On 3/2/2022 1:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:41 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:56 PM Brent Meeker
    <meekerbr...@gmail.com> 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.

This whole discussion is rather beside the point since the universe is patently not deterministic.But, if it were, then it necessarily started out in the exact state that would be obtained if you took the present state and reversed it back to the beginning. The fact that there could have been an arbitrarily large number of initial states is totally irrelevant -- only one numbered ticket wins the lottery, no matter how many tickets are printed.


And insofar as astronomical improbabilities go it's not really any different than imagining that we got to here thru a sequence of quantum branching, each of which had probability less than 1.0 and whose product must be infinitesimally near zero by now.

What Sabine argues is that in any experiment the preparation of the measurement instruments (or person) and the thing measured can be correlated by slower than light signals and so cannot be guaranteed to be statistically independent. Her idea seems to be that the Hilbert space could be fractal and this would induce statistical correlations. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full


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