[ExI] teachers

[Jason Resch]

It continues through December 2016:

https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2016-December/thread.html

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 6:06 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting, I found we had this same conversation about 7 years ago on
> this list:
>
>
> https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2016-November/thread.html#90681
>
> There's no reason to repeat all the same points, they're all (as far as I
> can tell) made here.
>
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 5:22 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 4:58 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> This is what one has to literally believe of superdeterminism is true,
>> which is why I don't think superdeterminism is believable by anyone who
>> grasps what it entails. It's the least believable theory in science that's
>> been seriously put forward. It's far less believable even than wave
>> function collapse, which seems quite reasonable in comparison.
>>
>> If you don't like the word "conspiring" here then you can substitute it
>> with "adaptively changing in response to our actions in a manner that will
>> lead us to a false conclusion", but I think conspiring conveys this well,
>> but let me know if you have another word that you think better communicates
>> this.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> 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/20230830/64873d56/attachment-0001.htm>