On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 04:20, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the >>> universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think >>> superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you think it's complete >>> bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's bullshit. >>> >> >> *>I still struggle to see the difference between determinism and >> superdeterminism. They both say that there is no true randomness* >> > > Yes. > > >> * > which includes randomness in how the experimenters set up their >> experiment.* >> > > No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you > also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a > given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous > state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the > infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8 > billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that > would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their > instruments in such a way that they always *INCORRECTLY* conclude that > things can *NOT* be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely > impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the > largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite > number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in > which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial > condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And > if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing > scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead to > the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do seem > to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the initial > conditions were even further restrained such that we set our instruments > correctly on all experiments *EXCEPT* when the experimenters try to test > for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set them incorrectly. That's > why I don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. That is why I > think superdeterminism is bullshit. > Bell seemed to think that super determinism meant that the mind of the experimenters was determined along with everything else, which he described as a lack of “free will” (it seems he meant by this lack of randomness in their minds), which he thought was an assumption in the experiment: “There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/superluminal> speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/determinism> in the universe, the complete absence of free will <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/free_will>. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle *A* what measurement has been carried out on particle *B*, because the universe, including particle *A*, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.” -- 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/CAH%3D2ypWLBgv4E2ogPcOTywcg-ndqPbzxLJ3L6%2Bx62c5gGjkNBw%40mail.gmail.com.
