[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Mon Jan 2 16:19:57 UTC 2017

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>> > 
>> I know you don't like
>> 
>>  Manny Worlds but it's not even clear to me just what your prefered
>> quantum
>> 
>>  interpretation is. Copenhagen? Pilot Wave? Transactional?
>> 
>>  Super-Deterministic? Shut up And Calculate?
>
>
> > 
> A variation on superdeterministic,

The trouble I have with that is explanations are supposed to show how
simplicity produces complexity,

but

superdeterminism

explains the complex and weird things

we see

today by saying 13.8 billion years ago things were even more complex
,
 and I don't see how that helps. It says a
toms were arranged
back then 
so they would evolve
into

human scientists

that

would perform certain experiments
,
and atoms would

also

conspire to give
 those
 scientists

misleading

results. There are an astronomical number to an astronomical power number
of states the universe could have been in 13.8 billion years ago, but it
just happened to be in the one and only state that would cause a grand
conspiracy to fool us.

Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point i
n
doing science because the universe is determined
 (or superdetermined)
to make us ask the wrong questions and determined to give us the  wrong
answers.

I can't prove the

universe isn't lying to us, and that is exactly the problem. If Turing
complete quantum computers can be built, and it's starting to look like
that might be possible, then experiments could be performed

that might prove Many Worlds to be wrong, but

by its very definition

I can never prove superdeterminism

to be wrong regardless of what marvelous instruments I have at my disposal.

>
> 
> As you have noted repeatedly, "free will" needs definition.  I agree
>  
> that "but it violates free will" is not a scientific objection.
>

I

would go further, the violation of free will is not even a unscientific
objection, it's just a sequence of ASCII characters.

However a philosophy that would mean the end of science is a scientific
objection. A scientist who believed in superdeterminism is a contradiction
in terms, there would be no point in performing experiments because it will
not give you even

a
n
approximation of the truth, it will only give you whatever bullshit cock
and bull story the universe decided to tell us. I don't know of any working
scientist who actually believes in superdeterminism. It was John Bell
himself who first talked about
superdeterminism
 and how it was a loophole in his inequality, the only one that hasn't
been filled by experiment and by its definition will never be filled, but
even the inventor of the idea called it "implausible".  

All the scientists I've heard discussing superdeterminism
do so as a hypothetical talking point not a serious proposal, rather like
the idea that God really did create the world in 4004 BC and put dinosaur
bones in the ground to test our faith, or the entire universe was created
just 5 minutes ago complete with memories of us as children.
 There are an infinite number of ideas like that and none can be proven
wrong, but life is too short to worry about them

>
> 
> With all objections about free will answered and set aside, there does
>  
> not seem to be any measurable difference between superdeterminism and
>  
> MWI.

One assumes the universe is subtle but not malicious, the other assumes
the universe is lying through its teeth. One concludes science is worth
doing the other concludes it is not. One could be disproved with a Turing
complete quantum computer and the other could never be disproven regardless
of what you had in the lab.

> 
> (There are arguments such as, "if we assume all parts of the wave
>  
> function are real", but that makes an assumption.

If some parts are real and some parts are not then an explanation is
needed to explain the differentiation, if all parts are real no
explanation is needed. If all parts are real would we expect any one
observer to be able to see it all? No.

> > 
> in MWI
> 
> the entanglement of two particles is itself a physical object which
> instantly collapses

Yes but in the MWI the rules are crystal clear about when things split and
when things merge back together. And In MWI

everything that can happen does happen, so when a photon approaches 2 slits
the universe splits and one
photon 
goes through the right slit and one goes through the left slit. If after
that the photons hit a photographic plate (or a brick wall)
then 
the photons no longer exist in either universe and so they merge back
together into one
universe 
and this merger causes the interference lines. If instead after passing the
slits there is no photographic plate (or brick wall) and the photons are
allowed to continue on into infinite space then the 2 universes remain
different and remain separated forever.

> > 
> apparently defying light speed
>

Einstein's General Theory doesn't say nothing can move faster than light,
it only says that matter energy and information can't, and whatever quantum
influences are it's clear they are not matter energy or information. Also
although Einstein says matter can not move through space faster than light,
space itself can expand or contract or bend at any speed.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170102/cfd13869/attachment.html>