On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 7:53:11 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 6:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > *Why not adopt ultra-determinism. Since Everettians insist on strictly >> determinist evolution* >> > > Superdeterminism postulates two things, determinism and one specific > initial condition; the problem I have with it is not the determinism part > it's the initial condition. Although there are an infinite number of > initial conditions the universe could have started in Superdeterminism says > that for no particular reason (that is to say because of nondeterminism) > the universe started out in the one and only initial condition that, after > billions of years of deterministic evolution, would result in our being > fooled by every single one of our scientific experiments into thinking > that things were nondeterministic when they were really deterministic, even > though there was no reason the universe started out in that state, and thus > the entire scientific enterprise is a complete waste of time. So the > universe has conspired to make fools of us all, in fact it would be more > than just a conspiracy, if Super determinism was true it would not be out > of place to say the entire purpose of the universe is not 42 as the > Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy says but instead the ultimate answer to > the question of life the universe and everything is to make us look stupid. > I find this all a bit hard to swallow. > > John K Clark >
Superdeterminism says the independence between setting up an experiment and the outcome of the experiment is not correct. This does in some ways rattle a foundation of the philosophy of science. This idea has been a cornerstone of science from the start. The independence of choosing the configuration of experimental initial conditions from the outcome is being challenged in part by this experimental verification that objective reality is limited in violations of Bell inequalities where locality is upheld. The Wigner’s friend in this experiment can conclude there is some initial condition dependency in the outcome. If one configures the experiment to abandon locality this problem may not occur. This means superdeterminism may then be something that occurs with a loss of reality and is in in a complementarity another configuration that abandons locality. I also think this has a bearing on Gödel’s theorem as a foundation to QM. A development of late called MIP* = ER, which states the class of entangled multiple interactive proof (MIP), where entangled is MIP*, is equivalent to the set of recursively enumerable (RE) algorithms. Recursively enumerable problems are those that can execute an output, but have no terminus. Algorithms that compute fractals are RE, because the fractal has infinite complexity in principle. This means that in principle a Mandelbrot set contains information equivalent to a type of entangled system. Interestingly, the RE condition appears equivalent to situations with superdeterminism. LC -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89a4cb79-932d-4e4d-b817-d7ce884d6867n%40googlegroups.com.
