[ExI] Bell's Inequality
johnkclark at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 21:16:37 UTC 2017
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point in
>> doing science because the universe is determined
>> (or superdetermined)
>> to make us ask the wrong questions
> Unless we had free will,
so that we could choose what questions we ask
without being predestined since the beginning of time to ask those
Then it's not superdeterminism or anything close to it.
> Like it or not, your objection boils down to "but free will".
So everything is superdetermined except, for some unspecified reason, us.
We do thing by "choice" and that means not doing things for a reason
because that would be determined and not doing things for no reason because
that would be random. Unlike everything else our actions are not determined
and also not not determined. Huh?
>> If some parts are real and some parts are not then an explanation is
>> to explain the differentiation
> The explanation is that the wave function represents our knowledge of
> the thing - of the probabilities for what state it could have given
> what has been observed - rather than the actual thing.
The wave function can't even give us probabilities, only the square of the
absolute value of the wave function can do that. So that means 2 very
different wave functions
can produce the exact same probability of finding a particle at a point.
So if you measure a particle at a point you know where it is but you still
don't know what its wave function was at that point, so you don't know what
the wave would have evolved into at some other point if you had not
measured it and collapsed the wave.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat