Science Fiction & Philosophy discussion

There are some excellent TED talks (and other video resources) related to our groups topics that we might wish to share. This one discussed dark energy and dark matter in a very simplistic way. I hope you enjoy it!

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_gilli...

That's a great short video, thank you for sharing. It's quite incredible to think how much more there is to discover about the basic structure of the universe.

Khira wrote: "That's a great short video, thank you for sharing. It's quite incredible to think how much more there is to discover about the basic structure of the universe."

It's the reason I keep an open mind when people talk with too much confidence about our current knowledge!

Yes, but you want to give science its due. Too much of an open mind gets filled with nonsense. Science offers constraints against this tendency, especially nonsense that is emotionally satisfying!

There's no such thing as 'too much of an open mind', you either have one or you don't. Filling your mind with nonsense is about poor judgement and a lack of knowledge, it's not about being open-minded. What science offers us is a filter so that open-minded people can focus on the most probable without dismissing the less probable, whilst ignoring the improbable!

I absolutely give science its due, it's why it was always my favourite lesson at school, why I studied it at uni, and why I've maintained a life long interest in the subject. But it does science a dis-service to make proclamations about that which science has yet to resolve. When, as has happened in the past, science has needed to reject what has been thought to be true, nonsense all too often fills the vacuum.

Eg. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/...

Open-mindedness is a continuum, not a dichotomy.
It is also subject dependent. For instance, many people are close-minded about some things, but open-minded about others.
Probability of accurateness depends on scientific evidence (support). But science has yet to resolve anything in an absolute sense. It only tells you which way to bet ( $1 says unicorns do not rule the universe) and allows you to live your life with a better understanding of the world.

I like the last sentence of your first paragraph, though its meaning hinges on the difference between 'most probable,' 'less probable' and 'improbable,' which is vague. My guess is I would find many things in different categories from you, but that there would also be significant overlap.

I agree that open-mindedness is a continuum and that it is also context dependent. My experience in the scientific community has been that the level of agreement and confidence tends to be quite high with historically corroborated and agreed theories (even though an occasional discovery still comes along once in a while to upend the established paradigms). However, at the cutting edge of research into newly discovered phenomena (e.g. quantum physics, nature of dark energy), things are a lot more uncertain; theories are disputed and debated; proponents of different schools of thought clash all the time.

It seems to me that further clarification is needed - what do we mean by being open-minded? I don't mean the extent to which people are or aren't but rather, what they do as a result of it. I consider myself to be very open-minded but I don't spend much time considering options that are neither interesting or supported by current knowledge. For me, openness doesn't equate to accepting, it equates to listening to (or reading) new ideas without prejudices and unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary, taking a neutral position.

Khira's point about proponents clashing reminds me of the current debate over whether quantum entanglement breaks the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. I'm not smart enough to know which side is right and I'll keep an open mind but if QE does, it opens up a fascinating new chapter in science!

Because there is no other evidence for anything traveling faster than the speed of light, if I had to bet I would bet against entanglement doing so. Bell himself offered an alternative explanation in which no breaking of c is necessary.

I'm not a betting man! But Bell is in the minority in thinking c isn't broken by entanglement. Others also believe it's broken in tunnelling and Chinese physicists apparently have even measured the speed (according to a report I saw).

If Bell's explanation does turn out to be correct about c, the implications are that the theory of relativity is compromised - which is almost as big a deal.

E=mc2 may apply to our macro universe but not to the quantum universe.

If Bell is correct, relativity is NOT compromised. If entanglement exists then relativity is compromised.

Bell's theorem asserts that if certain predictions of quantum theory are correct then our world is non-local, non-locality is normally taken to be prohibited by the theory of relativity. (Scholarpedia)

Entanglement exists, the question is how the polarity shifts are 'linked' (for want of a better word.

Bell offered a way around entanglement, which is the point of my last interaction. He said superdeterminism may negate entanglement - see my prior post. There may be no linkage is the point, in which case relativity still holds true.

Relativity along with all science wouldn't hold true because the questions we ask in science would be pre-determined by nature. Our role would be that of a brainwashed observer asking questions limited by the brainwasher to give only the answers the brainwasher permitted. There would be no point in any scientific endeavour and everything else we know about relativity, quantum mechanics and our world would be superdetermined. I don't think you can have 'just a bit' of superdeterminism!

You are absolutely right about not having 'just a bit' of superdeterminism.
Yes, our questions, and the answers we ascertain, are all determined. So I agree with your characterization of nature as a brainwasher. But I disagree that there would be no point in any scientific endeavor. Regardless of being brainwashed, nature does reveal the world to us. Being a brainwashee does not preclude us from learning what the brainwasher allows!

But how do we know the full picture if the brainwasher filters our enquiry?

Nature does not work against us in any willful way, which you seem to imply. But we have limited intelligence and nature is subtle.

"Being a brainwashee does not preclude us from learning what the brainwasher allows!" I think that implies wilfulness.

As I don't subscribe to superdetermination, I don't believe nature is a brainwasher at all. I think all our scientific endeavours are free from such constraints and superdetermination is confusing experimental flaws and the limitations of our current knowledge with a sort of Heisenberg-on-steroids cult. Until there's evidence to support the idea, I'll stick with c being compromised in quantum entanglement!

I came across this study on Science Daily the other day - they are actually talking about building dark energy detectors. Not sure how far of a stretch it is at the moment - happy to hear others' thoughts on this - but fascinating stuff in any case.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...

Physics implies superdeterminism. You think scientific endeavours are free of physics?

David wrote: "Physics implies superdeterminism. You think scientific endeavours are free of physics?"
'Physics' doesn't imply superdeterminism, it doesn't imply anything, good science acknowledges when there are competing theories and issues aren't settled.

Do you think physics implies determinism? Do you think science implies determinism?
I think causation, and the search for causality, which is science in a nutshell, implies determinism, and super-determinism just includes humans as part of determinism.

The fact that 'issues aren't settle' does not negate implications. Unless we have no knowledge, what knowledge we do have has implications. Our current physics implies numerous things...such as unicorns are not fundamental entities in the standard model.

David wrote: "Do you think physics implies determinism? Do you think science implies determinism?
I think causation, and the search for causality, which is science in a nutshell, implies determinism, and super-d..."

Science and physics do not 'imply' anything, that is something that humans do, not verbs or adverbs.

David wrote: "The fact that 'issues aren't settle' does not negate implications. Unless we have no knowledge, what knowledge we do have has implications. Our current physics implies numerous things...such as uni..."

Neither is superdeterminism a fundamental entity in the standard model. It is conjecture, which is fine, but it is only a part of the study of physics. I've no idea why you suggest that anyone thinks scientific endeavours are free from physics - I've certainly never said or 'implied' that!

("Physics implies superdeterminism. You think scientific endeavours are free of physics?")

I had to backtrack through the discussion to try and figure out how we went from talking about new discoveries around the nature of the universe to superdeterminism.

As far as I understand, there is nothing in the philosophy of superdeterminism that precludes formation of new theories about the nature of dark energy, dark matter, or quantum physics. Am I mistaken?

Khira wrote: "I had to backtrack through the discussion to try and figure out how we went from talking about new discoveries around the nature of the universe to superdeterminism.

As far as I understand, there..."

You aren't mistaken in that but I would add that any such theories will be limited according to superdeterminism so we could not ever be certain they were comprehensive. A sort of philosophical 'dumming down'.

In what way would they be limited? (Genuine question - I'd like to understand this position better)

Adherents of superdeterminism hold that the choices we make about what we measure are causally related to the phenomena we measure. As such, it would be impossible for us to choose a measurement that isn't causally related and therefore an interference to the results.

Most theories rely upon measurements to demonstrate their validity. For example, if we can't rely upon the measurement of m, because our choice of measurement has interfered with the value, what is the point of e=mc squared? And the only way we arrived at c was by devising a method to measure it which we must now assume to be suspect because we chose to measure it a particular way.

This places a limit on the intelligence of the human race - we cannot know what is beyond the limit because if we try to find out, whatever it is will be modified by our attempt - what I previously referred to as 'Heisenberg on steroids'.

There's nothing to stop people theorising but if superdeterminism is true, we could not formulate reliable theories about the nature of dark energy, dark matter, or anything in the quantum (and by extension the wider) world.

My view is that it was a limitation of the technology employed, that resulted in Heisenberg's conclusion that the more we knew about one property, the less we knew about another. Similarly, in my view, it's a technological not a philosophical limitation that leads some to believe in superdeterminism. We just haven't got the kit yet that eliminates observer influence in the quantum world.

Your first sentence is brilliant, Peter.

Like it or not (you don't seem to) it is probably a fact about the world, and particularly quantum physics.

We are caught in the spider's web while trying to measure it at the same time. But don't despair, there are also benefits...we get to experience being an integral part of the universe, even though we no longer see ourselves as autonomous.

For most measurements this does not make enough difference to worry about. But entanglement depends on the observer making an independent decision, and that is impossible. Hence, Bell's suggestion that there may be no such thing as entanglement (even though the inequality-test he invented for entanglement suggested it exists, but unfortunately requires an independent observer).

David wrote: "Your first sentence is brilliant, Peter.

Like it or not (you don't seem to) it is probably a fact about the world, and particularly quantum physics.

We are caught in the spider's web while tryin..."

I'm pleased you approve of my opening analysis of superdeterminism, David, but I think you should consider how that naturally leads to the logic of the subsequent paragraphs.

'Probably a fact' isn't quite the same as a fact, and it's not only a question of worrying about the accuracy of measurements, it's also the relevance. We don't know what we don't know, and because of that it would not be valid to assume the impact of inaccurate measurements.

It's not really a question of what I like or don't like, it's a question of being objective - and it's not objective to state that it's impossible for an observer to make an independent decision (in the sense of a causal connection), there's not even an objective enough case for 'improbable'.

Thank you to both of you for outlining the two sides of the discussion. Although I admit that from either perspective, superdeterminism doesn't sound like 'dumbing down' - in fact, it makes things a lot more complicated for study of entanglement.

Can you recommend any good overview texts that look at the question of superdeterminism in relation to quantum phenomena? I'd like to read up a bit more on this. (Not too technical though, I don't have a background in quantum physics.)

Khira wrote: "Thank you to both of you for outlining the two sides of the discussion. Although I admit that from either perspective, superdeterminism doesn't sound like 'dumbing down' - in fact, it makes things ..."

I'll leave that to David as he supports the theory! :)

Superdeterminism is simply determinism applied to humans. A lot of people think humans are different from the rest of nature/universe because we supposedly have freewill. They think determinism applies to the rest of the world but not to humans. Superdeterminism includes humans, and hence Bell said if we do not have freewill, then the observers of entanglement cannot independently choose what observation they will make 'after' the supposedly entangled pair have separated . Choosing 'after' the pair have gone their separate ways is critical in eliminating the possibility that information about what will be chosen is somehow given to the pair before they separate.
Without independence, the observer cannot say entanglement occurred. John Stewart Bell, who invented the test for entanglement, realized the problem posed by superdeterminism, though most physicists choose to ignore it.

Superdeterminism, as posited by Bell, is not simply determinism applied to humans. In his frustration to understand QE, Bell posited a causal link between an observation and the observed - that is not the same as the observed or the actions of the observer being predetermined.

Think of the observer and the observed as two entities following their own path through spacetime (because that's what they are), let's call them e1 & e2. The fact that e2 gazes upon e1 does not necessarily impact e1 or change its course through spacetime. Superdeterminism states that the gaze itself results in a defined course for e1 that would not have occurred prior to the gaze. It's as if our eyes project photons onto the images we see which then bounce back, rather than photons hitting objects from a variety of external sources which our eyes subsequently detect.

The actions of e1 & e2 may well have been predetermined by nature but that does not in itself imply a causal relationship between the two.

Now let's say that instead of e2 gazing upon e1, it uses electromagnetic plates to monitor e1's course. If e1 is susceptible to magnetism, it's course will undoubtedly be influenced by e2's observation - but this is a consequence of e2's method of observation not any inherent causal link between the two entities.

Your paragraph three is inaccurate.

Any two events 'predetermined by nature' link back to one originating cause, be it the Big Bang or a subsequent event. This is the idea that Bell talked about, not some 'causal link between an observation and the observed' as you put it - that is a much older idea, being one interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (of which there are three interpretations, and which one Heisenberg himself meant is still being debated).

Peter's statement: 'Adherents of superdeterminism hold that the choices we make about what we measure are causally related to the phenomena we measure.'

I didn't realize you meant directly causally related. The way entanglement experiments are conducted prevents this type of causation. What Bell referred to is the causation back in time due to an event that effects both the observed and observer in the future.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"In the 1980s, John Stewart Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview: There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will."

The complete article is in Wikipedia for your perusal.

David wrote: "Peter's statement: 'Adherents of superdeterminism hold that the choices we make about what we measure are causally related to the phenomena we measure.'

I didn't realize you meant directly causall..."

Replacing spooky action at a distance with the notion that the big bang somehow set pre-conditions for experimental observations billions of years in the future is like replacing one enigma with an even spookier one!

I've referred several times to Heisenberg on steroids, so I'm relieved you aren't suggesting that but I'm not sure why you consider the distinction between 'directly related' causality and 'back in time' causality to be philosophically that distinct.

You say that my paragraph 3 above is inaccurate but in the subsequent paragraph you simply repeated the essence of it. Still we are agreed that e2 does not have an inherent causal relationship with e1. Even though both may be predetermined by nature.

Please explain, David, what is the past event that you and superdeterminists consider would restrict e2 to a limited set of measurements of e1?

Read the wiki article to understand the concept...

David wrote: "Read the wiki article to understand the concept..."

There is no link to the wikipedia article but in any case, as this is a discussion group, I'd rather hear the explanation in your own words than simply exchange links!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superde...

It is easier for me to send you link than try to explain.

The pertinent part of Bell's statement is:

"There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."

Admittedly, he goes on to weasel about it all, but I think his point stands regardless.

Superdeterminism underpins a wholistic world view. As go the stars in the heavens, so go your thoughts...

David wrote: "Superdeterminism underpins a wholistic world view. As go the stars in the heavens, so go your thoughts..."

Getting back to my specific question (sorry to be pedantic), "what is the past event that you and superdeterminists consider would restrict e2 to a limited set of measurements of e1?", you seem to be saying that your answer is that the universe already 'knows' the measurement and outcome. That doesn't really address the question asked, does it? Knowing an outcome is not the same as restricting the measurements of said outcome to some future person who might make that measurement.

Further, the act of 'knowing' implies consciousness, and I doubt you are suggesting the universe is conscious.

And I'm not sure you fully understood the article you linked, it appears to contradict your argument for superdeterminism. "Although he (Bell) acknowledged the loophole (of superdeteminism), he also argued that it was implausible."

Implausible that the Big Bang predetermined every future scientist's ability to measure a phenomena? I think that's pretty implausible because if it did, the obvious questions are why, how, and by what means did whatever existed at the Big Bang accumulate knowledge?

And if we cannot rely upon the accuracy of our measurements, then e=mc2 is compromised, which is the very thing Bell was trying to avoid.

Again, from the link you enclosed:
According to the physicist Anton Zeilinger, if superdeterminism is true, some of its implications would bring into question the value of science itself by destroying falsifiability:

"[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature."

I haven't read this since the 70s when I was in my mid-twenties but it resonates with some of the suggestions about superdeterminism! ;)

Zeilinger is throwing the bathwater out with the baby..

Many measurements are not like entanglement, which is a very special measurement. Measuring the length of a brick is quite different, and most of what science does is measure bricks, so to speak.
From same article:
Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft discussed this loophole with John Bell in the early 1980s. "I raised the question: Suppose that also Alice's and Bob's decisions have to be seen as not coming out of free will, but being determined by everything in the theory. John said, well, you know, that I have to exclude. If it's possible, then what I said doesn't apply. I said, Alice and Bob are making a decision out of a cause. A cause lies in their past and has to be included in the picture".[
In other words, not having free will is a big problem. So the question becomes do we have free will. Superdeterminism says 'no', and I have suggested before and will continue to argue, that physics does not support free will. In fact, the only support for free will is we 'feel' we have it. If we didn't, I don't think there would be much of a debate given current physics. Perhaps religious/magic ideas can be used to support free will, but I discount that angle.
Also from same article in Wiki:
Physicists Sabine HossenAfelder and Tim Palmer have argued that superdeterminism "is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics".

David wrote: "Zeilinger is throwing the bathwater out with the baby..

Many measurements are not like entanglement, which is a very special measurement. Measuring the length of a brick is quite different, and mo..."

I'm not altogether sure why you are so concerned with free will when it is the mechanics of the superdeterimism proposition that are so questionable. Free will is a human construct and although I doubt it exists, it has little bearing on whether or not the experimental measurement decisions were somehow defined at the time of the Big Bang.

The reason we don't have free will is nothing to do with the Big Bang, it's due to our genetic programming and socialisation - all very 'nuts and bolts' science. To suggest that our free will was compromised by events at the beginning of the universe is metaphysics (religious/magic), unless you can explain it in scientific terms - and I'm still waiting for that answer.

"What is the past event that you and superdeterminists consider would restrict e2 to a limited set of measurements of e1?"

If you cannot explain that logically, you have left the realms of science and entered that of belief. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that, as a consequence, your theory must be discarded, only that it is considered as all belief based theories are - and whilst I keep an open mind, they will never be as compelling as theories that have a scientific basis. And avoiding the question by answering something that was never asked doesn't help us to understand what you believe the causal mechanisms, from the Big Bang to the quantum scientist's choice of measurement in 2021, really are.

As for throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I remind you that you referenced this article that was (on a charitable analysis) inconclusive in its support for superdeterminism, and some might say that Bell's own statement that it was implausible was pretty damning.

Well, if you don't think physics is deterministic we have little common ground on which to base a conversation, and superdeterminism is based on determinism.

David wrote: "Well, if you don't think physics is deterministic we have little common ground on which to base a conversation, and superdeterminism is based on determinism."

Superdeterminism isn't the same as determinism, just because it's based on it - that doesn't make it the same (hence adding 'super' to the name!). And I have never said I don't think physics is deterministic.

Sounds to me like you can't answer the question so you're changing the subject.

The answer you seek is in the article.

Bell flip-flopped about superdeterminism because he was not happy about losing free will. But if you read further on in his discussion with Hooft, Bell recanted and said the superdeterminist connection must be included in the model of entanglement if we have no free will.

The 'super' in superdeterminism just extends determinism to humans. I believe you think we have free will, so you don't believe in superdeterminism. And if you don't believe in superdeterminism, then you shouldn't believe in determinism. In order to have a coherent view of reality it is all or nothing when it comes to (super)determinism - unless you believe in some sort of Cartesian dualism!

I've gone over this quite a bit with you and feel my explanations are falling on deaf ears, so to speak...

David wrote: "The answer you seek is in the article.

Bell flip-flopped about superdeterminism because he was not happy about losing free will. But if you read further on in his discussion with Hooft, Bell reca..."

That would be because you resolutely refuse to answer the question that has been repeatedly asked and keep changing the subject to free will and/or what you think I think. All of which has been compounded by referring to an article that also doesn't answer the question asked.

And you are completely wrong in your belief that I think we have free will. I have told you repeatedly that I don't, I simply don't believe in your metaphysical explanation that it was somehow forbidden during the big bang (millions of years before life began on this planet).

See above: "The reason we don't have free will is nothing to do with the Big Bang, it's due to our genetic programming and socialisation"

Despite your advice that I shouldn't believe in determinism, I do, because I believe in a logical universe. And I believe it relates to humans by the logical mechanisms described above. But not a 'super' determinism that invokes unknown forces for which we can discern no link to the events they supposedly influence - that isn't determinism, it's religion.

So again: "What is the past event that you and superdeterminists consider would restrict e2 to a limited set of measurements of e1?"

We have now left my e1 & e2 original question so far behind, perhaps you need me to explain it yet again.

Assuming you are correct, what phenomena at the start of time, was/is responsible for restricting modern day scientists to a limited set of measurements? This is the crunch question you continue to avoid by changing the subject and it's important because I don't think you have any idea what that phenomena is/was. And if you don't, your position is purely philosophically based and not scientifically based.

And if modern day scientists cannot rely upon their measurements, how can we rely upon e=mc2 or even the accuracy of c?