[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:07 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > if you assume Schrodinger's
>>> > Wave Equation
>>> > everybody assumes the
>>> > Schrodinger
>>> > Wave Equation
>>> > Copenhagen assumes
>>
>> So...I have stated a position.  You then argue what other people
>> assume, but I never claimed I was taking exactly their position,
>
> And I never claimed you were taking their position.

I quoted the parts where you implied my position was theirs, since you
responded to my points only by talking about their positions as if
those were the positions I was taking.

> I know you don't like
> Manny Worlds but it's not even clear to me just what your prefered quantum
> interpretation is. Copenhagen? Pilot Wave? Transactional?
> Super-Deterministic? Shut up And Calculate?

A variation on superdeterministic, as has been stated before, but I
shall repeat: what we measure was the truth all along, at least back
to when the last decision by a sentient entity that could affect the
outcome was made.

It is immeasurable - and thus outside of science - whether those
decisions were themselves superdetermined since at least the beginning
of our universe (the Big Bang), or whether something that many people
call "free will" causes those decisions to be made far more recently
(but still prior to any measurement that any given decision may
affect).  The only reason for said concession is to placate those who
object to superdeterminism that it violates free will, which they
perceive that they have (with no consideration for whether or how this
perception might be an illusion).

As you have noted repeatedly, "free will" needs definition.  I agree
that "but it violates free will" is not a scientific objection.
However, it is a common enough objection that it demands addressing.
(Failing to address it tends to derail rational debate about it.)

Since this objection is outside of science, its answer is likewise
outside of science - but it can be answered, and this concession
answers it.  I am not presently aware of any objections to
superdeterminism that do not also apply to MWI, other than ones that
reduce to, "but it violates free will".  So, with that class of
objections answered, we can hopefully get back to discussing the
scientific world of only what can be measured and observed.

With all objections about free will answered and set aside, there does
not seem to be any measurable difference between superdeterminism and
MWI.  Given that, the only difference is which one seems more likely
(which is not measurable, but is still the standard call in this kind
of situation).  Some people say that MWI seems simpler and more likely
than superdeterminism, but to me, superdeterminism seems simpler and
more likely than MWI.

(There are arguments such as, "if we assume all parts of the wave
function are real", but that makes an assumption.  Superdeterminism
deals with all evidence that the parts of the wave function that do
not continue to exist after the measurement, which is otherwise taken
to "prove" that there are other states that exist but then go away,
and MWI is one way to explain this disappearance.  For example, in MWI
the entanglement of two particles is itself a physical object which
instantly collapses - apparently defying light speed - upon
measurement, whereas in superdeterminism the only thing that
"collapses" is our knowledge space, not any physical thing; the
particles had all along the properties they were eventually measured
with - we just didn't and couldn't know until the measurement.)

Does that make sense?

>> And you wonder why I have called out trolling in this thread?
>
> For god's sake
> Adrian
> , for you everything is a personal insult!

No, but when the replies to my points keep using logical fallacies and
strawmen arguments, and putting words in my mouth, even after I point
that out, it gets old fast.