On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 5:54:23 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 2:58 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: *> That makes no sense. If you have determinism in the whole wave function, you also have it in each branch.* *I don't know what you're driving at. Regardless of which quantum interpretation turns out to be correct and regardless of whether you're talking about the entire Multiverse or just one branch, it remains true that a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random. * *> Making every choice is the same as having no freedom to choose.* *Many Worlds says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics. Superdeterminism says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics EXCEPT for those that would have allowed experimental physicists to demonstrate the true fact that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. * *How does superdeterminism do that? Serious question. AG* *Now you seem off, way off the reservation. That is, if I understand your comment, you seem to believe in the "true fact" that an unmeasured system is in one definite state before measurement. But the accepted interpretation of a superposition of states before measurement contradicts this "true fact". AG* *Superdeterminism is claiming that Nature, or if you prefer God, is lying to us and therefore the scientific method cannot be trusted. I can't prove that idea is wrong but I can prove that it's silly, in fact it's the ultimate in silliness.* *I could swear you're the guy who incessantly claims, that those who have a personal insight that the MWI is "silly", cannot use their personal feelings to affect judgments about interpretations of QM. Aren't you that guy? Silly question. AG* * > So what do you mean by "freedom of choice inside each branch"?* *Forget branches, before I can give a really good answer to that question you need to answer a question of my own, what exactly do you mean by "freedom of choice"? Until then all I can say is that neither you nor an adding machine knows what the result of a calculation will be until you or it has finished the calculation, and you can never be certain about what you will do next until you actually do it. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* ]a. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06645081-2a83-4b28-a24b-3f7c506bddd8n%40googlegroups.com.
