On 2/28/2022 1:12 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Superdeterminism goes well beyond Laplacean determinism. Determinism
is just about the dynamical laws--if you know some "initial" state of
the universe at time T1, it says you can perfectly predict the state
at a later time T2 (or an earlier time, in a time-symmetric theory).
Superdeterminism is a constraint on the initial conditions which is
meant to rule out some broad class of possible worlds that are *not*
ruled out by the dynamical laws.
In a deterministic system any given initial condition rules out
infinitely many futures.
In quantum theory, superdeterminism is invoked to allow for the
possibility that the dynamical laws are local realist ones (of a
single-world kind), so that under "generic" initial conditions one
would expect statistically to see Bell inequalities respected (in
contradiction to quantum predictions), but superdeterminism constrains
the initial conditions to a special set
Then postulating that the initial conditions were in this set seems like
just another dynamical law; like Born's rule.
Brent
which predetermine that experimenters doing Bell tests will routinely
see Bell inequalities violated. This is why, in stating the
assumptions needed to prove Bell's theorem, physicists will specify
that they are assuming superdeterminism is false by referring to the
"no-conspiracy" assumption, so named because superdeterminism is
understood conceptually as a kind of conspiracy in the initial
conditions of the universe that makes us think the dynamical laws are
very different from what they actually are.
Jesse
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:31 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6b2f2563-9231-ad7b-f444-0226b4546256%40gmail.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/CAPCWU3%2BD3rR7vyErL_NfyK180Wz8oYW0id2zO72ZShkFdydbMw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BD3rR7vyErL_NfyK180Wz8oYW0id2zO72ZShkFdydbMw%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/9200337c-b1da-5de0-4c89-0494296cfeb4%40gmail.com.
