Superdeterminism

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Superdeterminism

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:42 am

gill1109 wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:17 pm 8-) I love engaging nonsense. 8-) That’s why I come here to engage with Joy and Fred. 8-)
Yeah, I'm going to start deleting, without warnings or notifications, more of your nonsense for the new year.
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by gill1109 » Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:17 pm

8-) I love engaging nonsense. 8-) That’s why I come here to engage with Joy and Fred. 8-)

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:16 am

jreed wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:08 am Those examples of correlation on that website are amazing. I had a good time reading them. You can prove about anything if you look at enough correlations!
It figures you Bell fanatics are engaging more nonsense. :D
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by jreed » Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:08 am

Those examples of correlation on that website are amazing. I had a good time reading them. You can prove about anything if you look at enough correlations!

Re: Superdeterminism

by gill1109 » Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:29 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:39 am
gill1109 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:35 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:05 pm Causation from the future is pure nonsense.
Post-selection can change correlations. It can change zero correlation to non zero correlation. That's what I was saying about the four different explanations of a correlation between X and Y:

X causes Y;

Y causes X;

some Z causes X and Y;

post-selection has been done on the grounds of some Z, caused by X and Y.

Take a look at a modern book on causality!

I am not aware of any situation in which there was correlation which did not have one of those four explanations (if not a complicated mixture of all four). For instance, there's a wonderful website where you can see lots of highly significant but totally weird correlations ... if you look at all the correlations between 1000 variables, you will find a whole lot of quite extraordinary correlations. Post-selection!

Some physicists believe that the laws of physics are so exquisitely tuned to allow our existence here on this wonderful planet, simply because of post-selection. There do only exists physicists in universes where this occasionally is possible. Post-selection!
More pure nonsense!
.
Yes Fred, I agree! We agree about lots of things!

For an example of what I mean, see: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

These extraordinary correlations are partly caused by the prior joint cause "time" and partly caused by post-selection of the biggest (in absolute value) correlations in a 1000 x 1000 matrix of correlations between 1000 variables of which we have recent 20 year long annual time series.

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:39 am

gill1109 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:35 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:05 pm Causation from the future is pure nonsense.
Post-selection can change correlations. It can change zero correlation to non zero correlation. That's what I was saying about the four different explanations of a correlation between X and Y:

X causes Y;

Y causes X;

some Z causes X and Y;

post-selection has been done on the grounds of some Z, caused by X and Y.

Take a look at a modern book on causality!

I am not aware of any situation in which there was correlation which did not have one of those four explanations (if not a complicated mixture of all four). For instance, there's a wonderful website where you can see lots of highly significant but totally weird correlations ... if you look all the correlations between 1000 variables, you will find a whole lot of quite extraordinary correlations. Post-selection!

Some physicists believe that the laws of physics are so exquisitely tuned to allow our existence here on this wonderful planet, simply because of post-selection. There do only exists physicists in universes where this occasionally is possible. Post-selection!
More pure nonsense!
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by gill1109 » Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:35 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:05 pm Causation from the future is pure nonsense.
Post-selection can change correlations. It can change zero correlation to non zero correlation. That's what I was saying about the four different explanations of a correlation between X and Y:

X causes Y;

Y causes X;

some Z causes X and Y;

post-selection has been done on the grounds of some Z, caused by X and Y.

Take a look at a modern book on causality!

I am not aware of any situation in which there was correlation which did not have one of those four explanations (if not a complicated mixture of all four). For instance, there's a wonderful website where you can see lots of highly significant but totally weird correlations ... if you look all the correlations between 1000 variables, you will find a whole lot of quite extraordinary correlations. Post-selection!

Some physicists believe that the laws of physics are so exquisitely tuned to allow our existence here on this wonderful planet, simply because of post-selection. There do only exists physicists in universes where this occasionally is possible. Post-selection!

Re: Superdeterminism

by gill1109 » Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:25 pm

gill1109 wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:22 pm
minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:12 am It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picked an absurd, nonsensical *reason* often provided in an attempt explain *why* p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). And you are unwilling to entertain the fact that such popular science claims are themselves absolutely distinct from the claim that. p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). The correct term for this phenomenon is "strawman".

If you want to believe that p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) must mean that the hidden variables determine the settings, as Gill says, or that it must mean the settings go back in time to determine the what the source produces, then I can't help you guys. Correlation is not causation. https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf, Pg 9-16
The inequality means that settings and hidden variables are statistically dependent of one another. That means that one cannot separate the physics generating the settings from the physics creating the measurement outcomes from hidden variables and settings.

Correlation is not direct causation. But there is no correlation without causation. Read Judea Pearl’s book “Causality”.

To find out what that inequality means: watch Sabine Hossenfelder’s YouTube video and read Tim Palmer’s paper to find out what they say it means. It’s their notion of superdeterminism we are talking about.

https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI
Everything is determined
Does superdeterminism rescue quantum physics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2019.0350
Discretization of the Bloch sphere, fractal invariant sets and Bell's theorem.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 476:2236 (2020) 20190350

By the way, I think Tim Palmer has misinterpreted Bell and moreover that his reasoning is unsound. I suspect that Sabine Hossenfelder is blinded by the sophistication and beauty of his mathematics (chaos theory, fractals, p-adic topology)

Re: Superdeterminism

by gill1109 » Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:22 pm

minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:12 am It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picked an absurd, nonsensical *reason* often provided in an attempt explain *why* p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). And you are unwilling to entertain the fact that such popular science claims are themselves absolutely distinct from the claim that. p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). The correct term for this phenomenon is "strawman".

If you want to believe that p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) must mean that the hidden variables determine the settings, as Gill says, or that it must mean the settings go back in time to determine the what the source produces, then I can't help you guys. Correlation is not causation. https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf, Pg 9-16
There is no correlation without causation. Read Judea Pearl’s book “Causality”. And you should watch Sabine Hossenfelder’s YouTube video and read Tim Palmer’s paper. That is the notion of superdeterminism we are talking about.

https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI
Everything is determined
Does superdeterminism rescue quantum physics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2019.0350
Discretization of the Bloch sphere, fractal invariant sets and Bell's theorem.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 476:2236 (2020) 20190350

By the way, I think Tim Palmer has misinterpreted Bell and moreover that his reasoning is unsound. I suspect that Sabine Hossenfelder is blinded by the sophistication and beauty of his mathematics (chaos theory, fractals, p-adic topology)

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:05 pm

Causation from the future is pure nonsense.
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by gill1109 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:19 pm

Joy Christian wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:44 am
gill1109 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:32 am
Joy Christian wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:14 am If this is the claim of "superdeterminism", then it is completely false. There is never any selection of a subset of p(h) when experiments are done with a fixed set (a, b) of settings. ALL of the hidden variables h in H play role in the experiment, without exception. The assumption p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is false.
The assumption p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) can hold if and only if the hidden variables h influence the spontaneous choices of the random settings a and b.
p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is not an *assumption* of superdeterminism, it's a *consequence* of superdeterminism. According to superdeterminism, the very notion of a spontaneous choice is misguided. No spontaneous choices exist. Not even in our brains, which are also subject to the laws of physics. Which are deterministic laws. Differential equations, according to Tim Palmer (of Jesus College / Oxford University, BTW) and his friends.
I think it is an interesting mathematical-physical model which might be adequate for cosmology but which I think breaks down at the level of real life, including real life Bell-type experiments.
Tim and I have known each other for 30 years. Michel wants to deny any metaphysical assumption behind the claim p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). He wants to claim that a selection of the subset p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is necessitated by the very act of choosing (a, b). But that is pure baloney.
I largely agree with you, Joy (and with Fred). Though I wouldn't talk about selection of a subset. Tim and his friends Sabine and Jonte are talking about inequality of probability distributions.

We need to distinguish between values which might be taken by random variables, random variables themselves, and the sets in which those random variables must take values. I would use three different letter-types for these three different things. For instance: a possible setting of Alice is denoted by plain lower case a, Alice's setting considered as a random variable is denoted by A, and the set of all possible values of Alice's setting is A. When Tim, Sabine, and Jonte write "p(h|a, b) =/= p(h)" they are talking about the inequality of conditional and unconditional probability distributions. They really mean that for (a, b) in a subset of AxB of positive probability, in those experiments in which the pair of settings (A, B) happens to take on a value in that subset, the probability distribution of H on H is not the same as what it is overall.

Not surprisingly, they prefer to use a common lazy physicist's or lazy statistician's notation. If you are not used to it you might be puzzled. If you see what they really mean you might still be puzzled. You have to get used to it. Probability 101.

Now, how could this be? It is a general principle that there is no correlation without causation. But the causation may be in one direction or the other, or from the past, or from the future. If there is correlation between (A, B) and H, then either (A, B) causes H, or H causes (A, B), or there is a common cause Z of both (A, B) and of H, or there is a common consequence Z of (A, B) and H and we are *selecting* cases on the basis of outcomes of Z.

Tim Palmer and his friends do argue that there is a common cause of *everything* hence all correlations which we see in the physical world are in some sense "spurious correlations". According to them, the correlations between settings and measurement outcomes in a Bell experiment is explained by "super hidden variables" which determine both the settings and the measurement outcomes and the hidden variables which physicists talk about. Super hidden variables behind the plain hidden variables.

I see that Joy and Fred more or less got the message but Michel is missing it.

Super-determinism can explain everything. But because it can explain everything, it really explains nothing. It is a religion, not a scientific hypothesis. No experiment can disprove it. It does not make any predictions.

Re: Superdeterminism

by Joy Christian » Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:06 am

.
Image
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:19 am

minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:46 am Fred are you saying, your functions above do not satisfy Bell's equation (1) of. A(a,h) = -B(a,h) = +/-1?

If not, then what makes you think they have any relationship to Bell's theorem? If they do, then Bell's equation (2) follows also. I don't understand how you can claim Bell's equation (2) is zero, but not for your functions. Your functions are just different ways of producing +/-1 depending on the settings and hidden variables ... I think.
Joy's functions do satisfy Bell's eq.(1) and don't end up being zero in the product calculation. If all you have is +/-1 to put into Bell's eq.(2) then you end up with zero for the complete product calculation. It's nonsense. And..., it is partially the reason Bell ended up with a junk physics theory instead of a real theorem.

Reference:
https://journals.aps.org/ppf/pdf/10.110 ... zika.1.195
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by Joy Christian » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:48 am

minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:12 am
Joy Christian wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:44 am Michel wants to deny any metaphysical assumption behind the claim p(h|a, b) =/= p(h).
I can't really engage with a misrepresentation of my position which I've explained multiple times.

p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) has absolutely no metaphysical "assumption" behind it. It's simply a statement that two distribution are different.

It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picked an absurd, nonsensical *reason* often provided in an attempt explain *why* p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). And you are unwilling to entertain the fact that such popular science claims are themselves absolutely distinct from the claim that. p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). The correct term for this phenomenon is "strawman".

If you want to believe that p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) must mean that the hidden variables determine the settings, as Gill says, or that it must mean the settings go back in time to determine the what the source produces, then I can't help you guys. Correlation is not causation. https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf, Pg 9-16
ALL of the hidden variables h in H play role in the experiment, without exception. The assumption p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is false.
This is just a proclamation. What is the physical justification of it. I've asked many times but you have provided none.

I'm done. Happy new year guys!
The assumption p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is false without any metaphysical claims supporting it. The correct probability distribution is p(h), period. If
anyone wants to assume a new distribution p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) for every choice of spontaneously chosen settings (a, b), then they must justify it.
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by minkwe » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:46 am

Fred are you saying, your functions above do not satisfy Bell's equation (1) of. A(a,h) = -B(a,h) = +/-1?

If not, then what makes you think they have any relationship to Bell's theorem? If they do, then Bell's equation (2) follows also. I don't understand how you can claim Bell's equation (2) is zero, but not for your functions. Your functions are just different ways of producing +/-1 depending on the settings and hidden variables ... I think.

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:32 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:24 am
minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:20 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:41 am
It is mainly because Bell didn't specify any actual functions for A and B other than equal to +/-1.
.
Fred, if this is what you and Richard are talking about, then you are very wrong. A(a,h) is a function producing either +1 or -1 depending on what values, a and h take . They are not constants.

Bell in fact gave candidate functions of this type in equation (4)

A(a,h) = - B(a,h) = -sign(a.h)
Except we already know that is wrong so the function is rejected leaving only A = +/-1 and B = +/-1.
Here are Joy's new functions that actually work.

Image
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:24 am

minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:20 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:41 am
minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:34 am
Can someone please explain to me why Bell's equation 2 is equal to zero. What am I missing?
It is mainly because Bell didn't specify any actual functions for A and B other than equal to +/-1.
.
Fred, if this is what you and Richard are talking about, then you are very wrong. A(a,h) is a function producing either +1 or -1 depending on what values, a and h take . They are not constants.

Bell in fact gave candidate functions of this type in equation (4)

A(a,h) = - B(a,h) = -sign(a.h)
Except we already know that is wrong so the function is rejected leaving only A = +/-1 and B = +/-1.
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by FrediFizzx » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:21 am

minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:12 am
Joy Christian wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:44 am Michel wants to deny any metaphysical assumption behind the claim p(h|a, b) =/= p(h).
I can't really engage with a misrepresentation of my position which I've explained multiple times.

p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) has absolutely no metaphysical "assumption" behind it. It's simply a statement that two distribution are different.

It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picked an absurd, nonsensical *reason* often provided in an attempt explain *why* p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). And you are unwilling to entertain the fact that such popular science claims are themselves absolutely distinct from the claim that. p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). The correct term for this phenomenon is "strawman".

If you want to believe that p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) must mean that the hidden variables determine the settings, as Gill says, or that it must mean the settings go back in time to determine the what the source produces, then I can't help you guys. Correlation is not causation. https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf
ALL of the hidden variables h in H play role in the experiment, without exception. The assumption p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is false.
This is just a proclamation. What is the physical justification of it. I've asked many times but you have provided none.

I'm done. Happy new year guys!
And..., I have already told you that "a" and "b" don't even exist when p(h) is created.

Happy New Year to you also and to everyone!
.

Re: Superdeterminism

by minkwe » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:20 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:41 am
minkwe wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:34 am
gill1109 wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:34 pm Fred is right!
Can someone please explain to me why Bell's equation 2 is equal to zero. What am I missing?
It is mainly because Bell didn't specify any actual functions for A and B other than equal to +/-1.
.
Fred, if this is what you and Richard are talking about, then you are very wrong. A(a,h) is a function producing either +1 or -1 depending on what values, a and h take . They are not constants.

Bell in fact gave candidate functions of this type in equation (4)

A(a,h) = - B(a,h) = -sign(a.h)

Re: Superdeterminism

by minkwe » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:12 am

Joy Christian wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:44 am Michel wants to deny any metaphysical assumption behind the claim p(h|a, b) =/= p(h).
I can't really engage with a misrepresentation of my position which I've explained multiple times.

p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) has absolutely no metaphysical "assumption" behind it. It's simply a statement that two distribution are different.

It is Bell who called this inequality "super-determinism". You should Investigate the origin of the term in the context of Bell's theorem. You (and Richard) are stuck with popular science representations of what "super-determinism" means. Not what it actually means. You've picked an absurd, nonsensical *reason* often provided in an attempt explain *why* p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). And you are unwilling to entertain the fact that such popular science claims are themselves absolutely distinct from the claim that. p(h|a, b) =/= p(h). The correct term for this phenomenon is "strawman".

If you want to believe that p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) must mean that the hidden variables determine the settings, as Gill says, or that it must mean the settings go back in time to determine the what the source produces, then I can't help you guys. Correlation is not causation. https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf, Pg 9-16
ALL of the hidden variables h in H play role in the experiment, without exception. The assumption p(h|a, b) =/= p(h) is false.
This is just a proclamation. What is the physical justification of it. I've asked many times but you have provided none.

I'm done. Happy new year guys!

Top