On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:22 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Sabine seems to argue against free will as the source of statistical > independence...which might be true. * > It's neither true nor untrue because "free will" is just gibberish * > I don't see that it has anything to do with Occam's razor. It just > says the universe is deterministic (as Laplace thought) and it started in > some one definite state and nothing random ever happened. * > Determinism just means a future state of the universe can be calculated from the information in a previous date, but it says nothing about the initial condition of the universe. Superdeterminism says in addition that out of all the huge, and possibly infinite, number of states the universe could've started out in it started out in the one in only state that would not only produce humans after 13.8 billion years but humans who would always just happen to perform the wrong experiments so that they would always be fooled into thinking that the universe was random and non-local when in reality it was neither. And it's literally impossible for there to be a theory with a greater violation of Occam's razor than that. * > I don't buy it...I'm not even sure it's operationally distinct from > good old quantum randomness. But then I don't buy MWI either.* > I don't buy it either. Many Worlds is better than Superdeterminism, Copenhagen is better than Superdeterminism, "I don't know" is better than Superdeterminism, even Shut Up And Calculate is better than Superdeterminism. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> sua > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1g40c4nF1T0FXO0xu7ypBw4mrt9C48UQNQ9t%3DAGYBadQ%40mail.gmail.com.
