On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:57 AM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/28/2022 3:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:02 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:31 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> *  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. 
>>>> *
>> No, it's saying that whenever humans did an experiment in physics and
>> changed something in a way they thought was random and concluded from the
>> experiment that the universe was random and non-local they were actually
>> being fooled because what they thought was random was not random at all,
>>  instead it was a part of a grand conspiracy that started 13.8 billion
>> years ago from a very very specific initial state that resulted in humans
>> always being fooled no matter how many times they repeated such
>> experiments. The only reason somebody would concoct such a ridiculous
>> theory is that for whatever reason they just didn't like the Many Worlds
>> idea and were desperate to do something, anything, to avoid it
> It is not Many Worlds that Hossenfelder rejects. It is, rather, the idea
> of non-locality. Her rejection of the implications of Bell's theorem for
> the possibility of a local explanation of the Bell-type correlations is
> based on a rejection of the idea of 'statistical independence'. In other
> words, she wants to allow the distribution of hidden variables to depend on
> the settings of both remote detectors, whereas locality would rule this
> out.
> Presumably because they are both determined by some common cause in the
> overlap of their past light cones.  But that's a kind of science defeating
> conclusion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0363.pdf  because it is also the
> settings of the detectors depending on the hidden variable values.

The mathematics of superdeterminism, as specified by Sabine, requires the
hidden variables to depend on the detector settings, but not the other way


In other words, her mathematical point, while valid, does not translate
> into a physical theory.

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 

Reply via email to