On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 1:17 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
* > 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.* > Well of course science can't guarantee it! Pure mathematics is in the guaranteeing business not science, but science can tell us what ideas are worth our time and what ideas are not. If only one state in 2^(astronomical)^(gargantuan)^(enormous) possible initial states for the universe will cause us now, after 13.8 billion years of deterministic evolution, to incorrectly conclude from our experiments that Bell's inequality is violated when in reality it has not been then I can't see why we shouldn't take geocentric cosmology just as seriously as superdeterminism, as another ONE of those 2^(astronomical)^(gargantuan)^(enormous) states must cause us to incorrectly conclude that the universe does not rotate around the Earth when in reality it does. So I treat both ideas equally and give both superdeterminism and geocentrism all the respect they deserve. Why don't you? John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> ntc -- 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/CAJPayv1SBZ2WnHHBurU8ZsLxCZxMyRJg8zoH%2BpgHVxXCByUtYg%40mail.gmail.com.
