[ExI] Bell's Inequality
atymes at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 05:10:27 UTC 2016
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you mean SWE? (Schrodinger Wave Equation?)
No, I mean Single (or Superdeterministic) World Interpretation.
> Super determinism has to be the most unlikely of all theories
Here is the core of our disagreement. Superdeterminism - in ways that
do not violate free will - seems more likely than MWI, to me.
> It also seems like it would require math itself to be superdetermined, what
> if I chose what measurements to make based on the digits of Pi? Would Pi
> then be superdetermined? Or only my decision to use Pi to guide my
The latter, just like our distant ancestors' eventual collective
choice to use a base-10 numbering system in which values such as pi
would be expressed. Pi itself is not affected by your choice.
You could argue that pi is superdetermined: the value that it will
have had, has been determined since before the beginning of our
universe. It is immutable and unchangeable; no observer or act of
will (free or otherwise) can change it. But this is true whether MWI
is true or false, and whether or not we are otherwise in a
superdetermined universe, so it is irrelevant to finding out which of
those (or something else) is the case.
> Do you really find the idea that other parts of the wave function are as
> real as the one you find yourself in now so distateful that it requires
> accepting all the baggage ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/q6/collapse_postulates/
> ) that comes with rejecting that idea?
All of that "baggage" (some of which seems a bit suspect) is still
less unlikely than MWI. Check down in the comments and Wiseman sums
it up nicely: the laws of physics are what they are.
But also, superdeterminism speculates that the "collapse" isn't of
real objects, but only of our knowledge space. The result always was
what it will be (possibly modulo free will, but that's outside of what
can be measured).
More information about the extropy-chat