[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Sun Nov 27 16:07:30 UTC 2016

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016  Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> 
> Why are you arguing the value of a classically obtained
>  
> probability whose sole significance is that you claim it differs from the
>  
> quantum mechanical result?

I was arguing that Adrian's description of even classical probability
(never mind the quantum version) led to contradictory results.  

>> >>
>> tell me what on earth "free will" means and I might want to
>>  
>> comment about it.
>
>
> > 
> For shit's sake John, the definition is right there in the section of my
> post that you quoted: "John on the otherhand seems to believe that he
> really does choose the angle of the polararizer or direction of magnetic
> field when conducting an experiment[.]"
>

Apparently you believe the word "choice" explains everything that needs
explaining about that odd phrase "free will". I do not. There are only 2
possibilities,  you "chose" to do X rather than Y for a reason in which
case you're a cuckoo clock, or you "chose" to do X rather than Y for no
reason in which case you're a roulette wheel. Where does this thing you
call "free will" enter into this?

>
> 
> I think that the notion that some local events have causes too remote for
>  
> us to ever know and the notion that those same events have no cause at all
>  
> are empirically indistinguishable
>

Maybe, and yes, that would be empirically indistinguishable from having
no cause.

>
> > 
> and therefore redundant.

But
 there are some non-local events that we DO know about. 

With
 the latest Bell experiments we DO have confirmation that some events DO
have an influence on things faster than the speed of light, although this
influence can not be used for communication.

>
> 
> Furthermore, one of the major loopholes in Bell's Inequality is
>  
> superdeterminism which is the idea that *everything* that happens has been
>  
> predestined to happen since the beginning of time including what variable
>  
> a researcher chooses to measure.
>  
> In that case, all the quantum weirdness disappears

Yes the universe could be a put-up job. Maybe 10 billion years ago and 10
billion light years away when a photon was born on a
quasar
 it already knew it would someday encounter your sunglass lens and it also
knew exactly how much you would decide to rotate that lens. But if so that
seems pretty damn weird to me.  

> 
> Assuming evolution through natural selection, it seems highly unlikely
>  
> that an organism would evolve the perception of freedom of choice, without
>  
> there being any actual freedom of choice.

Evolution or no Evolution I don't see how 
an organism could NOT have that feeling. I ask you "do you want to do X or
Y?" and you reply "I haven't decided yet, it's a complex problem, there are
pros and cons to both and I haven't finished the calculation
", after 5 minutes you say "OK I finished the calculation and I've decided
I want to do Y".

I find all this no more mysterious than the fact that you don't know what
you will decide to do before you've decided to do it. Even a calculator
doesn't know what number it will decide to put on its screen when you type
in 2+2 until the microprocessor has finished making the calculation.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161127/bb3ccd9a/attachment.html>