On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:56 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the universe is deterministic then obviously the state it's in now >> came from a specific initial condition 13.8 billion years ago, *HOWEVER* >> no cosmological theory except for superdeterminism claims to be able to >> specify *EXACTLY* what that ancient specific initial condition was by >> examining present day conditions. > > > >*Yes. I don't see any advocate of superdeterminism saying they know how > to specify the initial state,* > Well I sure as hell see it! There are at best a 2^(astronomical) number and at worst an infinite number of states that the universe could've started at, but superdeterministic fans insist it must've started in *ONE* and *ONLY ONE *specific state. And why are they so certain it started in that state? Because that is the *ONE* and *ONLY*state in which their ridiculous theory works. A theory just can't get more specific than specifying one thing out of a 2 ^(gargantuan) number of things as superdeterminism claims to be able to do. A theory can't get much stupider either because there is at best only one chance in 2^(astronomical) and at worst one chance in infinity of it being correct. And you may ask how *EXACTLY* does it do this? It does this by *ASSUMING* >> that the many world's idea must be wrong and then noting that out of the >> astronomical^2 number of states the universe could've started out in it >> must've started out in that* ONE* because that is the only *ONE *that is >> consistent with the assumption that many worlds is wrong. If that is not >> a violation of Occam's razor what the hell is? > > > * > Occam's razor is just a suggestion.* > Good God! Are you really so uninterested in finding the truth and so interested in winning a debate that you're willing to abandon Occam's razor? >> By contrast the only assumption that the many worlds idea makes is that >> Schrodinger's equation means what it says. > > > > That's the point that Sabine objects to. That is NOT it's only > assumption. It assumes that the Born rule applies > As I've said more than once, The Born Rule is *NOT* an assumption, it is a *FACT* that has been experimentally demonstrated far more extensively than anything else, not just in physics but in all of science. > > *Sabine's not a fan of MWI.* > A keen grasp of the obvious. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> okc gho >>> No other cosmological theory needs the universe to start out in one and >>> only one very specific state for the idea to work, nearly any state would >>> do. Superdeterminism is unique, no other deterministic theory, or theory of >>> any sort, requires that the universe began in one and only one very very >>> very specific initial condition, the only one that supports their pet >>> theory. If the many world's idea could be ruled out in some other way >>> nobody in their right mind would propose an idea as ridiculous as >>> superdeterminism. Nobody! >>> >>> Nearly all initial conditions would have resulted in a universe that >>> looked pretty much like this one, but one hyper-rare one won't. There is >>> one chance in an astronomical^2 number (or more) it did not, and >>> superdeterministic fans insist that must be the very one it did start out >>> in because they're desperate to avoid many worlds. Well OK two can play at >>> that game, maybe despite all the evidence to the contrary, Fred Hoyle's >>> steady state cosmological theory is correct after all but the universe >>> started out in the one and only initial condition that would forever >>> mislead us into thinking it is not. Or maybe the geocentric theory is >>> correct and everything in the universe really does rotate around the earth. >>> If the initial conditions were just right dinosaur bones could have been >>> formed from non-biological geology less than 4000 years ago, so maybe >>> dinosaurs >>> were never flesh and blood and never lived more than 66 million years ago. >>> If you don't like a theory, any theory not just many worlds, all you have >>> to do is just ignore all the evidence that it's true and claim that the >>> initial conditions are causing us to be deceived. This way lies madness. >>> >>> > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1-t-s1D3NTWO8fdkBpdCRR31U02OQyHLnqwoEJv-R1qg%40mail.gmail.com.
