> On 7 Jun 2020, at 13:55, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 6:25 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of > quantum foundations. > > Yes, and Superdeterminism is swiftly discarded for a very good reason. > Occam's razor says the best physics theory that explains the facts is the one > that's simplest, but that doesn't just mean the one that has the simplest > laws but also has the simplest initial conditions. The initial conditions > needed for Superdeterminism to work are as far from being simple as it is > possible to get; out of the infinite number of ways the universe could have > started out in only one of them is set up in exactly the right way such that > things are really deterministic but fool us into thinking they are not even > after 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution. > > Theosts answer the question "why does the universe exist?" by saying "because > God created it", and I have a problem with that because it immediately > suggests another obvious question that they have no answer for, "why does God > exist?". I have pretty much the same problem with Superdeterminism; why did > the universe start out in the only initial condition in which even after > churning for 13.8 billion years it is still able to make fools of us? > Superdeterministic theory is about as useful for increasing our understanding > as saying things are the way they are now because things are the way they are > now.
I agree with most of this. Superdeterminism is like abandoning trying to understand. It is almost worst than “shut up and calculate”, because it is that idea transformed into a general principle. Superdeterlinism is a high price to keep on our unicity, which already makes no sense when we postulate Mechanism (which presupposes the elementary arithmetical truth (i.e 0 + 0 = 0, etc.) and entails the running of all computations (really *all* with Church’s Thesis). To be sure, not many theologians would say that “God created the universe” is an explanation of the origin of the universe. An expert in both Theology and Astrophysics, like the bishop or priest (abbé) Lemaître insisted a lot about this. When asked if his theory or “primordial atom” (which has become the Big Bang theory) gives a clue that the bible is correct. His answer was that to relate the big bang with the bible is as much dishonest in theology than in physics. Things are a bit more subtle than that, even in the catholic Aristotelian theology. I have discovered this recently. That guy was rather honest, which is not so frequent in the post +500 theologies. De Chardin, which I like very much, was not that honest apparently. Bruno > > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Ny6085u9_NS0b%3DNNAZvdJEBwC1D8ET2cYTewCi2ErSw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Ny6085u9_NS0b%3DNNAZvdJEBwC1D8ET2cYTewCi2ErSw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4FA52913-C0DC-4688-8C73-D9293DF55023%40ulb.ac.be.
