[ExI] Bell's Inequality
atymes at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 21:49:02 UTC 2017
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,
> What's that?
As previously noted, the definition is incomplete, but it includes
something that lets us, somehow, freely determine which questions we
wish to ask.
>> so that we could choose what questions we ask
>> without being predestined since the beginning of time to ask those
>> specific questions.
> Then it's not superdeterminism or anything close to it.
I would quibble about "or anything close to it", but - fine, then the
point of view I am proposing is not strictly what you call
superdeterminism. Perhaps you would not say my point of view does not
strictly align with any specific noun you care to label it with. What
you define things as is ultimately your call; it does not modify what
I am saying.
> 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?
Welcome to trying to pin down free will. And yet, so many people
insist that there must absolutely be something like this, even in MWI
(why did we choose to observe, and thus fracture the universe, at this
moment rather than that moment), based on no measurable evidence.
More information about the extropy-chat