On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:12 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 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. > Yes, the conditional probability P(later conditions B | initial conditions A) is 1 for a unique value of B, 0 for every other possible value of B. But the dynamical laws themselves don't tell you anything about the non-conditional probability P(initial conditions A) for different possible choices of A. Superdeterminism adds an extra constraint which says P(initial conditions A) is 0 for the vast majority of possible initial conditions in the phase space, and only nonzero for a tiny fraction with some very special characteristics. > > 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. > Can you elaborate on the analogy to Born's rule? Born's rule is not a constraint on initial states. Even if we accept in principle the idea of laws that consist of constraints on allowable initial conditions, there is also the argument that the mathematical formulation of such a constraint would have to be incredibly complex in an algorithmic sense, that it would have to have some built-in "concept" of high-level observers and measuring instruments so that the hidden variables could be assigned to particle pairs in a way that anticipated the fact that the two particles would later be measured by instruments in a certain configuration (the orientation of stern-gerlach devices used to measure each particle's spins, for example). Jesse > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9200337c-b1da-5de0-4c89-0494296cfeb4%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%2BjPoBDd131NDsoM8MwDGTqg6oU%2BmeZELph%3D%3DHjJR1TvA%40mail.gmail.com.