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./
Correct.
> /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.
Brent
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
gib
--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5816e99-484e-60d9-f556-85581e075e32%40gmail.com.