[ExI] teachers

[Jason Resch]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Thank you very much Stuart, I was just about to ask for a book and you
> already thought of that.
>
> But what about superdeterminism?


In my view this is the worst of all possible interpretations. It is the
theory that the laws of physics are conspiring to always fool us.
(Something like Descartes's evil demon). For example, if we choose to do a
Bell experiment and set our orientations according to some random sequence,
super determinism says the correlations of the particles are also
determined by the same processes that drive the random number generator we
use to set our orientations.

Okay, this is weird, but not logically impossible.

But now consider if we set our orientations according to the digits of Pi,
did the processes that determine particle orientations also determine the
digits of Pi? At this point I think super determinism is no longer
defensible.

Jason




>
> Wouldn't that also be one of the better "candidates" even though it goes
> against our intuition?
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> On 2023-08-26 15:17, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Stuart,
>>>
>>> Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting
>>> edge physics.
>>>
>>> You say that
>>>
>>> If you believe that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax
>>>> because you are already immortal. You don't need to copy yourself because
>>>> there are already plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, you strewn about
>>>> the multiverse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported
>>> by proof or is it one of many interpretations of current theories?
>>>
>>> Best regards, Daniel
>>>
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> It is not proven in a mathematical sense, but many worlds (MWI) is the
>> only interpretation of quantum mechanics that is complete. All that you
>> need for many worlds to be true is that the Schrodinger equation be true.
>> The alternatives require extra stuff.
>>
>> For example, collapse interpretations need an additional mechanism by
>> which measurement can somehow cause a quantum particle that is spread out
>> everywhere at once to suddenly be somewhere specific at faster than the
>> speed of light. It requires consciousness to be a fundamental property of
>> the universe in the sense that like the next level of videogame, nothing is
>> rendered into reality until you look at it. Basically, if collapse
>> interpretations are real, then we are very likely in a simulation run by
>> some intelligent designer who is trying to save computational resources by
>> not rendering anything into reality until a simulated person interacts with
>> it.
>>
>> Many worlds allows particles to always be everywhere at once because
>> wherever the particle is, there is a separate you there to witness it there.
>>
>> The other alternative is the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation
>> which require a second equation that describes how the wave function is a
>> pilot wave that pushes a particle along its path to be true in addition to
>> the Schrodinger wave equation which describes the wave function.
>>
>> So to summarize:
>> 1. Copenhagen/collapse interpretations needs additional assumptions about
>> the laws of physics requiring conscious observers in order to function
>> properly. Trees do not fall in the woods or make noise unless you are there
>> to appreciate it.
>> 2. Debroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave: This interpretation requires additional
>> "helper" equations to allow quantum mechanics to function by keeping track
>> of hidden variables.
>> 3. Superdeterminism: everything that happens including your own thoughts
>> and decisions are unerringly following a script that has existed from
>> moment of the big bang.
>>
>> Or . . .
>>
>> 4. MWI: The Schrondinger wave equation is all you need and there is
>> enough real estate out there to cover every possibility that the
>> wavefunction entails.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4
>>
>> Sean Carroll does an excellent job covering this in his various You Tube
>> videos or his book "Something Deeply Hidden". I generally don't believe we
>> live in a simulation and therefore prefer many worlds over conscious
>> collapse theories, but every once in a while nature throws me a curve ball
>> that makes me adjust my posterior probabilities like this:
>> https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194212940/question-mark-spac
>> e-webb-telescope-photo
>>
>> I hope that helped.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Stuart LaForge
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230827/06fba7dc/attachment.htm>