[ExI] teachers

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:11 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 2:21 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:58 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Which interpretation do you subscribe to, or find most likely?
>>>
>>
>> A version of superdeterminism.  The objections to it seem to be mostly of
>> distaste, not any actual disproof other than via moral or subjective
>> qualities.  (Such as, "Obviously we have free will, and superdeterminism
>> says there's no free will," which has problems with both the claim of an
>> undefined "free will" and that superdeterminism is necessarily opposed to
>> it.)  These do not constitute actual disproof when it comes to objective
>> reality.
>>
>
> You seem to be describing regular determinism here, not superdeterminism,
> which is something quite different from determinism. MW is deterministic,
> for example.
>

According to superdeterminism, when there are two entangled photons or
particles, it is not that measuring one of them suddenly causes the other
to collapse into a certain state.  Rather, it was always in that state all
along.  The only thing that travels at the speed of light to the other
particle is the result of any actions the observer of the first particle
takes.  Likewise, all other observations are the result of finding out how
the universe always was.

This, I am told, is not regular determinism.

Technically this is not incompatible with multi-worlds.  Is there another
world, identical in every way until one photon spun up instead of down?
Superdeterminism is silent about that, because we would have no way to
know.  It's only talking about our world.  Occam's Razor suggests there
probably is not, though.

It is possible there are actual scientific objections to it, but if so
>> they've gotten lost in the noise.
>>
>
> The objection to superdeterminism, as I see it, is that it's not a
> scientific theory. It says no matter how nature really is, nature is
> conspiring to bring us to a false conclusion. Science cannot operate under
> such conditions and any fantasy can be entertained under such a a belief,
> like there being unicorns everywhere that disappear whenever we turn our
> heads to see them or point a camera in their direction.
>

Nature is not "conspiring" at all.  Nature is inanimate, so far as we can
tell.  Things happen to be certain ways; what we conclude from it is up to
us.  Nature did not "conspire" to make leading scientists in the 19th
century to believe in aether theories.  It is the same deal here.

But interpreting that to mean that superdeterminism is unfalsifiable - the
same can, as I understand it, be said of any of the common interpretations
of quantum mechanics at this time.  This is why I'm picking, elsewhere in
this thread, on the specifics of wave function collapse determination not
confirming or denying the multi-world hypothesis.  There are versions of
multi-world that include collapse and there are versions that deny
collapse, so proving or disproving collapse does not prove or disprove
multi-world.  So far as I know, multi-world is likewise presently
unfalsifiable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230829/594cb49b/attachment.htm>