[ExI] teachers

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Adrian and Jason,

I don't think that anyone here actually believes the universe is 
conspiring against anyone, but my interpretation is that it is just a way 
to convey meaning.

Perhaps we could find a less loaded term?

Analogies and words relating to human reactions are dangerous. I don't 
know what better term to use, but maybe you could find a common definition 
that would make it easier to continue the discussion without the word 
"conspiring"?

Best regards,
Daniel


On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 6:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:08 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 6:02 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>       On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 5:32 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:59 PM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>       On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>       wrote:
>       Can you at least understand why I might believe superdeterminism implies a malicious,
>       adversarial, conspiratorial process?
> 
> 
> Yes.  However, I believe that attributing such motives and malice to physics is incorrect, even in this
> case.
> 
> 
> Hmm...on review, this might have been a bit too curt.  Some examples, then:
> 
> "Why can't I accelerate past the speed of light?  This 'relativity' nonsense is physics conspiring against
> me!"
> 
> "Why can't I have a perpetual motion machine?  Entropy is a conspiracy against me!"
> 
> "Why can't I know in advance how long a computation will take and if it will ever complete?  Every time I
> try, something conspires against me!"
> 
> I believe that claims that superdeterminism is a malicious, adversarial, conspiratorial process are similarly
> incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are still missing something. These aren't comparable situations.
> 
> 
> I should elaborate:
> 
> If you understood the unique strangeness of superdeterminism, I would expect you to say something along the lines of:
> 
> "Yes I can see why you might think nature is conspiring to always fool us, however it is not for the reason X"
> 
> 
> It is not, as it is not - so far as we can tell - a sentient entity capable of conspiring. 
> 
> 
> It is something which must be adaptively change in response to our activities, choosing values such that we mistakenly believe the
> quantum probabilities cannot be hidden variables, when in fact, they are.
> 
> You don't have to anthropomorphize this entity, nor bestow it with sentience, but it must be something that responds (adversarially
> and adaptively) to our own decisions and actions, with the effect that it acts in a manner that we are led to a false conclusion.
> 
> Jason 
> 
>