Sci.Physics.Foundations

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

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)

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:05 pm Causation from the future is pure nonsense.

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!

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!
.

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!

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:17 pm I love engaging nonsense. That’s why I come here to engage with Joy and Fred.