[ExI] Bell's Inequality
jasonresch at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 09:30:22 UTC 2016
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Interesting, I would like to know what about MWI you find so unlikely.
> > It also seems like it would require math itself to be superdetermined,
> > 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
> > measurements?
> 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.
But once Pi is chosen, it offers infinite digits beyond my or any physical
thing's control. Are physical outcomes now superdetermined for all eternity
to follow Pi now, based on a choice someone made thousands of years ago? By
what mechanism do you suppose this is possible?
> 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/
> > ) that comes with rejecting that idea?
> All of that "baggage" (some of which seems a bit suspect) is still
> less unlikely than MWI.
Please explain. MWI is the simplest theory of QM we know of that is
compatible with all observations.
> 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).
Have you read Russell Standish's theory of nothing? It is available as a
free e-book: http://swc2.hccs.edu/kindle/theoryofnothing.pdf . Chapter 7
and Appendix D actually derive the laws of quantum mechanics from a simple
assumption about observation and how it would operate in an the context of
an infinite plentitude.
What this means: the infinite minds and observations are already out there,
it is the new information we learn that changes which of the infinite
locations one can still consider oneself to be a part of. This is quite
similar to Heinz-Dieter Zeh's Many Minds Interpretation, or Ron Garett's
Zero Universe Interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
As for where the infinite observers come from, there is a whole discussion
list dedicated to that topic. See the everything-list google group.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat