jadrian said:local copy? information isn't copied! i can't 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?
jadrian said:local copy? information isn't copied! i can't 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?
jadrian said: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 said: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.
jadrian said: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 transferred 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.
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.jadrian said:yeah but how can you POSSIBLY rule out that a and d did not interact in the past.
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.lugita15 said:SPECIALLY SET? CAUSALITY SPECIALLY SETS EVERYTHING OTHERWISE THERE WOULDNT BE CAUSALITY!
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 said:speaking of conspiratorial, this experiment could never theoretically be carried out, seeing as your large distance statements imply that a and d are outside each others 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.
juanrga said: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.
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.jadrian said: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.
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.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 transferred 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.
jadrian said:reason is capable of intuitively understanding our universe in my opinion, and einsteins. i don't draw pictures of what i think the world should look like, but I am 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 said:i get it, people psychologically can't 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 said:No, there isn't, but there is something conspiratorial about a particle behaving in just the right way/QUOTE]
you said a and d were correlated. saying "just the right way" implies more than correlation in my mind
To repeat, in order to have Bell-type nonlocal correlations between A and D in a local deterministic theory, we need A and D not only to have interacted in the past, but to have interacted in just the right way so that they would get the right "conspiratorial" initial conditions so that they would display the right kind of nonlocal correlations years later.jadrian said:you said a and d were correlated. saying "just the right way" implies more than correlation in my mind
Joncon said: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.
Off topic, but Einstein definitely did not find the new radical notions of space and time he came up with intuitive. He was led to SR because he saw that the electrodynamics of moving bodies seemed to possesses a greater degree of symmetry than their conventional description gave them credit for, and so he tried to redo the laws of kinematics so that Maxwell's equations could be shown to conform with the principle of relativity.jadrian said:you say "is that intuitive?" intuition isn't the same for all. in fact it is relative lol no pun intended. einsteins thoughts that the speed of light is the same for all observers and the spaceman traveling at high speed will age slower and that space and time were inseparable WERE INTUITIVE to him.
jadrian said:you say "is that intuitive?" intuition isn't the same for all. in fact it is relative lol no pun intended. einsteins thoughts that the speed of light is the same for all observers and the spaceman traveling at high speed will age slower and that space and time were inseparable WERE INTUITIVE to him.
f=ma is not intuitive to a retarded person.
you might ask if we would arrived at relativity today without einsteins intuition.
my guess is yes but its possible we might still not have come to relativity without einstein.
either way, einstein proves how far iq and intuition can take you.
There's no way to know or demonstrate that information, or anything else, is instantaneously transferred from a to b. In fact, instantaneous propagation is a contradiction in terms. If a and b are changing instantaneously, then they're changing simultaneously. And there's nothing in our observations of our world, our universe, that suggests that simultaneous, spacelike separated, changes in a and b imply a causal relationship, or any sort of communication, between a and b. Rather, what this does imply is that a and b are part of a larger system, or that a and b have something in common due to a common cause.jadrian said:from my thinking nonlocality and entanglement are never a problem because in a totally determinstic universe, the information about what is going to be instantaneously tranferred from a to b is already known to the universe.
That's news to me. I would say that observations indicate that our universe behaves contrary to the notion of block time. That is, it's evolving and transitory. But that certain theoretical constructs/eventualities suggest block time. And, afaik, the theoretical stuff that suggests block time (or that contradicts observation) is more or less routinely disregarded/discarded.jadrian said:... we may not be in block time but the universe acts as if it were.
Because it's unwarranted wrt extant observation and mainstream interpretation of theory.jadrian said:... why is [my view] not mainstream?
Why not? Are you saying that the assumption of determinism implies action at a distance? Or superluminal propagations?Demystifier said:In this context, superdeterminism is NOT merely the idea that everything is deterministic, i.e., that future is completely determined by the past. If superdeterminism was only that, then it could not avoid nonlocality.
Ok. So far this is just determinism.Demystifier said:Instead, superdeterminism is much more. It is the idea that
1. Future is completely determined by the past.
You've arbitrarily assumed a starting point (ie., initial conditions) that isn't influenced by past events. But we can just as well assume that wrt whatever you want to assume as a starting point there are antecedent events, ie., some prior history/conditions.Demystifier said:AND
2. The past (i.e., initial conditions) is not arbitrary, but is fine tuned so that in the future we see correlations between distant object which never mutually interacted.
Yes, I reread your reply. I still don't understand what differentiates superdeterminism from determinism. I think Demystifier also tried to explain it one time to me. That didn't do it for me either. Or what Bell or 't Hooft have to say about it. I mean, it just isn't clear to me what the word superdeterminism refers to that's different from what the word determinism refers to.lugita15 said:ThomasT, a while back I told you what distinguishes superdeterminism from regular determinism ...
Superdeterminism equals determinism plus conspiracy. If you take an arbitrary local realist theory with arbitrary initial conditions, it will satisfy Bell's inequality, meaning that it will not display the Bell-type nonlocal correlations necessary to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. In contrast, in a local superdeterministic theory you make all the particles in the universe have some big meeting some time in the past, where they all set the initial states of their hidden variables just right, so that they can all work together in an elaborate conspiracy to make sure that every Bell test performed in the history of the universe will make Bell's inequality appear violated even though it really isn't. In other words, you're making it seems as if local determinism is false even though it is really true. On the other hand, an ordinary local realist theory will easily produce predictions which disagree with quantum mechanics.ThomasT said:Yes, I reread your reply. I still don't understand what differentiates superdeterminism from determinism. I think Demystifier also tried to explain it one time to me. That didn't do it for me either. Or what Bell or 't Hooft have to say about it. I mean, it just isn't clear to me what the word superdeterminism refers to that's different from what the word determinism refers to.
lugita15 said:To repeat, in order to have Bell-type nonlocal correlations between A and D in a local deterministic theory, we need A and D not only to have interacted in the past, but to have interacted in just the right way so that they would get the right "conspiratorial" initial conditions so that they would display the right kind of nonlocal correlations years later.
I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary initial conditions". An experimental preparation designed to produce entanglement stats isn't "arbitrary", is it?lugita15 said:Superdeterminism equals determinism plus conspiracy. If you take an arbitrary local realist theory with arbitrary initial conditions, it will satisfy Bell's inequality, meaning that it will not display the Bell-type nonlocal correlations necessary to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Hmmm. Well, this just seems silly to me. No offense. Maybe you can elaborate on this, explain what you're talking about, in a way that doesn't seem silly?lugita15 said:In contrast, in a local superdeterministic theory you make all the particles in the universe have some big meeting some time in the past, where they all set the initial states of their hidden variables just right, so that they can all work together in an elaborate conspiracy to make sure that every Bell test performed in the history of the universe will make Bell's inequality appear violated even though it really isn't.
Like I said, this makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just extraordinarily dense. I don't know (obviously, I wouldn't). But if so, is there another way that you might present/explain what superdeterminism means that I, and other laymen, might understand? Because what you've written so far doesn't make any sense to me.lugita15 said:In other words, you're making it seem as if local determinism is false even though it is really true. On the other hand, an ordinary local realist theory will easily produce predictions which disagree with quantum mechanics.
To cause what to happen? Entanglement? But entanglement can be created by zapping spatially separated particles with the same pulses, can't it? If so, then apparently the laser pulses do impart enough common info to produce entanglement.DrChinese said:The pulse doesn't contain enough information to cause that to happen.
Ok, thanks. Give me a few minutes to consider this.lugita15 said:Superdeterminism is a subset of determinism. A
local superdeterministic theory is a local deterministic theory in which the behavior of particles today display Bell-type nonlocal correlation (as opposed to just EPR-type nonlocal correlation) not due to nonlocal interaction today, but due to local interaction in the past. Is that clear enough?
ThomasT said:To cause what to happen? Entanglement? But entanglement can be created by zapping spatially separated particles with the same pulses, can't it? If so, then apparently the laser pulses do impart enough common info to produce entanglement.
Thanks for the reply. But you're doing it also. I really don't know what you guys mean by superdeterminism.DrChinese said:The pulse synchronization IS enough for entanglement. But doesn't impart the information beyond that necessary to maintain the superdeterministic mechanism. After all, the pulse is periodic and there are no other variables to speak of. So it is a pretty small communication channel.
lugita15 said:OK, let me give you an example of why you need special initial conditions.
In a deterministic theory, in order to predict the current behavior of any object, you need to know the initial conditions of the object, as well as the deterministic laws of the universe. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, you need to know the positions and velocities of all the particles at time t=0, and then F=ma will tell you the behavior of the particles at all later times.
Now let's consider what a local deterministic explanation of entanglement would look like. Let particles A and B be an entangled pair of photons, which are separated by a great distance and then sent through polarization detectors. We also have particles C and D: C tells the experimenter what angle he should set the polarizer that measures A, and D tells the experimenter how to set the polarizer that measures B. You can think of C and D as neurons in the brains of the experimenters if you like.
Now we find experimentally that the behavior of particle A through its measurement device is strongly correlated with the angle at which B's measurement device is set. And that angle is determined by particle D. So we have a correlation between the behavior of particles A and D.
But particles A and D are separated by such a large distance, so they cannot communicate with each other to coordinate their behavior (unless you have a nonlocal theory like Bohmian mechanics which allow undetectable faster-than-light signalling between particles). So a local determinist has to conclude that A and D are correlated not based on a current relationship between the present states of A and D, which would be impossible, but based on a past relationship of the initial states of A and D.
This is what we mean by special initial conditions: A and D seemingly have nothing to do with each other. After all, it is A and B that were in the entangled state, and yet somehow we have to conclude that the initial conditions of A and D had to be specially set so that a correlation between A and D would be observed in the future. And instead of just D, we can have a large number of particles D1, D2, D3,... which together determine the measurement setting, so the initial state of particle A had to have been set based on the initial states of all these particles. 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.
This is why superdeterminism is called "conspiratorial". That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just has some issues which make it rather difficult to construct a viable superdeterministic theory, but let me repeat that some potential first steps toward such a theory have already been taken by a few people.
An ordinary local realist theory can only produce EPR-type nonlocal correlations, but in order to produce Bell-type nonlocal correlations you require a local superdeterministic theory. Referring to Nick Herbert's explanation here [PLAIN]http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html,[/PLAIN] the fact that entangled photons do the same thing when going through polarizers oriented at 0 degrees is an example of an EPR-type nonlocal correlation; a local realist can easily explain it by saying that the photons agreed in advance whether they should go through or not go through a 0 degree polarizer. An example of a Bell-type nonlocal correlation is the fact that the mismatch at 60 degrees is more than twice the mismatch at 30 degrees.ThomasT said:Ok, thanks. Give me a few minutes to consider this.
EDIT: Ok, I've considered it. A local superdeterministic theory is a local deterministic theory in which the behavior of particles display entanglement correlations due to interaction with each other, or a common origin, or an identical torque applied to both.
This is just determinism. There's nothing, as far as I can tell, super about it.