> On 20 Jun 2018, at 00:14, 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] >> <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'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.
? There is no “universe”. What is requires is only the excluded middle on the existence or not of solution to Diophantine equations, or equivalently that a machine stops or does not stop, or that phi_i(j) gives a number or is undefined. That is presuppose in analysis and physics. > >> 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 fools us in making us believe in FTL. The MWI is deterministic, but not in that super-conspiratorial way. Bruno > >> 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). > >> (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. > >> >> 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. > >> 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. > >> >>> 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. > >>> 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. > > Brent > > -- > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
