<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 2:21 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:58 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Which interpretation do you subscribe to, or find most likely?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A version of superdeterminism. The objections to it seem to be mostly of distaste, not any actual disproof other than via moral or subjective qualities. (Such as, "Obviously we have free will, and superdeterminism says there's no free will," which has problems with both the claim of an undefined "free will" and that superdeterminism is necessarily opposed to it.) These do not constitute actual disproof when it comes to objective reality.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You seem to be describing regular determinism here, not superdeterminism, which is something quite different from determinism. MW is deterministic, for example.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>It is possible there are actual scientific objections to it, but if so they've gotten lost in the noise.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The objection to superdeterminism, as I see it, is that it's not a scientific theory. It says no matter how nature really is, nature is conspiring to bring us to a false conclusion. Science cannot operate under such conditions and any fantasy can be entertained under such a a belief, like there being unicorns everywhere that disappear whenever we turn our heads to see them or point a camera in their direction.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>As to the objection that it denies free will, agency, choice, et al - that is only true if one assumes that the agent making decisions must necessarily be fully contained in the superdetermined universe. "Souls" are supernatural and unfalsifiable, beyond the realm of science - but if the notion is being brought in as an objection anyway, then it suffices to construct a possible model wherein both superdeterminism and choices made by individuals exist at the same time in the same universe. There exist such models, therefore the objection about free will does not preclude superdeterminism, even aside from the supernatural angle.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>