(Dec 23, 2021 03:11 AM)Syne Wrote: Odd, you do not act or argue like you desire it. You only proclaim it, as if it's something you think you're supposed to do. But then "contributing factor" is a hedge...trying to allow for it while minimizing its significance.
Then you haven't been paying attention. By 'contributing factor' I meant something similar to what CC was referring to. CC’s answer is great!
CC's answer not only minimizes free will, it eliminates it. If that's your go-to, then you are absolutely claiming to desire something you actually don't. You're just fooling yourself into thinking a completely inert definition of free will has any significance at all.
For use of the drawing my thanks to:
Guy vandegrift The Galaxies were lifted from file:Hubble_classification_scheme.svg and the big bang is courtesy of filerogenitor_IA_supernova.svg. The author is grateful to User:Tsirel for pointing out the pspace-time at the time of the Big bang is not easily described. - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph...d=48520676
Without going into too much detail I think we can see that Bob and Alice have to get themselves into the right position at the right time or the universe dies. Unless you are writing the result after the event - like the event wasn't superdetermined .. or, er, sd is falling apart around me.
A hypothetical depiction of superdeterminism in which photons from the distant galaxies Sb and Sc are used to control the orientation of the polarization detectors α and β just prior to the arrival of entangled photons Alice and Bob.
Replacing the choices of scientists Alice and Bob with distant galaxies and calling the entangled particles Alice and Bob completely removes choice without refuting it. Distant galaxies and entangled particle have no choices, nor even seem to. So this example doesn't speak to choice at all.
But that seems par for the course with such confirmation bias.
(Dec 23, 2021 10:23 PM)Syne Wrote: Why don't you think inflation solves the horizon problem?
No one knows for sure, but I asked the question because in the video, someone suggested that it might turn out that entanglement itself forms the fabric of the universe.
Edit:
No offense intended, but would you mind filling this out.
SyneDec 23, 2021 10:44 PM (This post was last modified: Dec 23, 2021 10:46 PM by Syne.)
(Dec 23, 2021 10:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 23, 2021 10:23 PM)Syne Wrote: Why don't you think inflation solves the horizon problem?
No one knows for sure, but I asked the question because in the video, someone suggested that it might turn out that entanglement itself forms the fabric of the universe.
That's right up there with a universal wave function, panpsychism, etc..
Inflation explains the isotropy of the universe and predicts the discovered irregularities in the CMB, which is why it's the most accepted solution.
Syne Wrote:Replacing the choices of scientists Alice and Bob with distant galaxies and calling the entangled particles Alice and Bob completely removes choice without refuting it. Distant galaxies and entangled particle have no choices, nor even seem to. So this example doesn't speak to choice at all.
Karen Wrote:I don't want to bother with the experiment today
Voice from the Dawn of Time Wrote:You will do the experiment today because if you don't the Universe and everyone in it will die
Karen Wrote:Okay I'll do it.
...
Quote:But that seems par for the course with such confirmation bias.
A hypothetical depiction of superdeterminism in which photons from the distant galaxies Sb and Sc are used to control the orientation of the polarization detectors α and β just prior to the arrival of entangled photons Alice and Bob.
Replacing the choices of scientists Alice and Bob with distant galaxies and calling the entangled particles Alice and Bob completely removes choice without refuting it. Distant galaxies and entangled particle have no choices, nor even seem to. So this example doesn't speak to choice at all.
But that seems par for the course with such confirmation bias.
I don't think it's about choice. It's randomness that they were looking for in the giant version of Clauser and Freedman’s Bell test. They collected light from two far off galaxies. Random variations in the light were used to control which filters to use to measure the photon pairs. Since the quasars are so far away, it makes it incredibly unlikely that anything could be influencing the random nature of the test.
But super-determinism would void that one out, too.
From what I can tell, determinism is airtight. There’s no way to prove it and there’s no way to disprove it.
Nonlocality? Umm...yes, but even at great distances, Alice and Bob don’t seem to have a choice.
SyneDec 24, 2021 01:20 AM (This post was last modified: Dec 24, 2021 01:27 AM by Syne.)
(Dec 23, 2021 11:40 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I don't think it's about choice. It's randomness that they were looking for in the giant version of Clauser and Freedman’s Bell test. They collected light from two far off galaxies. Random variations in the light were used to control which filters to use to measure the photon pairs. Since the quasars are so far away, it makes it incredibly unlikely that anything could be influencing the random nature of the test.
But super-determinism would void that one out, too.
From what I can tell, determinism is airtight. There’s no way to prove it and there’s no way to disprove it.
Nonlocality? Umm...yes, but even at great distances, Alice and Bob don’t seem to have a choice.
You can't disprove choice by ignoring it or presuming it doesn't exist from the outset.
It doesn't matter how far away something is that you're using to determine the measurement to make. It could be a flip of a coin for all the affect it has on the experiment. The problem is that someone still had to choose to use that criteria for a measurement, as it didn't just occur on its own. So you've only pushed the choice back a step and then pretended it didn't exist. That's not science, nor intellectually honest.
If you can't prove or disprove something, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "airtight," (having no weaknesses; unassailable). You can also say the exact same about free will, and for the exact same reason.
What don't you get about them exchanging the scientists Alice and Bob for two particles that never even had a hypothesized choice?
Or does your bias preclude you from seeing that the actual choice of measurement criteria are only being obscured, not shifted?
(Dec 23, 2021 10:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: No offense intended, but would you mind filling this out.
Dec 23, 2021 04:08 PM
![[Image: 1280px-Bell%27s_theorem_and_superdeterminism.svg.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Bell%27s_theorem_and_superdeterminism.svg/1280px-Bell%27s_theorem_and_superdeterminism.svg.png)
rogenitor_IA_supernova.svg. The author is grateful to User:Tsirel for pointing out the pspace-time at the time of the Big bang is not easily described. - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, 
