On 3/1/2022 2:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:07 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

            >>>> 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 conditionof 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. /

    >> 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.
    /> So you think their decisions were not deterministic;/

I don't know if human actions are determined or not, but one thing I do know is that it's either deterministic or it's not deterministic, and if it's not deterministic, if it doesn't have a cause, then it must be random because that's what "random" means. Free Will on the other hand doesn't mean anything.

    > /If they were deterministic they were determined by any Cauchy
    slice of their past light cone, including the one 13.8 billion
    years ago./


    > /There's no "consipiracy to it; /

Incorrect. If superdeterminism is correct then out of the huge, and possibly infinite number of states the initial condition of the universe could've been in 13.8 billion years ago, it was in the one and only state that would fool human beings 13.8 billion years in the future into thinking that the many world's idea is correct when really it was not. I admit it's not technically impossible for such a thing to occur by random chance,but the likelihood of it occurring would, by comparison, make it almost a sure thing that by random chance in the next five seconds the second law of thermodynamics will be violated and all the air molecules in the room you're in right now will dramatically decrease in entropy and, because all air will be concentrated in one square inch in the lower southwest corner, you will suffocate to death.

    /> that implies some intelligence agent arranging it. /

Indeed it doesbecause there is only one chance in an astronomical number to an astronomical power to an astronomical power of that happening randomly. And because it requires an intelligent designer to begin the universe, and an intelligent designer that is obsessed with making fools of human beings, that's just one of the many reasons why superdeterminism is idiotic.No other cosmological theory requires that the universe have one and only one very specific initial condition,

Every deterministic theory requires that the universe began in one and only one very specific initial condition.

and that's why superdeterminism is such a gross violator of Occam's razor.

That implicitly assumes that humans being fooled is improbable because the choices they think they are making are at least algorithmically random and independent of hidden variables and instrument settings.  But all theory says is that their choices, or the hidden variables, are correlated by some past common cause...which could be in the dynamical evolution.

    /> You don't believe in free will,/

I neither believe nor disbelieve in free willbecause the free will "idea" is so bad it's not even wrong, and that is a pretty good definition of gibberish.

    > but you believe in statistically independent will.

If I knew what"statistically independent will" meant I might be able to say if I believed in it or not.

It's what you have implicitly used in arguing that the initial conditions of the universe are improbable if they produce violations of Bell's inequality because of an initial condition.  That requires that human choices about instrument settings be statistically independent.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

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/CAJPayv3NtMx2qQSgeuDr64B8r6PSncGD7QNc01PGRsVoNdA9Zg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NtMx2qQSgeuDr64B8r6PSncGD7QNc01PGRsVoNdA9Zg%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 

Reply via email to