<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Adrian Tymes </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:atymes@gmail.com" target="_blank">atymes@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-m_-8140705335373644093gmail-">
><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div><font size="4">I know you don't like<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div> Manny Worlds but it's not even clear to me just what your prefered quantum<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div> interpretation is. Copenhagen? Pilot Wave? Transactional?<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div> Super-Deterministic? Shut up And Calculate?</font></span></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_-8140705335373644093gmail-">
<br>
</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>A variation on superdeterministic,</blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">The trouble I have with that is explanations are supposed to show how simplicity produces complexity,<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>but<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>superdeterminism<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>explains the complex and weird things<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>we see<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>today by saying 13.8 billion years ago things were even more complex<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> and I don't see how that helps. It says a</div>toms were arranged <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">back then </div>so they would evolve <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">into</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>human scientists<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>would perform certain experiments<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div> and atoms would<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>also<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>conspire to give<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> those</div> scientists<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>misleading<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>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. </font><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><font size="4">Superdeterminism would mean giving up, there would be no point i<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">n</div> doing science because the universe is determined<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> (or superdetermined)</div> to make us ask the wrong questions and determined to give us the wrong answers.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>I can't prove the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>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<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that might prove Many Worlds to be wrong, but<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>by its very definition<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>I can never prove superdeterminism<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>to be wrong regardless of what marvelous instruments I have at my disposal. </font><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>As you have noted repeatedly, "free will" needs definition. I agree<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that "but it violates free will" is not a scientific objection.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">I<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>would go further, the violation of free will is not even a unscientific objection, it's just a sequence of ASCII characters.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>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<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>a<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">n</div> 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<br>superdeterminism<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> 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". </div></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4">All the scientists I've heard discussing superdeterminism <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">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.</div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"> There are an infinite number of ideas like that and none can be proven wrong, but life is too short to worry about them</div></font></font><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>With all objections about free will answered and set aside, there does<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>not seem to be any measurable difference between superdeterminism and<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>MWI. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">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. </font></div></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>(There are arguments such as, "if we assume all parts of the wave<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>function are real", but that makes an assumption. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">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. </div> </font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>in MWI<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the entanglement of two particles is itself a physical object which<br>
instantly collapses</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><font size="4">Yes but in the MWI the rules are crystal clear about when things split and when things merge back together. And In MWI<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>everything that can happen does happen, so when a photon approaches 2 slits the universe splits and one <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">photon </div>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) <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">then </div>the photons no longer exist in either universe and so they merge back together into one <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">universe </div>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.</font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>apparently defying light speed <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">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.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"> John K Clark</font></div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div></div></div></div>