[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Did you mean SWE? (Schrodinger Wave Equation?)
>
> No, I mean Single (or Superdeterministic) World Interpretation.
>
> > Super determinism has to be the most unlikely of all theories
>
> Here is the core of our disagreement.  Superdeterminism - in ways that
> do not violate free will - seems more likely than MWI, to me.
>

Interesting, I would like to know what about MWI you find so unlikely.


>
> > It also seems like it would require math itself to be superdetermined,
> what
> > if I chose what measurements to make based on the digits of Pi? Would Pi
> > then be superdetermined? Or only my decision to use Pi to guide my
> > measurements?
>
> The latter, just like our distant ancestors' eventual collective
> choice to use a base-10 numbering system in which values such as pi
> would be expressed.  Pi itself is not affected by your choice.
>

But once Pi is chosen, it offers infinite digits beyond my or any physical
thing's control. Are physical outcomes now superdetermined for all eternity
to follow Pi now, based on a choice someone made thousands of years ago? By
what mechanism do you suppose this is possible?


>
> You could argue that pi is superdetermined: the value that it will
> have had, has been determined since before the beginning of our
> universe.  It is immutable and unchangeable; no observer or act of
> will (free or otherwise) can change it.  But this is true whether MWI
> is true or false, and whether or not we are otherwise in a
> superdetermined universe, so it is irrelevant to finding out which of
> those (or something else) is the case.
>
> > Do you really find the idea that other parts of the wave function are as
> > real as the one you find yourself in now so distateful that it requires
> > accepting all the baggage ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/q6/
> collapse_postulates/
> > ) that comes with rejecting that idea?
>
> All of that "baggage" (some of which seems a bit suspect) is still
> less unlikely than MWI.


Please explain. MWI is the simplest theory of QM we know of that is
compatible with all observations.


> Check down in the comments and Wiseman sums
> it up nicely: the laws of physics are what they are.
>
But also, superdeterminism speculates that the "collapse" isn't of
> real objects, but only of our knowledge space.  The result always was
> what it will be (possibly modulo free will, but that's outside of what
> can be measured).


Have you read Russell Standish's theory of nothing? It is available as a
free e-book: http://swc2.hccs.edu/kindle/theoryofnothing.pdf . Chapter 7
and Appendix D actually derive the laws of quantum mechanics from a simple
assumption about observation and how it would operate in an the context of
an infinite plentitude.

What this means: the infinite minds and observations are already out there,
it is the new information we learn that changes which of the infinite
locations one can still consider oneself to be a part of. This is quite
similar to Heinz-Dieter Zeh's Many Minds Interpretation, or Ron Garett's
Zero Universe Interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

As for where the infinite observers come from, there is a whole discussion
list dedicated to that topic. See the everything-list google group.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161231/0c82f365/attachment.html>