Re: The Barren Desolate Wasteland of Superdeterminism

Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 22:45:28 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Selfish meme?"

    Received: by id WAA26968 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:51:23 GMT
    From: <>
    Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:45:28 +0100
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: The Barren Desolate Wasteland of Superdeterminism
    Message-ID: <3C51EE18.8717.334B13@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <001201c1a5f2$e4f1b900$2503aace@oemcomputer>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Precedence: bulk

    On 25 Jan 2002, at 13:51, Philip Jonkers wrote:

    > Let me set something straight here. There is no branch of science that can
    > go out and prove the correctness of a theory. QM is no different: you can't
    > prove whether or not it corresponds exactly to how nature works.

    Well the difference is, although not theoretically complete, that we
    can observe newton's laws for instance. If i let something fall it falls
    and has a certain increasing velocity. This can be directly
    observed. What can't be proven here of course is that this is
    universally true.

    Now there is the difference to quantum mechanics. We also can
    observe certain behaviors of electrons like in the double-split
    experiment which are sure true and which i don't deny.

    BUT what quantum mechanics does it that it not only observes the
    behavior of electrons and the statistical outcome of the experiment
    but it also concludes from this that the behavior is indeterministic
    or random. And this part is wrong in my eyes.

    The right conclusion would be to say that the behavior can't be
    explained with the knowledge and measurement-tools we have so
    far. But it should keep the option open that there might be an
    underlying (deterministic) physical law behind it.

    At this point it is of course just belief. It might be 'truly random' or
    there might be a law behind it. We don't know. Some people find it
    more comfortable to think of a random underlying structure, and
    some prefer thinking that God does not throw a dice.

    QM is not a bad theory because it can be used for constructing
    advanced tools. There's no problem in using the statistical
    knowledge we have. The only point which annoys me is the
    philosophical opinion behind it, which is not required for the theory
    to be useful.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 26 2002 - 00:06:51 GMT