On 6/20/2018 9:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
You are so invested in MWI you think the purpose of theories is to
explain it.
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?
I said I was using your form.
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).
If they accept super-deteminism they are not fooled if SD is true. Only
you who insist on some other theory are 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."*
Sounds just like Bruno in his faux modest mode.
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).
Well of course if you suppose the world is probabilistic that already
implies there are many more ways is could be than it actually is.
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?
What is the mechanism in the block universe model? What is the
mechanism for the UD to produce the physical world?
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,
You keep going back to "fool us". It's only "fooling you" if you
believe in the wrong theory. It's like saying the Earth can't be
spherical because it's fooling us into thinking it's flat.
Brent
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
