[ExI] teachers

[efc at swisscows.email]

Would have saved us quite some amount of typing, but I'm new to the game, 
so at least I'm happy with what's been said so far. ;)

Let's see in another 7 years if I'll remember to check the archives 
myself. ;)

Best regards,
Daniel


On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
>