[ExI] teachers

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:10 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> The Bell inequalities show that the quantum correlations cannot be
> determined in advance unless they know exactly in what way they will be
> measured in the future.
>

Not by something within the system (within the universe), anyway.  It's
like a version of Gödel's incompleteness theorems - to paraphrase (and
slightly butcher): a system can not fully know itself.

Which, I suppose, is why I am comfortable with the notion and you are not.
You think there must be a way for us to understand everything.  I know
there are things that thinking machines of any sort - including us - can
never know about themselves, so it is not that big a leap to suspect that
the same is true in quantum mechanics as it is in information theory.


> You don't think physics determined the digits of Pi, do you? What about
> the digits of SQRT(2)?
>

I do believe that physics results in the ratio of a circle's circumference
to its diameter, as well as the ratio of the length of the long side of a
45-45-90 triangle to the length of either of its short sides.  "Digits" are
a human invention to attempt to quantify things including these ratios.


> I think superdeterminism is much worse than not being falsifiable. It's a
> retreat to say methods of science and falsifiability aren't even
> applicable, because nature isn't reliable or orderly, but rather is
> unreliable in a way that is adversarial and working against us.
>

You describe malice where none exists.  Just because a thing is not the way
you would like, even if you see no way to change it, does not make it
adversarial.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230829/33ac05b1/attachment-0001.htm>