Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Does superdeterminism save QM? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

#21
Secular Sanity Offline
(Dec 24, 2021 01:20 AM)Syne Wrote: 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.

But this experiment was done to try rule out all the loopholes throughout the Bohr–Einstein debates, which had more to do with nonlocality than with determinism.

"It is clear from this that Einstein was referring to separability (in particular, and most importantly local causality, i.e. locality), not indeterminacy. In fact, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a letter to Bohr stating that the 1927 thought experiments of Einstein had nothing to do with the Uncertainty Relations, as Einstein had already accepted these and for a long time never doubted.

Bohr evidently misunderstood Einstein's argument about the quantum mechanical violation of relativistic causality (locality) and instead focused on the consistency of quantum indeterminacy."


Quote: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.

I’ll give you that one

Quote:No offense intended, but have you stopped kicking puppies?

Funny you should mention that.

Jerry Coyne brings up a few misconceptions about determinism, and one is that it’s useless to try to change people’s minds. He said that this is complete nonsense because the answer to that is simple. You take a dog, and it comes up to you, and then you kick it. Well, what’s going to happen? After awhile the dog is going to stop coming up to you. Why, because our brains are programable. We take in signals from the environment and use those signals through a computational process to behave adaptively.

So, there’s a good chance that you might not be a human. Here's an easier one. Big Grin

[Image: 51770742796_0a4466509c_w.jpg]
[Image: 51770742796_0a4466509c_w.jpg]

Reply
#22
Syne Offline
(Dec 23, 2021 11:23 PM)confused2 Wrote:
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

That doesn't even follow, unless you just presume superdeterminism on faith.

(Dec 24, 2021 02:54 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 24, 2021 01:20 AM)Syne Wrote: 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.

But this experiment was done to try rule out all the loopholes throughout the Bohr–Einstein debates, which had more to do with nonlocality than with determinism.
Then it's a bad example for the superdeterminism wiki and doesn't "sums it up rather nicely," as C2 claimed.

Quote:Jerry Coyne brings up a few misconceptions about determinism, and one is that it’s useless to try to change people’s minds. He said that this is complete nonsense because the answer to that is simple. You take a dog, and it comes up to you, and then you kick it. Well, what’s going to happen? After awhile the dog is going to stop coming up to you. Why, because our brains are programable. We take in signals from the environment and use those signals through a computational process to behave adaptively.

So....you have no more choice than a dog? Okay. If you say so.
Reply
#23
Secular Sanity Offline
(Dec 24, 2021 03:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Then it's a bad example for the superdeterminism wiki and doesn't "sums it up rather nicely," as C2 claimed.


No, C2's isn't a depiction of the distance experiment that I was referring to, but I was trying to show that Bell's thingy was more about nonlocality than determinism.

Nite, Syne. Zzzz
Reply
#24
Syne Offline
(Dec 24, 2021 03:25 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 24, 2021 03:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Then it's a bad example for the superdeterminism wiki and doesn't "sums it up rather nicely," as C2 claimed.

No, C2's isn't a depiction of the distance experiment that I was referring to, but I was trying to show that Bell's thingy was more about nonlocality than determinism.

Nite, Syne. Zzzz

C2 literally quoted Sabine talking about superdeterminism and free will and posted an image from the superdeterminism wiki page.
And since I was responding to C2's post, if yours had nothing to do with that, it's just your usual, pointless non sequitur.

And this was the Freedman-Clauser setup:

[Image: entanglement1.jpg]
[Image: entanglement1.jpg]



Not much distance there.
Reply
#25
confused2 Offline
I missed the start of this thread - arriving late I seem to have chosen a bad entry point - my apologies for that. Having introduced '.. and another thing' it already seems too late to back out so I'll carry on as the least bad way to proceed.

Before I decide whether or not I like superdeterminism I'd like to be sure I have at least understood it.

The diagram I thought was clear clearly wasn't.
Take 2.
Imagine you are 5 miles from a sign that can show either up or down.
The sign is fed from a random binary string and when there is a 1 in the string the sign shows up.
5 miles away from you in the opposite direction is an identical sign fed from the same binary string but when there is a 1 in the string the sign shows down.
The up and down change randomly but they're always opposite to each other.
For fun you could fire entangled photons at them at the same time.

As I understand it superdetermination is about playing this sort of game but much, much better. A mild demonstration comes from the delayed choice quantum eraser where the result is 'superdetermined'. The failed diagram was an attempt to introduce a hypothetical result traceable back to the big bang.

My instinct at this point is that I prefer spooky action at a distance - without understanding how that could work.
Reply
#26
Syne Offline
Delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments do not require appealing to superdeterminism. Sabine, herself, doesn't mention superdeterminism when explaining the DCQEE: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/10...raser.html

Your sign analogy, just like your diagram, lacks any measurement being made. You're just giving examples of something determining something else, with no QM measurement involved. This is called begging the question, where you just presume what you're supposedly seeking to find out. The "fire entangled photons at them" is exactly as pointless as you imply.

But if you involve actual scientists making measurements, superdeterminism claims that their choice of what to measure, which measures first, and the results from the two entangled particles are all determined since the Big Bang. This would mean that experimenting and making such measurements doesn't actually tell us anything deeper about the universe, other than being a cog in a wholly predetermined play.

Basically, superdeterminism is for the Muggles. Those who cannot comprehend "action at a distance" and want to reduce QM oddness to something they feel they can get a handle on.
But QM isn't all that hard to understand. You just have to allow that there is some, at least approximate, reality to the wave function. If the probabilities are really spread between the two entangled particles, one measurement far away affecting another is just mediated by a non-physical potential.

IOW, you can either have so much faith in determinism that it controls absolutely everything, making scientific discover just following a script in a predetermined play (providing no real enlightenment), or you can just believe what experiments tell us, that there is an actual, but non-physical, mechanism of interaction between remote, entangled particles.
Reply
#27
Secular Sanity Offline
(Dec 24, 2021 03:38 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 24, 2021 03:25 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 24, 2021 03:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Then it's a bad example for the superdeterminism wiki and doesn't "sums it up rather nicely," as C2 claimed.

No, C2's isn't a depiction of the distance experiment that I was referring to, but I was trying to show that Bell's thingy was more about nonlocality than determinism.

Nite, Syne. Zzzz

C2 literally quoted Sabine talking about superdeterminism and free will and posted an image from the superdeterminism wiki page.
And since I was responding to C2's post, if yours had nothing to do with that, it's just your usual, pointless non sequitur.

And this was the Freedman-Clauser setup:

[Image: entanglement1.jpg]
[Image: entanglement1.jpg]



Not much distance there.

I said it was the GIANT Freedman and Clauser Bell test—the cosmic bell test, which used light from distant quasars streaming in different directions to exclude the possibility that the sources of data could have had prior interactions, i.e., an attempt to exclude the possibly of hidden variables. 

I do think Sabine is right in saying that super-determinism is equivalent to determinism and replacing humans with randomness still doesn’t support free will.

And like I pointed out earlier, Bell’s was clear that this is not "action-at-a-distance." It's "knowledge-at-a-distance."

Do we have a clear defining difference between causality and determinism?

I have to spend the rest of the day cooking because some idiot way back when decided it's a woman's job. Free will, my ass.  Angry
Reply
#28
Syne Offline
(Dec 24, 2021 05:25 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I said it was the GIANT Freedman and Clauser Bell test—the cosmic bell test, which used light from distant quasars streaming in different directions to exclude the possibility that the sources of data could have had prior interactions, i.e., an attempt to exclude the possibly of hidden variables. 

I do think Sabine is right in saying that super-determinism is equivalent to determinism and replacing humans with randomness still doesn’t support free will.

That's fine for verifying entanglement, but it's a meaningless test of free choice. It's not "replacing humans with randomness." It's humans choosing a random criteria for the experiment. It just pushes the choice back one step and then conveniently pretends that no choice is involved. Just sleight of hand intellectual dishonesty.

Superdeterministic models are deterministic in the usual sense. But in addition to being deterministic, they also postulate correlations between the state that is measured and the measurement setting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Determinism alone doesn't postulate a correlation between the choice of measurement and the result. Such a correlation requires local hidden-variables. Superdeterminism is just a philosophical loophole to allow that correlation to propagate through both experimenters and both particles, as predetermined from the Big Bang. Specifically with no need for any entanglement at all. One particle doesn't have to "know" anything about the other, because they were always determined to correlate. IOW, they always carried the local hidden variables that would tell them how to behave, because it was predetermined.

While determinism usually refers to a naturalistically explainable causality of events, predeterminism seems by definition to suggest a person or a "someone" who is controlling or planning the causality of events before they occur and who then perhaps resides beyond the natural, causal universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predeterminism


Quote:And like I pointed out earlier, Bell’s was clear that this is not "action-at-a-distance." It's "knowledge-at-a-distance."

Do we have a clear defining difference between causality and determinism?

No one is arguing that "action at a distance" is physical.

Determinism is more than belief in causality. The defining feature of determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causality. The essence of determinism is that everything that happens is the only thing that could possibly happen (given the past) under those circumstances. The category of the possible and the category of the actual are exactly the same.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-causality


Determinism is a philosophical view of inevitability, while causality is a physical relationship between events. Science tells us that cause and effect exists, but it doesn't tell us that everything is inevitable.

Quote:I have to spend the rest of the day cooking because some idiot way back when decided it's a woman's job. Free will, my ass. Angry
Yeah, it had nothing to do with evolutionary psychology, the biological necessity for a division of labor, etc.. Just some asshole. Probably a man. Right, misandrist?

You could chose to be less nurturing, even going against your nature as a woman. Women do it all the time. They even have this thing, called feminism, to convince other women to do it too. Too bad you weren't determined by the universe to be one of those women, huh?
Reply
#29
confused2 Offline
I'm starting to lose the will to live with this thread.

Syne Wrote:[in another blog] Sabine, herself, doesn't mention superdeterminism when explaining the DCQEE

From the OP starting at 16:09
https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI?t=963
at 16:48
"[DCQE].. of course the path of the particle depends on what you measure. That's exactly what superdeterminism tells you."

Picture and discussion of Bell test apparatus with filters and detectors in full:
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/123

I remember reports of a Bell experiment (1980s?) using stars/quasars/whatever but I can't remember the names which is why I fell back on the wiki drawing. I'm pretty sure SS has it with Freedman and Clauser but I either get a paywall or back to where I started so I still don't know what they were doing or how they did it. SS.. you have it?

Happy hols. all.
Reply
#30
Syne Offline
(Dec 24, 2021 08:33 PM)confused2 Wrote: I'm starting to lose the will to live with this thread.

Syne Wrote:[in another blog] Sabine, herself, doesn't mention superdeterminism when explaining the DCQEE
Not just a blog....a transcript of the included video, hence the "[This is a transcript of the video embedded below. Some of the explanations may not make sense without the animations in the video.]" Here's said video:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RQv5CVELG3U
So Sabine, herself, doesn't appeal to superdeterminism while explaining DCQEE.

Quote:From the OP starting at 16:09
https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI?t=963
at 16:48
"[DCQE].. of course the path of the particle depends on what you measure. That's exactly what superdeterminism tells you."
Because the OP video is her making the case for superdeterminism.
But when she only explains the DCQEE, she doesn't find superdeterminism necessary to understanding it. She just thinks, without evidence, that DCQEE supports the philosophical notion of superdeterminism.

Quote:Picture and discussion of Bell test apparatus with filters and detectors in full:
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/123

I remember reports of a Bell experiment (1980s?) using stars/quasars/whatever but I can't remember the names which is why I fell back on the wiki drawing. I'm pretty sure SS has it with Freedman and Clauser but I either get a paywall or back to where I started so I still don't know what they were doing or how they did it. SS.. you have it?
Aside from both being Bell test experiments, it has nothing to do with Freedman and Clauser.

In 2017 Johannes Handsteiner and Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna and an international team used the random nature of starlight to close this loophole. Two telescopes at two locations in Austria separated by nearly 2 km were pointed at two different stars. The colour of the starlight changes in a random manner and this was used to decide how to set Bell test polarization detectors. The stars were chosen so that their light arrives at their respective telescopes first, before reaching other parts of the experiment. This, and the fact that the starlight light was created hundreds of years ago, very far away from Earth and in stars separated by a great distance allowed the physicists to conclude that there is no correlation between the choices of polarization measurement and the rest of the Bell test experiment.
https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-bell-t...t-quasars/

Zeilinger is one of the guys who agrees with Bell, that superdeterminism doesn't exist. These tests are attempts to close Bell test loopholes and verify quantum entanglement. Using light from quasars generated 8 billion and 3 billion years ago, respectively, helps verify that there should be no correlation between the two.

But that's the trick of superdeterminism. Since it goes back to the Big Bang, it's not falsifiable...which means it's philosophy, not actual science.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Black holes will eventually destroy all quantum states, researchers argue C C 2 83 Mar 27, 2023 07:18 PM
Last Post: C C
  World running out of phosphorus + New math model can help save endangered species C C 0 295 Jan 13, 2019 09:21 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)