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
and geocentrism all the respect they deserve. Why don't you?

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  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 

Reply via email to