Register to reply

Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

Share this thread:
jadrian
#55
Feb26-12, 05:35 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by DrChinese View Post
Yeah, that's all I had seen as well.

As you say, after a while you realize that every single particle in the universe would need to carry a local copy of all the information regarding every other particle as well. .

.

local copy? information isnt copied! i cant punch a wall without breaking my knuckles! me punching the wall might put a dent in it and that dent represents some info i transferred to the wall. the wall didnt store the full information of the event! the wall had just as much info transfer to my hand! what makes you think all the information about this event would get stored in the wall and my knuckles as if we made a xerox of every bit of information in every particle in the wall and every particle in my hand and this info gets stored forever in the wall and in my hand? how do causal interactions give you the philosophy that every particle is storing all other particles information??????????????? its only storing a finite amount of information it obtained from events which happened to it in the past!

the universe as a whole contains all this information AND IF YOU HYPOTHETICALLY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WITH DEFINED DETERMINISM AND ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. AND SINCE ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, THE FUTURE WILL HAPPEN WITH DEFINED DETERMINISM., even tho it is impossible to obtain all this information.

why is this such a hard pill to swallow, unless you believe in free will? if i could hypothetically rewind time like a videotape, and re perform an electrons position measurement, i would get the exact same result! otherwise we would have to regard the past as undetermined at a given location.

doesnt anybody find the free will assumption of the copenhagen interpretation to be hysterical?
IttyBittyBit
#56
Feb26-12, 05:43 AM
P: 159
jadrian, speaking in all caps does not assist in getting your point across. I'm trying to defend your viewpoint, don't make me look like an idiot for doing so.
jadrian
#57
Feb26-12, 06:10 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by juanrga View Post
First, since that nonlocality and entanglement are perfectly compatible with a non-deterministic viewpoint, the problem does not even exists.

Second, from a theoretical point of view determinism arises when one consider a certain kind of simple systems as the traditionally studied in physics.

Third, the assumption that universe is deterministic is outside the scope of science.
assumption? it should be trivial! the past is defined but the future you suppose isnt?

take this example. the word "could've", HAS NO MEANING, and should be abolished from the english language. maybe if they did that, the next generation of scientists would be all over superdeterminism, as opposed to free will, santa, the tooth fairy etc...
jadrian
#58
Feb26-12, 06:15 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by IttyBittyBit View Post
jadrian, speaking in all caps does not assist in getting your point across. I'm trying to defend your viewpoint, don't make me look like an idiot for doing so.
sorry i just dont understand how these concepts are not blatantly obvious to people.
jadrian
#59
Feb26-12, 06:37 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by lugita15 View Post
Occam's razor makes it hard to justify invoking a conspiratorial explanation like superdeterminism.
No, a lot of work is not being done on superdeterminism.
occams razor should lead you to a deterministic viewpoint. its so simple.
even in your experiment with entanglement a and b and particles c and d, can you prove that information had not been transmitted between a and d in the history of the universe?
jadrian
#60
Feb26-12, 07:05 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by lugita15 View Post
And in the real world, almost all particles in the universe are interacting in some way with almost all other particles, so really the setting of measurement device depends on almost everything in the universe, from which we conclude that the initial conditions of the whole universe were specially set so that the right kind of correlation would be displayed billions of years later between particle A and the measuring device
speaking of conspiratorial, this experiment could never theoretically be carried out, seeing as your large distance statements imply that a and d are outside eachothers lightcones. and as we came from a singularity according to bbt, at what point since the big bang did causality cease to exist? because noncausality is the only way i can think of particles a and d having never interacted in some form.
jadrian
#61
Feb26-12, 07:58 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
local copy? information isnt copied! i cant punch a wall without breaking my knuckles! me punching the wall might put a dent in it and that dent represents some info i transferred to the wall. the wall didnt store the full information of the event! the wall had just as much info transfer to my hand! what makes you think all the information about this event would get stored in the wall and my knuckles as if we made a xerox of every bit of information in every particle in the wall and every particle in my hand and this info gets stored forever in the wall and in my hand? how do causal interactions give you the philosophy that every particle is storing all other particles information??????????????? its only storing a finite amount of information it obtained from events which happened to it in the past!

the universe as a whole contains all this information AND IF YOU HYPOTHETICALLY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WITH DEFINED DETERMINISM AND ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. AND SINCE ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, THE FUTURE WILL HAPPEN WITH DEFINED DETERMINISM., even tho it is impossible to obtain all this information.

why is this such a hard pill to swallow, unless you believe in free will? if i could hypothetically rewind time like a videotape, and re perform an electrons position measurement, i would get the exact same result! otherwise we would have to regard the past as undetermined at a given location.

doesnt anybody find the free will assumption of the copenhagen interpretation to be hysterical?
hey sorry to get so excited, its just nobody has addressed what i consider paradoxical,--- the possibility that causality did not govern the universe at some point in time. this notion is just full retard to me
jadrian
#62
Feb26-12, 09:44 AM
P: 143
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
local copy? information isnt copied! i cant punch a wall without breaking my knuckles! me punching the wall might put a dent in it and that dent represents some info i transferred to the wall. the wall didnt store the full information of the event! the wall had just as much info transfer to my hand! what makes you think all the information about this event would get stored in the wall and my knuckles as if we made a xerox of every bit of information in every particle in the wall and every particle in my hand and this info gets stored forever in the wall and in my hand? how do causal interactions give you the philosophy that every particle is storing all other particles information??????????????? its only storing a finite amount of information it obtained from events which happened to it in the past!

the universe as a whole contains all this information AND IF YOU HYPOTHETICALLY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WITH DEFINED DETERMINISM AND ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. AND SINCE ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, THE FUTURE WILL HAPPEN WITH DEFINED DETERMINISM., even tho it is impossible to obtain all this information.

why is this such a hard pill to swallow, unless you believe in free will? if i could hypothetically rewind time like a videotape, and re perform an electrons position measurement, i would get the exact same result! otherwise we would have to regard the past as undetermined at a given location.

doesnt anybody find the free will assumption of the copenhagen interpretation to be hysterical?
let me clarify my pov. in a universe governed by causality, there is nothing conspiratorial about a particle essentially knowing about every other particle in the universe. if i am a particle that bumped into another particle in the past, based on my change in state/momentum/whatever, i will have information about that other particle ie where it is headed, how fast its moving, the fact that it exists etc. that particle likewise now has info on me. we basically traded information. if the particle i bumped into hits another particle, it will be transffering info to the third particle, but that info transfered in the second particle collision has my information in it. so if i was particle a which first collided with b and then b collided with c, i would have INTERACTED with particle c without ever seeing it or coming near it.

im using a simple example to show how particles in the universe have all interacted, without the need for it to be regarded as a conspiracy.

through the many modes of information propagation, even the gravitational information produced by an electron, it seems totally reasonable that this is the reason for particles effectively knowing about eachother, because if they could trace all of their event histories through the past, they would see how they have all essentially interacted and are now correlated, the word used in the a b c d thought experiment.

and if we all originated from a single point singularity, i dont know how causality would not be governing then, or at least asymptoticly close in time to when the singularity exploded.

so cause and effect in mind i simply dont understand how all particles having essentially dirt on eachother needs to be regarded as a conspiracy, unless as ive stated before, there was a time when causality did not govern.

the fact that something exists/is obsevrable/can have effects on other things, to me proves causality, otherwise what could be considered to be able to create something, God?
juanrga
#63
Feb26-12, 10:16 AM
P: 476
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
assumption? it should be trivial! the past is defined but the future you suppose isnt?

take this example. the word "could've", HAS NO MEANING, and should be abolished from the english language. maybe if they did that, the next generation of scientists would be all over superdeterminism, as opposed to free will, santa, the tooth fairy etc...
One of the most beautiful aspects of science is how has proved wrong to that 'clever' people who believed that reason was enough to understand how world works.

Maybe it is time for you to learn what is science, what is the scientific method, and why determinism is based in faith. I wrote two encyclopedic articles about such issues, but acceptable discussions are given in many books, encyclopedias, and other references.
DrChinese
#64
Feb26-12, 11:37 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,388
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
why is this such a hard pill to swallow, unless you believe in free will? if i could hypothetically rewind time like a videotape, and re perform an electrons position measurement, i would get the exact same result! otherwise we would have to regard the past as undetermined at a given location.
Free will is not a necessary component of QM. So I certainly am not rejecting superdeterminism because of that. I reject superdeterminism as an explanation for Bell test results, and I do so for the reasons already stated.

Please bear in mind that there are no candidate superdeterministic theories to reject at this point, so it is a moot point in many ways. The reason I mention the amount of local information to be stored in every particle is because a candidate theory will end up postulating this (in some form or fashion) as a way to explain Bell test results. It is not necessary to assume free choice for measurement settings in any stage of the argument, but you must explain how (i.e. the exact mechanism, since we have no other reason to suspect it exists) the choice is propagated in a superdeterministic candidate.

Not so easy, I assure you. Which is again, the answer to your original question.
DrChinese
#65
Feb26-12, 11:45 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,388
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
let me clarify my pov. in a universe governed by causality, there is nothing conspiratorial about a particle essentially knowing about every other particle in the universe. if i am a particle that bumped into another particle in the past, based on my change in state/momentum/whatever, i will have information about that other particle ie where it is headed, how fast its moving, the fact that it exists etc. that particle likewise now has info on me. we basically traded information. if the particle i bumped into hits another particle, it will be transffering info to the third particle, but that info transfered in the second particle collision has my information in it. so if i was particle a which first collided with b and then b collided with c, i would have INTERACTED with particle c without ever seeing it or coming near it.
That is just NOT true in any meaningful sense. A particle has only a few observable elements: momentum, position, mass, charge, spin, color, etc. It would be instructive to state specifically how you would know ANY information about the past interactions by knowing these. Suppose the spin is +1. What does that tell you? Or momentum is 1.63 (units ignored) in direction XYZ? Not much history to be gained from that!

No, you need there to be a rich hidden internal structure. One that contains the entire initial conditions of the universe, like DNA. And this DNA would need to be in every particle so they know how to react during Bell tests.
lugita15
#66
Feb26-12, 02:44 PM
P: 1,583
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
yeah but how can you POSSIBLY rule out that a and d did not interact in the past.
I can't rule out the possibility that A and D interacted some time in the past, and I didn't claim I could. I was just explaining why special initial conditions have to be chosen in order for a local deterministic theory to pass a Bell test.
lugita15
#67
Feb26-12, 02:47 PM
P: 1,583
Quote Quote by lugita15 View Post
SPECIALLY SET? CAUSALITY SPECIALLY SETS EVERYTHING OTHERWISE THERE WOULDNT BE CAUSALITY!
Any deterministic theory has causality. But if you have some arbitrary deterministic theory and some arbitrary initial conditions, chances are you won't get the nonlocal correlations necessary to match the results of Bell tests. It's only if you have very specific initial conditions, conditions where the initial state of each particle is set based on the initial states of all other particles, that you get the right kind of nonlocal correlations. That's what makes superdeterminism conspiratorial.

Let me repeat, that does not mean superdeterminism is ruled out, it just means there are hurdles that any superdeterministic theory has got to face.
lugita15
#68
Feb26-12, 02:58 PM
P: 1,583
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
speaking of conspiratorial, this experiment could never theoretically be carried out, seeing as your large distance statements imply that a and d are outside eachothers lightcones. and as we came from a singularity according to bbt, at what point since the big bang did causality cease to exist? because noncausality is the only way i can think of particles a and d having never interacted in some form.
Again, I am not claiming that A and D could never have interacted. I am saying that the interaction of A and D would have to have occurred in just the right way so that they would demonstrate nonlocal correlations of just the right kind. And by similar arguments, you would have to conclude that at the beginning of the universe all the particles interacted with each other to set just the right initial states for each particle, so that all the Bell tests which would be performed in the entire history of the universe would get just the right results. That's what's called a conspiracy.
jadrian
#69
Feb26-12, 03:11 PM
P: 143
Quote Quote by juanrga View Post
One of the most beautiful aspects of science is how has proved wrong to that 'clever' people who believed that reason was enough to understand how world works.

Maybe it is time for you to learn what is science, what is the scientific method, and why determinism is based in faith. I wrote two encyclopedic articles about such issues, but acceptable discussions are given in many books, encyclopedias, and other references.
reason is capable of intuitively understanding our universe in my opinion, and einsteins. i dont draw pictures of what i think the world should look like, but im also not like a lab rat who gets a false reading and takes a swing at einstein only to get their arm torn off.
jadrian
#70
Feb26-12, 04:10 PM
P: 143
i get it, people psychologically cant function or live happily with the idea that everything they do is already predetermined. all ill say is most of my life i believed in free will, but all you have to do is think very deeply and ask yourself, how could you have possibly done anything different than the way you did it?
lugita15
#71
Feb26-12, 04:45 PM
P: 1,583
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
let me clarify my pov. in a universe governed by causality, there is nothing conspiratorial about a particle essentially knowing about every other particle in the universe.
No, there isn't, but there is something conspiratorial about a particle behaving in just the right way based on the information it has about what other particles are going to do at just the right time and place.
if i am a particle that bumped into another particle in the past, based on my change in state/momentum/whatever, i will have information about that other particle ie where it is headed, how fast its moving, the fact that it exists etc. that particle likewise now has info on me. we basically traded information. if the particle i bumped into hits another particle, it will be transffering info to the third particle, but that info transfered in the second particle collision has my information in it. so if i was particle a which first collided with b and then b collided with c, i would have INTERACTED with particle c without ever seeing it or coming near it.*

im using a simple example to show how particles in the universe have all interacted, without the need for it to be regarded as a conspiracy.
Again, particles interacting and transferring information is not regarded as a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy if their interaction induced some very special behavior on their part which leads to a Bell-type nonlocal correlation.
Joncon
#72
Feb26-12, 05:25 PM
P: 57
Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
reason is capable of intuitively understanding our universe in my opinion, and einsteins. i dont draw pictures of what i think the world should look like, but im also not like a lab rat who gets a false reading and takes a swing at einstein only to get their arm torn off.
Einsten told us that the speed of light would be measured the same regardless of how fast we were travelling. Is that intuitive? His theories also tell us that a spaceman who travels around the galaxy for a while and returns to Earth will be younger than his twin. That's certainly not intuitive either. Our intuition has evolved to help us in everyday life, and it works well, but on an atomic scale it's obviously lacking.

Quote Quote by jadrian View Post
i get it, people psychologically cant function or live happily with the idea that everything they do is already predetermined. all ill say is most of my life i believed in free will, but all you have to do is think very deeply and ask yourself, how could you have possibly done anything different than the way you did it?
I'm not sure there are too many scientists who believe in free will (maybe I'm wrong), but you don't need superdeterminism to rule it out. As long as you accept that certain things in the universe happen randomly then the future isn't already mapped out. It doesn't mean you have any more "control" over your actions, just that you can't predict them.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Gauss' Law Universally True? Classical Physics 36
Superluminal instantaneous influence Quantum Physics 5
Arguments Against Superdeterminism General Discussion 142
Why is there such little talk regarding superdeterminism? General Discussion 23
I hear a lot about nonlocality and it's relationship to QM Quantum Physics 3