[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Sun Aug 27 21:32:41 UTC 2023
Thank you Jason, makes much more sense now, and I think that I'm not too
far off the mark when it comes to theory vs proof vs method.
But as you can tell, I tend to be annoyingly agnostic sometimes. ;)
> I agree. The universe, or reality, being bigger than we previously thought, in no way diminishes our central role as observers to
> that reality. If anything it makes us even more special, rare, unique, and important. (E.g., consider the 10^122 dead universes out
> there for every one that can support life), and how much more precious that makes this universe, and this planet.
Being annoyingly agnostic, I love the fact that there is so much we
still don't know, and I am looking forward to all the scientists who
will enlarge our sphere of knowledge and awareness of ourselves and our
position in the universe.
At the same time I find it hard to understand people who feel that
everything needs an answer right now, no matter the cost, and as a
last resort make up answers.
Oh, and just so you don't understand me, that was a jab against religion
and not theorizing and and doing philosophy. ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023, <efc at swisscows.email> wrote:
> Thank you Jason,
>
> So would that imply then that there is no true randomness and that it is only because our limited point
> of view, that it
> looks random?
>
>
> There is a "meta level" of machinery kind of?
>
>
> Yes, super determinism says there are hidden variables, determined by machinery we can't access, but
> moreover, everything we do to
> try to measure these hidden variables, by whatever processes we choose, flipping coins, picking numbers in
> our head, using digits of
> Pi or e, using pseudorandom number generators, anything, whatever we pick and whatever method we choose, the
> universe will choose
> hidden variables such that they will yield the Bell probabilities giving the false appearance of random
> quantum collapse, where there
> are not. But if this is true, and if we use constants in math like Pi or e, or SQRT(2), to choose how to set
> the rotation of a
> polarizing filter when measuring two entangled photons, then somehow the universe must have known that you
> would be using, say, the
> digits of SQRT(2) when it created the entangled photons years earlier before you measured them. So that in a
> sense, the photon pair
> creation event must have known how you would be measuring them, and then generated them in a way that would
> yield the expected
> quantum probabilities. It would also know you wouldn't in the last moment, change your mind to use the digits
> of Pi to choose the
> angle of rotation for the polarizing filter. Super determinism is the idea that the whole universe is a
> conspiracy to make us falsely
> believe in quantum probabilities.
>
>
>
>
> Sorry if I'm not making sense, it is because I did not understand the example. ;)
>
>
>
>
> If it's hard to understand it's because it's so hard to believe anyone would propose this as a serious
> theory, but that's the length
> the center of the universe or solar system, at least I think it comes from the same place).
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> 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-space-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
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list