all results flow from the > past, and being deterministic means it's reversible, so the information > content is fixed (as it is for SWE). > super-determinism is so ill-defined of a theory it is hardly worth debating. > > > (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. > > > Nonsense. To use your form, the universe knew that's what you were going > to do and so only had to provide the seed, and it knew the random bit > generator and it's state, so it knew the angles that would be selected. > Now who is anthropomorphizing the universe? > > > > 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". > > > It's like any other deterministic theory. If you can discover it's law of > evolution and an initial state you can predict everything. > There's no plausible explanation that could be made for super determinism (when given in its normal sense as as a single world that sets hidden variables to replicate the Bell statistics such that experimenters are always fooled). > > > 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. > > > Why would it be any smaller? In MWI every "world" is traceable back > deterministically UNLESS you allow tracing over the reduced density matrix, > which is equivalent to collapsing the wave function. > Any universe where the hidden variables fail to be properly selected so as to always fool the experimenters is ruled out. It seems to me there are far more ways to variables could exist if they were not artificially constrained in such a way to maintain this illusion, than if they could exist in any way (as the MWI and even QM with collapse allow). > > > > 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? > > > t'Hooft (not me) proposes them having a common cause in the distant past. > That doesn't quite do it. What is the mechanism? Is everything connected with everything else, with all the information of everything else in the universe known at each point in time and space, so as to enable the correct determination of a particle pair's hidden variable? > > > 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. > > > That's what they say about "everything happens" theories too. > Who says that? In any case, MWI does not suggest the universe is trying to fool us, and being deterministic, provides repeatable results for repeated experiments. I wouldn't call MWI 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.
