<br><br>On Sunday, August 27, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you for the more in depth explanation Jason, I think it makes a bit more sense now.<br>
<br>
However!<br>
<br>
Based on that, how could this ever be a theory if the variables and "machinery" per definition are always hidden?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>It is really an abandonment of science. Once one goes so far to accept an idea like nature is conspiring against you to give you certain answers, you can explain anything.</div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The same with multiple worlds?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Multiple words of QM are fully described just from the Shrodinger equation. It's math that's well defined and it accounts for all our observations.</div><div><br></div><div>As to how we prove them, any experiment we perform that confirms QM or the Shrodinger equation, confirms MW.</div><div><br></div><div>This is how all theories work. We can, for example, explain a great deal about the interior of stars and what happens there, from our theories and our observations of the surfaces of stars which confirms our theories about what happens inside. There are always predictions of theories which are not, or haven't been, tested and confirmed. But we accept theories when we have confirmed many predictions and no prediction has been found false.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Of course I can see how someone uses these interpretations as a way to explain a mathematical theory, but if you have a theory, that by definition never can be verified with any scientific tools, it does sound pretty weak to me.<br>
<br>
The only case I can imagine, is that every other theory is worse, so conceptually we live with the least bad theory, but strictly speaking, we do live with an unconfirmed theory that is (at least based on my limited understanding) forever "out of reach".</blockquote><div><br></div><div>All interpretations stretch our intuition. But one theory is clearly the winner when we consider them objectively, and according to normal heuristics what makes for good theories in science.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
people will go to maintain their idea of a unique self. (I think it's rather like the resistance to the idea that the earth wasn't<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I don't think people should be that depressed. No matter the theory, we always have the consolation of our subjective experience, so we'll always have a kind of "pro forma" self, no matter where science leads us.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree. The universe, or reality, being bigger than we previously thought, in no way diminishes our central role as observers to that reality. If anything it makes us even more special, rare, unique, and important. (E.g., consider the 10^122 dead universes out there for every one that can support life), and how much more precious that makes this universe, and this planet.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
On Sunday, August 27, 2023, <efc@swisscows.email> wrote:<br>
Thank you Jason,<br>
<br>
So would that imply then that there is no true randomness and that it is only because our limited point of view, that it<br>
looks random? <br>
<br>
<br>
There is a "meta level" of machinery kind of?<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, super determinism says there are hidden variables, determined by machinery we can't access, but moreover, everything we do to<br>
try to measure these hidden variables, by whatever processes we choose, flipping coins, picking numbers in our head, using digits of<br>
Pi or e, using pseudorandom number generators, anything, whatever we pick and whatever method we choose, the universe will choose<br>
hidden variables such that they will yield the Bell probabilities giving the false appearance of random quantum collapse, where there<br>
are not. But if this is true, and if we use constants in math like Pi or e, or SQRT(2), to choose how to set the rotation of a<br>
polarizing filter when measuring two entangled photons, then somehow the universe must have known that you would be using, say, the<br>
digits of SQRT(2) when it created the entangled photons years earlier before you measured them. So that in a sense, the photon pair<br>
creation event must have known how you would be measuring them, and then generated them in a way that would yield the expected<br>
quantum probabilities. It would also know you wouldn't in the last moment, change your mind to use the digits of Pi to choose the<br>
angle of rotation for the polarizing filter. Super determinism is the idea that the whole universe is a conspiracy to make us falsely<br>
believe in quantum probabilities.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sorry if I'm not making sense, it is because I did not understand the example. ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If it's hard to understand it's because it's so hard to believe anyone would propose this as a serious theory, but that's the length<br>
the center of the universe or solar system, at least I think it comes from the same place).<br>
<br>
Jason<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sunday, August 27, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.or<wbr>g</a>> wrote:<br>
Thank you very much Stuart, I was just about to ask for a book and you already thought of that.<br>
<br>
But what about superdeterminism?<br>
<br>
<br>
In my view this is the worst of all possible interpretations. It is the theory that the laws of physics are<br>
conspiring to always fool<br>
us. (Something like Descartes's evil demon). For example, if we choose to do a Bell experiment and set our<br>
orientations according to<br>
some random sequence, super determinism says the correlations of the particles are also determined by the<br>
same processes that drive<br>
the random number generator we use to set our orientations.<br>
<br>
Okay, this is weird, but not logically impossible.<br>
<br>
But now consider if we set our orientations according to the digits of Pi, did the processes that determine<br>
particle orientations<br>
also determine the digits of Pi? At this point I think super determinism is no longer defensible.<br>
<br>
Jason <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Wouldn't that also be one of the better "candidates" even though it goes<br>
against our intuition?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
On 2023-08-26 15:17, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
Hello Stuart,<br>
<br>
Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting<br>
edge physics.<br>
<br>
You say that<br>
<br>
If you believe that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because you<br>
are already immortal. You don't need to copy yourself because there are already<br>
plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, you strewn about the multiverse.<br>
<br>
<br>
What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by proof or is it<br>
one of<br>
many interpretations of current theories?<br>
<br>
Best regards, Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Daniel,<br>
<br>
It is not proven in a mathematical sense, but many worlds (MWI) is the only interpretation of<br>
quantum<br>
mechanics that is complete. All that you need for many worlds to be true is that the Schrodinger<br>
equation be<br>
true. The alternatives require extra stuff.<br>
<br>
For example, collapse interpretations need an additional mechanism by which measurement can<br>
somehow cause a<br>
quantum particle that is spread out everywhere at once to suddenly be somewhere specific at<br>
faster than the<br>
speed of light. It requires consciousness to be a fundamental property of the universe in the<br>
sense that like<br>
the next level of videogame, nothing is rendered into reality until you look at it. Basically, if<br>
collapse<br>
interpretations are real, then we are very likely in a simulation run by some intelligent<br>
designer who is<br>
trying to save computational resources by not rendering anything into reality until a simulated<br>
person<br>
interacts with it.<br>
<br>
Many worlds allows particles to always be everywhere at once because wherever the particle is,<br>
there is a<br>
separate you there to witness it there.<br>
<br>
The other alternative is the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation which require a second<br>
equation that<br>
describes how the wave function is a pilot wave that pushes a particle along its path to be true<br>
in addition<br>
to the Schrodinger wave equation which describes the wave function.<br>
<br>
So to summarize:<br>
1. Copenhagen/collapse interpretations needs additional assumptions about the laws of physics<br>
requiring<br>
conscious observers in order to function properly. Trees do not fall in the woods or make noise<br>
unless you<br>
are there to appreciate it.<br>
2. Debroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave: This interpretation requires additional "helper" equations to allow<br>
quantum<br>
mechanics to function by keeping track of hidden variables.<br>
3. Superdeterminism: everything that happens including your own thoughts and decisions are<br>
unerringly<br>
following a script that has existed from moment of the big bang.<br>
<br>
Or . . .<br>
<br>
4. MWI: The Schrondinger wave equation is all you need and there is enough real estate out there<br>
to cover<br>
every possibility that the wavefunction entails.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4</a><br>
<br>
Sean Carroll does an excellent job covering this in his various You Tube videos or his book<br>
"Something Deeply<br>
Hidden". I generally don't believe we live in a simulation and therefore prefer many worlds over<br>
conscious<br>
collapse theories, but every once in a while nature throws me a curve ball that makes me adjust<br>
my posterior<br>
probabilities like this:<br>
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194212940/question-mark-space-webb-telescope-photo" target="_blank">https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17<wbr>/1194212940/question-mark-spac<wbr>e-webb-telescope-photo</a><br>
<br>
I hope that helped.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>