[ExI] teachers

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 4:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't see the connection. I think you still believe my problem with the
process for how hidden variables are chosen under superdeterminism is that
it's unknowable.

That's not my problem. My problem is that the process is conspiratorial. If
you don't think this is the case then I think you don't grasp what the Bell
inequalities require for how the hidden variables must be selected.

Can you at least understand why I might believe superdeterminism implies a
malicious, adversarial, conspiratorial process? If you can't, then I would
venture you may not fully understand just how strange superdeterminism is,
and if you want a better handle of this I would suggest setting some time
aside to understand Bell's inequality. It isn't easy and takes some time,
but I think it's necessary to appreciate how unbelievable superdeterminism
is.

(It's nothing to do with unknowability, I am completely comfortable with
the he idea that almost everything is unknowable).

Jason



> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230829/d96155a5/attachment.htm>