<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 4:58 AM efc--- 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">Hello Adrian and Jason,<br>
<br>
I don't think that anyone here actually believes the universe is <br>
conspiring against anyone, but my interpretation is that it is just a way <br>
to convey meaning.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is what one has to literally believe of superdeterminism is true, which is why I don't think superdeterminism is believable by anyone who grasps what it entails. It's the least believable theory in science that's been seriously put forward. It's far less believable even than wave function collapse, which seems quite reasonable in comparison.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If you don't like the word "conspiring" here then you can substitute it with "adaptively changing in response to our actions in a manner that will lead us to a false conclusion", but I think conspiring conveys this well, but let me know if you have another word that you think better communicates this.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </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">
<br>
Perhaps we could find a less loaded term?<br>
<br>
Analogies and words relating to human reactions are dangerous. I don't <br>
know what better term to use, but maybe you could find a common definition <br>
that would make it easier to continue the discussion without the word <br>
"conspiring"?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 6:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:08 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 6:02 PM Jason Resch <<a href="mailto:jasonresch@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jasonresch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 5:32 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:59 PM Adrian Tymes <<a href="mailto:atymes@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">atymes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> Can you at least understand why I might believe superdeterminism implies a malicious,<br>
> adversarial, conspiratorial process?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Yes. However, I believe that attributing such motives and malice to physics is incorrect, even in this<br>
> case.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hmm...on review, this might have been a bit too curt. Some examples, then:<br>
> <br>
> "Why can't I accelerate past the speed of light? This 'relativity' nonsense is physics conspiring against<br>
> me!"<br>
> <br>
> "Why can't I have a perpetual motion machine? Entropy is a conspiracy against me!"<br>
> <br>
> "Why can't I know in advance how long a computation will take and if it will ever complete? Every time I<br>
> try, something conspires against me!"<br>
> <br>
> I believe that claims that superdeterminism is a malicious, adversarial, conspiratorial process are similarly<br>
> incorrect.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I think you are still missing something. These aren't comparable situations.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I should elaborate:<br>
> <br>
> If you understood the unique strangeness of superdeterminism, I would expect you to say something along the lines of:<br>
> <br>
> "Yes I can see why you might think nature is conspiring to always fool us, however it is not for the reason X"<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It is not, as it is not - so far as we can tell - a sentient entity capable of conspiring. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It is something which must be adaptively change in response to our activities, choosing values such that we mistakenly believe the<br>
> quantum probabilities cannot be hidden variables, when in fact, they are.<br>
> <br>
> You don't have to anthropomorphize this entity, nor bestow it with sentience, but it must be something that responds (adversarially<br>
> and adaptively) to our own decisions and actions, with the effect that it acts in a manner that we are led to a false conclusion.<br>
> <br>
> Jason <br>
> <br>
>_______________________________________________<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>