On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 4:40 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*> As Barandes writes in (which you should watch)* *No offense Brent but I'm not gonna watch an hour long video by somebody I've never heard of promoting a theory that I consider even less credible than the "Dinosaurs Never Existed theory", especially when I note it only has 12 views. * > * >> the entirety of reality consists of a Universal Wave Function (UWF)**, >> it describes the position and momentum of every particle in existence at >> any Instant in time. If a human could observe things from the outside he >> wouldn't need to resort to probability, * > > > *> Really? * *Yes really. Or do you dispute the fact that Schrodinger's equation is deterministic? * > *> What about atomic decay?* > *What about it? Most Brent Meekers will see an atom that has a half-life of one hour decay close to that time because those branches of the Multiverse have the greatest quantum amplitude (or as I like to think of it on a branching 2-D diagram, those lines have a greater thickness) but a few Brent Meekers will see the atom decay after only a 10th of a second, and other Brent Meekers will have to wait 2 hours before it decays, and other Brent Meekers need to wait for 4 hours, and 8 hours, and 16 hours, and 32 hours etc. And a very few Brent Meekers will die of old age before they see the atom decay. * *>> In any quantum experiment Superdeterminism and Many Worlds make >> identical predictions, the only difference is Many Worlds only needs one >> assumption to make correct predictions while Superdeterminism needs to make >> an infinite number of them.* > > > *> You're just making stuff up. Superdeterminism doesn't make any more > deterministic predictions than MWI or Copenhagen, because the initial > conditions are unknown* *Yes the initial conditions are unknown and neither MWI nor Copenhagen claims to know anything about them, but that's OK because they both work fine with ANY particular starting condition, they even work fine if the universe has no initial conditions at all because the universe is infinitely old. And the same is true of Objective Collapse and Pilot Wave. However the case is completely different with Superdeterminism, it makes many demands that the others do not.* *Superdeterminism will only work if the universe (or multiverse) is finitely old and thus had a starting condition, and there are an INFINITE number of starting conditions that would result in a universe where Superdeterminism fails, but only ONE starting condition will result in a universe where it works because in that universe Superdeterminism will never have to face its greatest enemy, the scientific method. In that one universe the scientific method does not work and experimentation is just a waste of time. * *> and so produce probabilistic answers in the same way MWI says you don't > know which world you'll be in*. > *NO! In Superdeterminism the ultimate reason "you" need to resort to probability is that "you" don't have perfect knowledge of the previous state of the universe; by contrast Many Worlds says "you" needs to resort to probability because of the very nature of the personal pronoun "you". In Many Worlds asking "which ONE world will pre coin flip Brent Meeker be in after the coin flip, the heads world or the tails world?" is a nonsensical question because Brent Meeker will be in both worlds.* > *> Superdeterminism just says those things you think are inherently random > in QM are really determined by unknown initial conditions* > *NO! Superdeterminism does NOT say any old starting condition will work, it needs ONE very particular starting condition, the one that will result in a universe where the scientific method does not work and thus eventually produce generations of physicists and scientists in general forming theories that will be completely 100% dead wrong. * > *>> And you still haven't told me why you think Superdeterminism is a >> reasonable theory worthy of consideration but the Dinosaurs Never Existed >> Theory is not. I'm assuming you believe that dinosaurs once existed, if I'm >> wrong about that assumption please let me know.* > > > *> I don't think it's a useful theory because it explains things in terms > of inaccessible initial conditions. * > *You believe that is not also true for Superdeterminism?! The Dinosaurs Never Existed theory is certainly idiotc but, unlike Superdeterminism, at least in it the scientific method still works, and thus it's only a matter of time before geologists figure out what strange non-biological forces made all those odd looking rocks that so many people have misinterpreted as being the bones of huge reptiles. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 8b2 > > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1t3q32VZ_YfRnQgw2axT2ow%3DhqNjAQ0co88RF6bptYxw%40mail.gmail.com.
