[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Tue Nov 29 00:31:05 UTC 2016

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> 
> Free will is the ability to choose something because you want to.

You 
choose something
 because you want to, and a
nd you want to for a reason or you want to for no reason.
 So how does adding in a redundant choice middle man make things clearer? 

>
> > 
> Neither
>  
> the cuckoo clock, nor the roulette wheel can express intent.

Not true, the cuckoo clock can express its intent to do X by actually
doing X;  for example sending out its bird at exactly noon. In the same way
I deduce my fellow human beings intent, by observing their actions. Like
everything else in the quantum universe the cuckoo clock is subjected to
random jogs and  jostles, that is to say perturbations that have no cause,
so although the cuckoo usually comes out at exactly noon sometimes one of
the teeth on its cogwheel slips and the bird comes out at 1159 or 1201. Yes
your brain is VASTLY more complex than the cuckoo clockwork but science
tells us it is just a difference in degree, there is not even a hint that
there are processes going on in that organ that are different in kind.

> 
> Therefore neither has free will.

Near as I can tell, free will means having the ability to choose, and
having the ability to choose means having free will. And round and round we
go. 

> > 
> I did not intend to venture out into the murky waters of metaphysics and
>  
> philosophy

In my
 naivety
I would have thought one couldn't talk about "free will" without getting
into 
metaphysics and

philosophy
, but as I don't know what "free will" means I could be entirely wrong
about that.

>
>  I defined free will as simply and clearly
>  
> as I could.

I know of only 2 definitions of "free will" that are not gibberish and
nobody uses either one, neither is profound but at least they mean
something:

1) "Free Will" is an ASCII sequence.

2) "Free Will" is the inability to know what you've decided to do before
you've decided to do it. 

> 
> Do you believe you have something as obvious and trivial as a
>  
> naked choice when you set the angle of your polararizing filter during a
>  
> Bell Test experiment?

I believe I wanted to set the angle of the polarizer at 42 degrees and not
43 degrees for a reason or for no reason. With one exception X happened
because of Y or X did not happen because of Y; the one exception is if X is
gibberish. 

> 
> If you don't really have that choice, then the universe is
> 
> superdeterministic. Your entire life is an already written script, and you
> 
> are just cog in the big wheel.

I think

superdeterminism
 is the most unlikely quantum interpretation of all because if it were
true I don't see why science itself would work, and yet it sure seems like
it does. If it were true then the universe itself would decree what
questions the experimenter would ask and therefore what experiments to
perform. Why would those questions be the correct ones? After all, there
are far more bad questions than good ones.

> > 
> It's
>  
> weirdness no matter which way you cut it.
>

Now that I agree with! Whatever the truth turns out to be it will be
weird.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161128/8d21ec8e/attachment.html>