On 2/28/2022 11:49 AM, John Clark wrote:
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.
That's like saying it's violation of Occam's razor that some buy won a
million dollars in the lottery because it was so improbable that he
won. If the universe started out in some definite state and it evolved
deterministically then that it produced humans who did certain things is
no more remarkable than if had produced Martians who did something
different. Already the definite initial state and determinism imply all
subsequent states. That seems pretty simple. And how is it different
from MWI which is also deterministic? Nobody seemed worried about
superdeterminism when Lagrange wrote about it. Was it just because he
failed to extend it to human decisions? Aren't you a compatibilist; you
believe in will, but physically determined will?
Brent
/> 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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1g40c4nF1T0FXO0xu7ypBw4mrt9C48UQNQ9t%3DAGYBadQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/6b2f2563-9231-ad7b-f444-0226b4546256%40gmail.com.
