5 ms·

I think these consequences are only conspirational if time is an independent variable? What if everything, the entire universe’s past, present, and future ‘happ

by geertj 5y ago

I think these consequences are only conspirational if time is an independent variable? What if everything, the entire universe’s past, present, and future ‘happened’ at the same time, as a self consistent solution of some kind of underlying equation or set of rules? Our brain, the seat of our perception of time, is part of the same universe that we’re trying to explain. Maybe time is an artifact of the self referential feedback loop that causes our consciousness.

lmm 5y ago
It's still conspiratorial. You just happened to choose the right particles to measure? It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined, you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable.
- geertj 5y ago
  Well, I don’t know of any physical law that allows you to choose anything. Whether or not you believe QM is normally deterministic or super deterministic, you have to believe in something outside physics to make all of us not a necessary outcome of an initial state. That doesn’t diminish the pleasures or the reality of consciousness though, or the (illusion) of free will, at least not for me.
  - lmm 5y ago
    I'm not particularly concerned about free will. But we have to have some notion of effects following from causes if we're to be able to reason about physics at all - otherwise the universe might as well be just a pile of stuff happening one after another with no rhyme or reason to it. Superdeterminism undermines that completely.
- temp438 5y ago
  > It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. Everything we do is a mockery - life expectation is 75 if you are lucky and universe doesn't care about your achievements >you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable. [shrugs]If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent?
  - lmm 5y ago
    > The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. > If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? I'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. > What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent? I don't know or particularly care, but the learning happens - you can't understand the behaviour of the system otherwise.
    - temp438 5y ago
      > But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. Wait, how does it deny it? > i'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. it's separating us from the environment and saying that one part changed the other, but that's just a simplification as our heads can't contain the whole system with all it's events. A blurry reflection. So now we "look" at this reflection and say : this is wrong, it makes no sense Without simplification, we had some "initial" state and it "goes" somewhere. Like sand in a clock. We all know where the sand goes and what will happen in an hour. We have words like "interesting, learn, understand" which don't really mean anything when we think about determinism. Science requires an observer but who is looking?
      - lmm 5y ago
        > Wait, how does it deny it? To be able to talk about cause and effect you have to have a concept of independence. Superdeterminism's basic premise is essentially that everything in the past can affect everything in the future - you chose which direction to measure because the particle was polarised a particular way (or because of some common underlying cause). So how can you possibly talk about what caused you to measure a particular direction when apparently it was magically due to this thing that has no visible connection to it? > We have words like "interesting, learn, understand" which don't really mean anything when we think about determinism. Science requires an observer but who is looking? And yet science does work. We're able to make predictions and see them borne out.

by geertj 5y ago

lmm 5y ago

It's still conspiratorial. You just happened to choose the right particles to measure? It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined, you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable.

geertj 5y ago
Well, I don’t know of any physical law that allows you to choose anything. Whether or not you believe QM is normally deterministic or super deterministic, you have to believe in something outside physics to make all of us not a necessary outcome of an initial state. That doesn’t diminish the pleasures or the reality of consciousness though, or the (illusion) of free will, at least not for me.
- lmm 5y ago
  I'm not particularly concerned about free will. But we have to have some notion of effects following from causes if we're to be able to reason about physics at all - otherwise the universe might as well be just a pile of stuff happening one after another with no rhyme or reason to it. Superdeterminism undermines that completely.
temp438 5y ago
> It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. Everything we do is a mockery - life expectation is 75 if you are lucky and universe doesn't care about your achievements >you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable. [shrugs]If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent?
- lmm 5y ago
  > The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. > If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? I'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. > What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent? I don't know or particularly care, but the learning happens - you can't understand the behaviour of the system otherwise.
  - temp438 5y ago
    > But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. Wait, how does it deny it? > i'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. it's separating us from the environment and saying that one part changed the other, but that's just a simplification as our heads can't contain the whole system with all it's events. A blurry reflection. So now we "look" at this reflection and say : this is wrong, it makes no sense Without simplification, we had some "initial" state and it "goes" somewhere. Like sand in a clock. We all know where the sand goes and what will happen in an hour. We have words like "interesting, learn, understand" which don't really mean anything when we think about determinism. Science requires an observer but who is looking?
    - lmm 5y ago
      > Wait, how does it deny it? To be able to talk about cause and effect you have to have a concept of independence. Superdeterminism's basic premise is essentially that everything in the past can affect everything in the future - you chose which direction to measure because the particle was polarised a particular way (or because of some common underlying cause). So how can you possibly talk about what caused you to measure a particular direction when apparently it was magically due to this thing that has no visible connection to it? > We have words like "interesting, learn, understand" which don't really mean anything when we think about determinism. Science requires an observer but who is looking? And yet science does work. We're able to make predictions and see them borne out.