6 ms·

I do not understand your statement. Superdeterminism does not imply QM is wrong. You can not dismiss superdeterminism with the pretext that it would render ever

I do not understand your statement. Superdeterminism does not imply QM is wrong. You can not dismiss superdeterminism with the pretext that it would render everything pointless as our paths are predetermined. Basically you are arguing that you choose not to consider superdeterminism because you have free will. What sounds more absurd? I suggest you read the original paper for a better reply to your argument.

wnoise 7y ago
It's not literally saying QM is false in the sense of "gives wrong predictions", but it is saying it is not "what is really going on", because it is incomplete. > it would render everything pointless as our paths are predetermined The objection is subtler than this. It's that it's pointless because it's not a productive stance. Science is in large part about predicting results of interventions. It throws its hands up and says everything happens for essentially conspiratorial reasons, and taken fully doesn't admit the possibility of interventions. Further this is stronger than the normal determinism of classical mechanics -- there, even if we believe in determinism, nondeterminism with respect to unobserved things (such as experimenters brains) is a useful stance for discovering truths about the universe. In contrast, with superdeterminism, any possible "intervention" in this stance is "compensated for" by the initial conditions. It explains quantum mechanics only by saying "initial conditions did it", which is no better than "God did it" of medieval philosophy. In neither case can we usefully ask further questions.
- Grieverheart 7y ago
  If you go down that route, you can always dismiss objective reality. There is no way of knowing that what we experience is actually happening. But we still assume it does. The same holds for superdeterminism. You can say we have no way of knowing if what we measure is not a conspiracy, but that doesn't hinder us from doing science as we know it.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    Without conspiracies it isn’t superdeterminism and you won’t get the right outcomes.
edoo 7y ago
We paradoxically could have free will and still live in a purely deterministic universe. Even if it is deterministic, we could never do the math to determine the exact state of everything. Our inability to model the universe (without a universe sized computer) means for all intents and purposes we do have free will. Even if the arrow of time runs backwards and our perception is forward, I'm still going to pick what I eat for dinner tonight.
- temppsychonaut 7y ago
  My problem with compatibalism, is compatibilism is so rigid. Why can’t we just overtly define free will in such a way that we have “free will,” and at the same time acknowledge that we lack “free will” for another definition. I guess what I’m trying to say is compatibilism just seems to me like it takes a hard stance on a word game.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I agree. Compatibilism either defines "free will" to be something I don't consider to be free will, or defines "determinism" into something I don't consider to be determinism (or both).
  - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
    Another definition like "nondeterministic free will" doesn't make much sense, so when you say such will does or doesn't exist, it's unclear what it means and what conclusions should follow from it. Some people assume it makes sense, but only until you question it.
- NOGDP 7y ago
  What is the difference between you picking what to eat and a computer 'picking' what 2 + 3 is? What you pick to eat is determined by your taste, mood, available food, a bunch of subconscious processes in your brain that you're not aware of and many other factors. If we ran a simulation of the same deterministic universe you would pick the same thing every time. Just because you don't know exactly why you did something or you aren't able to fully rationalise your choice, doesn't mean you have free will.

wnoise 7y ago

It's not literally saying QM is false in the sense of "gives wrong predictions", but it is saying it is not "what is really going on", because it is incomplete. > it would render everything pointless as our paths are predetermined The objection is subtler than this. It's that it's pointless because it's not a productive stance. Science is in large part about predicting results of interventions. It throws its hands up and says everything happens for essentially conspiratorial reasons, and taken fully doesn't admit the possibility of interventions. Further this is stronger than the normal determinism of classical mechanics -- there, even if we believe in determinism, nondeterminism with respect to unobserved things (such as experimenters brains) is a useful stance for discovering truths about the universe. In contrast, with superdeterminism, any possible "intervention" in this stance is "compensated for" by the initial conditions. It explains quantum mechanics only by saying "initial conditions did it", which is no better than "God did it" of medieval philosophy. In neither case can we usefully ask further questions.

Grieverheart 7y ago
If you go down that route, you can always dismiss objective reality. There is no way of knowing that what we experience is actually happening. But we still assume it does. The same holds for superdeterminism. You can say we have no way of knowing if what we measure is not a conspiracy, but that doesn't hinder us from doing science as we know it.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  Without conspiracies it isn’t superdeterminism and you won’t get the right outcomes.

edoo 7y ago

We paradoxically could have free will and still live in a purely deterministic universe. Even if it is deterministic, we could never do the math to determine the exact state of everything. Our inability to model the universe (without a universe sized computer) means for all intents and purposes we do have free will. Even if the arrow of time runs backwards and our perception is forward, I'm still going to pick what I eat for dinner tonight.

temppsychonaut 7y ago
My problem with compatibalism, is compatibilism is so rigid. Why can’t we just overtly define free will in such a way that we have “free will,” and at the same time acknowledge that we lack “free will” for another definition. I guess what I’m trying to say is compatibilism just seems to me like it takes a hard stance on a word game.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I agree. Compatibilism either defines "free will" to be something I don't consider to be free will, or defines "determinism" into something I don't consider to be determinism (or both).
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  Another definition like "nondeterministic free will" doesn't make much sense, so when you say such will does or doesn't exist, it's unclear what it means and what conclusions should follow from it. Some people assume it makes sense, but only until you question it.
NOGDP 7y ago
What is the difference between you picking what to eat and a computer 'picking' what 2 + 3 is? What you pick to eat is determined by your taste, mood, available food, a bunch of subconscious processes in your brain that you're not aware of and many other factors. If we ran a simulation of the same deterministic universe you would pick the same thing every time. Just because you don't know exactly why you did something or you aren't able to fully rationalise your choice, doesn't mean you have free will.