[HN Gopher] Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity
___________________________________________________________________
Superdeterminism could reconcile quantum and relativity
Author : billytetrud
Score : 12 points
Date : 2021-05-13 18:17 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.frontiersin.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.frontiersin.org)
| dia80 wrote:
| Wouldn't it be funny if it were established no one had any free
| will, in a strict sense, all along. We'd still feel like we had
| it but know that we didn't.
|
| From this layman's emotional point of view I never really liked
| "many worlds" and that sort of thing. I'd be quite accepting if
| the answer turns out to be super-determinism.
| BeKindAndLearn wrote:
| I would argue that it's pretty obvious nobody has free will in
| the sense that there's some kind of "soul" controlling your
| thoughts and actions.
|
| Your brain is a biological computer. You zap parts and it makes
| you move. You give it some chemical inhibitors or promoters and
| your mood changes. You give it drugs and it hallucinates and
| thinks differently.
|
| The brain isn't supernatural and there is zero evidence that
| supports the concept of spiritual will influencing it. Just
| like there's zero evidence of psychics, magic wands, or
| physics-violating miracles. It's all make believe.
| teilo wrote:
| If you think it is that simple, then you do not quite
| understand superdeterminism and the hard problem of
| consciousness. Also, your examples are not entirely accurate,
| as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that zapping a part of
| the brain cannot consistently override the will, and the
| correlation to, for example, the motion of a limb to the
| activity of the brain does not stay consistent, but
| disappears when the subject under experimentation resists.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Many worlds (by which I mean the Everett interpretation, not
| sure which you mean) is 100% deterministic.
|
| The impact that apparent world branching has to domain of the
| free will question is purely due to the "amplification effects"
| that a complex control system like our brain can have in
| reaction to something perceived as a "measurement" result.
|
| We cannot sense a superposition state directly. The moment we
| probe a particle, our instruments and us (the environment)
| becomes entangled with the observed particle. The instrument
| and later we the observers of the instrument are ourselves a
| quantum system with a well defined quantum stats, and a third
| observer not yet entangled with us can treat as still in a
| superposition state.
|
| The idea is that everything evolves according to the
| Schrodinger equation. The wave function never really collapses.
| The illusion of wave function collapse springs out of the way
| that a control system like a brain or a mechanical automaton
| processes it's inputs while being in an entangled state with
| the thing they observe and thus react to it's state differently
| in the different superimposed states. This difference becomes
| amplified. A control system like a brain is not necessary; just
| pure macroscopic environments are enough to diverge the
| apparent state of the systems so that it's useful to think in
| terms of "world splitting"; but it's just a useful fiction;
| very useful because that's all we'll ever witness.
|
| The amplification effect of control systems makes it easy to
| concoct extreme thought experiments. Let's imagine that spin up
| means you fire off a rocket and go to Mars and spin down means
| you stay put. All we did is that we managed to amplify the
| effect of this single superimposed state of one particle, into
| a macroscopic superposition of a rocket being on earth or on
| mars
| meowface wrote:
| Superdeterminism is very different from determinism, and IMO
| would be a much more shocking revelation than Everettianism
| (or Sean Carroll's so-called "mad-dog Everettianism").
| billytetrud wrote:
| Sabine Hossenfelder rethinks Superdeterminism and explains in
| very accessible terms why Superdeterminism should be taken
| seriously and has been unfairly characterized in the past. She
| says that violating statistical independence is the only way to
| solve the measurement problem in a way that is compatible with
| relativity.
| 1980phipsi wrote:
| "very accessible" relative to what?
| johnklos wrote:
| She has some good videos, too:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/SabineHossenfelder/videos
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-13 23:01 UTC)