stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 98
Gordon Davisson
May 27, 2021 at 8:31 pm
Bornagain77 @ 94:
| Quote |
Bear in mind that others do not see your becoming comfortable with the idea that you exist in an veritable infinity of other places as an achievement of any sort but see it as a mental deterioration on your part..
|
I wasn’t asking for congratulations, I was just trying to explain my views… and hopefully get you to stretch your own mind a bit. But I guess your mental straitjacket is too strong for that.
And I see you also still think there’s something important about the free will loophole.
| Quote |
As to closing the freedom of choice loophole, if it is all the same with you, I think I will stick with Anton Zeilinger and company when his says he closed the loophole, and not with your denial that he closed it. |
Whether the loophole has been completely closed (as you seem to think) or only narrowed (as Zeilinger actually says) isn’t the main point. The main point is that closing the loophole doesn’t have much significance, and doesn’t have any significance to atheism.
Back in comment #90, you said:
| Quote |
Basically with super-determinism, and with the closing of the setting independence and/or ‘free will’ loop hole by Zeilinger and company, the Atheistic naturalist is now reduced to arguing that “a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure.” |
This, again, is complete nonsense. Closing loopholes in Bell’s theorem tests is only relevant to hidden variable theories. Not to any non-local-hidden-variable interpretation of QM, and not to atheism.
As I said before, none of the interpretations I talked about, MWI, Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber, de Broglie–Bohm, and the transactional interpretation, are local hidden-variable theories, so the presence or absence of loopholes in the Bell tests is irrelevant to them.
And there’s no reason atheists would be restricted to those interpretations. There are atheism-compatible interpretations that assign special status to consciousness, like the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation (which says conscious observation causes collapse), or Penrose and Hameroff’s orchestrated objective reduction theory (which if I understand right says that collapse causes consciousness).
There’s also no reason at all that atheists can’t prefer antirealist interpretations, like the original Copenhagen interpretation, QBism, Zeilinger and Brukner’s information-based interpretation, Wheeler’s “it from bit”, approach, etc etc etc.
I have no idea why you’re so obsessed with superdeterminism and Sabine Hossenfelder.
You also said, in #96:
| Quote |
Moreover, if we really ‘follow the math’ as Gordon implores us to do, and ask ourselves, “why should math even be applicable to the universe in the first place?”, we are led not to the insanity of the atheistic/naturalistic MWI as Gordon implies, but rather we are instead led to God. |
Huh? Are you seriously unable to comprehend how math could work without God being involved? If so, that’s your problem, not mine. | Quote |
Also of note, a lot of the ‘weirdness’ in quantum mechanics also evaporates for us once we realize that there is a very strong correspondence and/or correlation between the ‘weird’ actions we observe in quantum mechanics and some of the defining attributes of the immaterial mind, (namely ‘the attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, and the attribute of ‘free-will’) |
…and exactly how does this interpretation of yours work? Waving your hands and saying “there is a very strong correspondence” may satisfy you, but it’s not in the same league with what I’d call a real interpretation.
Put it this way: one of the significant problems with MWI is that it’s hard to fully justify the Born rule for probabilities in it. Can you do better? How does your interpretation explain the Born rule (or can it)? For example, in the original Bell test (2 electrons in the spin-0 singlet state), why do the two spin measurements agree with probability 0.5 minus half the cosine of the angle between the two detectors? Not just why is there a correlation, but why that specific correlation?
Why does summing across a bunch of Feynman diagrams give such good predictions of how particles will interact? Why can’t two identical fermions occupy the same state (the Pauli exclusion principle), but identical bosons can? etc etc etc
These are the sorts of questions a real interpretation of QM should be able to answer. If you can’t answer questions like these, you don’t actually have an interpretation, you’ve just decided that QM fits well with your views without bothering to understand it or think hard about it first. |
LOL
Right now, somewhere in Minnesota, a mental patient is furiously cutting and pasting from his manifesto…   
|
