TED Conversations

Manuel Morales

Artist - Researcher, Morales Studio LLC

This conversation is closed.

Is the world Super-deterministic or not?

If there was empirical evidence that showed that the world was indeed "Super-deterministic" (as defined by physicist John S Bell) thus void of free will, would you accept the evidence based on its validity or reject the evidence outright and why?

How significant would the ramifications of such knowledge affect science, philosophy, and theology?

See evidence at: http://temptdestiny.com and at: http://temptdestiny.com/science.html

Share:
  • Dec 2 2012: I don't know if some new Einstein will appear on the scene to ever answer this question once and for all - by the very nature of our existence one question answered leads to many new questions. But I can speak of trends. From the time of Newton up to Einstein the world was a mechanical, one equation explains all type of world - perhaps super-deterministic. Since Einstein with quantum physics, dark energy and dark matter, etc it seems the more we know the more we know we don't know. The mystical world and science have been getting closer after many years of going the opposite direction. Physicist Amit Goswami has written a book on the subject - The Self-Aware Universe. Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander who went brain dead, and revived, attests to an unbelievable world he entered while brain dead - book - Proof of Heaven. Free will implies conscious thought is 100% of the equation. If there is a mystical world beyond the conscious with which we interact (as in sleep or meditation) in unknown ways then free will is not a 0 or a 1, but somewhere in between.l
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2012: I totally agree with your statement about finding the answer to the nature of our existence will lead to many new questions. If you visited the findings at TemptDestiny.com web site you see that this fundamental question has been addressed.

      Regarding trends that you have mentioned, they all stem from lack of knowledge of causality. Currently all of what we call "knowledge", i.e., epistemology/ontology, is based on effectual causality (guessing). What I mean by that is without knowledge of how causality works, what we now call knowledge is nothing more than speculation.

      Case in point: Let's say that you drop a coin "directly" into a cup; the outcome is certain, for there is only one potential selected - coin-in-cup. Conversely, you drop a coin "indirectly" into the cup by dropping the coin onto the rim of the cup; the outcome is uncertain, for there are more than one potential selected - coin-in-cup/coin-not-in-cup. By obtaining certain effects from a direct selection and by obtaining uncertain effects from an indirect selection, you now have addressed all causal possibilities.

      You now observe two cups, each with a coin in them; can you tell which coin-in-cup "effect" was generated by an indirect or direct selection?

      Without knowing which selection caused the coin-in-cup effect you can only make an assumption of how the effect was made. As demonstrated, if you know what "type" of selection occurred, you will know in advance if the effect of that selection is certain or uncertain for the two acts of selection predetermines both effectual states of existence.

      So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it. - See more at: http://temptdestiny.com/

      REVELATION - How will this knowledge affect science and religion?
      • Dec 5 2012: I am trying to grasp the bottom line of what you are saying here, and the material world part of me asks what if you see the coin on the table next to the cup instead of in the cup?
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: ... then you see the effect of a coin next to a cup. What caused the coin to be there is anyone's guess without knowledge of causality.

          If you are referring to "How will this knowledge affect science and religion?" then consider this. Although science and religion are of different fields, they both share the same foundation/knowledge of how effects cause effects whether we are talking about a deity (effect) causing our existence (effect) or an observed or measured effect (elementary particle) bringing mass to the universe (effect). We have place causality as an effect of effects. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? ... and so the paradox of effectual causality rages on.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: You said, "So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it".

        You have yet to explain your answer. What is the answer to the question and how did you arrive at it?

        If you are arguing in favor of it, you have given discreetly determined beginnings and discreetly determined endings, but you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid explaining the middles as well as the before the beginnings and after the ends.
        • thumb
          Dec 19 2012: What makes you assume that the "causal" agents of selections of potentials exist before they exist? Such an assumption would negate causality as being causal.

          One final note, I am not arguing for the evidence just presenting it. The evidence stands on its own. My opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant to the facts. Hence, the term "absolute" determinism.
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: I am not suggesting that a causal moment does not exist before it exists. Science demonstrates that it PROBABLY does.

        You are trying to present an argument that it is all mechanical (deterministic - non-sentient cause). I come from the perspective that reality is sentient down to the smallest possible thing - each being sentient while part of a larger whole that is also sentient. (multidimensional)

        Hence, I see you ignoring the before the beginnings as well as how the middles relate to that first cause, and you ignore the possibility of after the ends.

        So far, you have not presented evidence for your position. You presented an argument that Bell (whom you referenced) found troubling. He said that it was the only way for his theory to be wrong. But Bell's theory was proven right about 5 years ago at CERN labs.

        Your evidence does not stand on its own. It is dependent upon explaining a first cause. I can provide an explanation (theory), but can you?
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2012: Bell's theorem validates Counterfactual Definiteness which relates to effectual states of QM (spin up + spin down). Hence his statement that absolute determinism would be the only thing that would predetermine such states.

    You are thinking in terms of effects causing effects, common mistake. "Causal moments" CANNOT exist prior to itself in order to be causal. Think about it.
  • thumb
    Dec 19 2012: You asked, "What do you mean when you say "two causal agents"?

    A: Direct selection (single slit), and indirect selection (double slits).

    In the double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), physicists have historically ignored the causal nature of the single and double slits as selection mechanisms. Instead, they focused on the phenomenon (wave-function collapse "effect") that takes place when an observation/measurement is made. Observation/measurement are "effects" of selections, not the cause of selections. So what we have here is the paradoxical interpretation of effects causing effects, not cause and effect.

    This tiny detail is at the hart of the matter. I pointed this out in my initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment which is now included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M?
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2012: Bell did not argue for superdeterminism. He argued against it.

    In his 1985 radio interview with renowned physicist Paul Davies, Bell said, "

    "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. Suppose the world
    is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
    behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
    belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
    another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
    experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than
    another, the difficulty disappears. 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.

    The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of
    states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a
    distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a
    dilemma."

    His words, "there is a way" is not a statement of belief. It is the exposition of a loophole in the explanation of his famous theorem, now proven through a CERN experiment. The experiment that proved Bell's Inequality Theorem was undertaken only five or so years ago. (I think 1997).

    Ultimately, there will never be a way to use a double-blind study to know if the world is superdeterministic (that your presence is absolutely meaningless) and that you are just a part of a computer program and have no part in what happens to you.

    If a super-deterministic view were to go mainstream, I believe that there would be no way to put dangerous people in jail because they could reasonably argue that the computer program made them do it against their own will.
    • thumb
      Dec 19 2012: The general assumption about absolute determinism is that it is understood to mean that all events are certain. However, evidence show that there are two causal agents, not one. This means that all events are either certain or uncertain dependent upon the type of selection made.

      Direct Selection-->of one Potential-->Choice
      Indirect Selection-->of more than one Potential-->Choice

      Two types of causal agents-->Two types of physical states

      ... Occam's razor.
      • thumb
        Dec 19 2012: What do you mean when you say "two causal agents"
  • thumb
    Dec 1 2012: (Cause)->Effect->(Cause->Effect)
    Cause is assumed so effect causes effect
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2012: Now we are getting somewhere. Which causal agent are you basing your assumption on? Evidence shows causality is a dichotomy, it s not a singularity. If you assume causality is a singular agent then you can only assume everything is a probability for effects causing effects is paradoxical.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: Evidence does NOT show that causality is a dichotomy rather than a singularity. What evidence are you referring to?
  • thumb
    Nov 30 2012: I feel like your not reading the stuff you say or what i say, could you please restate what you just said..
    Cause and effect turning you head is the effect of your brain sending nerve signals from you head to the hand. Your neck turning is an effect.
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2012: A selection is made in your mind (thought) which sets off a series of physical events that instructs the body to move the head. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veqkUUOlLLE
      • thumb
        Dec 1 2012: yes, that is what i said, and I still think you have no idea what I am saying
        • thumb
          Dec 1 2012: What exactly do you mean by "yes, that is what i said"? From your comments it appears your understanding of causality is based on effects causing effects instead of selection, which is causal, causing effects. Please clarify.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: I watched the video, and saw the gaps in logic incorporated into it.
  • thumb
    Nov 30 2012: I believe our disconnect stems from the understanding of what is meant by "absolute knowledge" vs. "absolute determinism". This is a common source of confusion.

    The coin-in-cup experiment clearly demonstrates absolute determinism (see: http://temptdestiny.com) The term determinism simply infers that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed" from its original state, i.e., direct and indirect selection - same results each time. So we have only two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive input variables of selection (cause) which in turn predetermines the two dichotomous output variables of certainty or uncertainty (effect). If everything is either certain or uncertain (absolute) then what else is there?

    With the knowledge of how absolute determinism works, we can then obtain "absolute knowledge" of a physical state by knowing which type of selection has been made. If we do not have such knowledge then all we can do is guess. However, this lack of knowledge does not imply that such knowledge does not exist for we have established that for a physical state to exist necessitated that a direct or indirect selection took place prior to the observation or measurement of a physical effect.

    ... think about it. For further reading on this topic please review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment at: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2012: Your "coin-in-the-cup" reference is not valid for your purposes within this question. That's because there is already evidence that "intent" can influence whether or not the coin lands in the cup - well beyond any reasonable statistical probability.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2012: Due to the purely complexity (including interrelationships between separate causalities interacting and other such occurrences beyond simple a+b=c) of reality, it is impossible for us (in our current position) to prove this hypothesis; Simple tests do not prove or disprove this hypothesis, they only support or do not support it.
    Being that we are the effect of a cause, we can therefore be a cause of an effect. Cause creating an effect which then acts as a cause to another effect. Another layer of effects is made by the first cause.
    (Cause)->Effect->(Cause->Effect)
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2012: So then you are saying that your body typed your words without you selecting to do so first? How curious?

      No matter how much you wish to try to go around it, nothing can happen without a selection first taking place, including your choice to read my response and then choosing to respond or not. I have found that the simplicity is in the selection for there are only two types of choices that can possibly be made. The complexity you speak of comes from the paradox of effectual causality.

      So the challenge I put to you is can you respond (effect) to this message without choosing to do so (cause)?
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2012: You do not really understand what I am saying do you?
        • thumb
          Nov 30 2012: To the contrary, you see your being as what causes effects as simple as turning your head. Yet you fail to realize that this simple act was not cause by your body. A selection was made which caused the effect of you turning your head to take place.

          Mechanically speaking, our biological existence is based on our mechanical ability to select without which we cannot survive. Can't get more causal then that.
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2012: Zman - I think that Manuel does not understand what HE is saying. This prevents him from knowing what YOU are saying.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2012: How would your world fall into fatalism?
  • Nov 29 2012: If I'm given a choice to reject such a theory, does it not insist that such determinism is false based off of the stimulus of my senses (the most basic recognizable fact we can exhibit empirically ) indicating that I have made a choice?

    The only validity we have is our sense experience and when we discount that what we are left with is the condition of servitude to the universe- we are merely robots living out our days with a fated end. BUT, it is less empirically probable that "I am a robot person" than, "I make choices everyday" based off of sense experience. It comes down to a probability and people will decide if they are fated or if they make their own fate based off of sense experience.

    I prefer to trust my senses as it simply makes more sense to me that I have choices than that I don't.
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2012: Excellant question, one that I had once thought of myself... however, as it turns out determinism IS choice. That was a tuff one for me to get my head around.

      Actually, you can only choose what can be chosen sense experience or not. On top of that you have no choice but to choose in order to exist. Case in point, beginning tomorrow morning you will choose not to make a choice. This means you cannot get out of bed, move a single muscle, drink water or feed yourself without choosing to do so... and we call this free will?
      • Nov 29 2012: What else would we call free will? It goes like this, you either have choices that matter or you have choices that don't matter at all. The irony is that we must chose which of those sides we believe. It is prudent to utiize empiricism in shuch a case. I find the former, not the latter, rings more true. But thats because my life would devolve into fatalism if otherwise.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: you said, "Actually, you can only choose what can be chosen sense experience or not."

        THAT is free will.
  • thumb
    Nov 27 2012: The possibility of predetermined events can only occur when things are acting according to the "simple" laws of physics, however when biology has entered the picture a new level of complexity, which randomizes the effects and threw that the physics of none living.
    And to say that it would be somehow possible to hypothesize the effect with a hugely complex predictor (maybe what he means by the universe) is possible but not likely. If this is true however it would simply mean that their is a mixed amount of data needed to know the cause and effect relationship of everything, but I would think that this would be huge in it ramifications effecting the whole of our lives.
    However the awareness of our systems in order to calculate this would need to be so massive that we would need a huge leap in technology.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2012: Interesting how you separate physics from biology as if one is not connected to the other. Biology is physical as such cannot behave in violation of its physical existence.

      Why would the assumption of a "hugely complex predicator" be required? The construction of an atom is simple compared to what it is built from it. It appears you are confusing the complexity of the effectual world with the simplicity of causality. Case in point, when I asked if you are the cause of yourself you replied yes. The problem with such a position is that implies you were never born. I am trying to connect with what you are saying but your logic fails me.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2012: In order for the idea that everything is predetermined to be significant we must be able to comprehend everything in the universe just as the universe understands itself. I was simply saying that in order for us to be effected by this or prove this , and assuming that it is true (the universe is purely based on causality), we must have the ability to be aware of everything, small scale and large scale. And ultimate awareness, for now, is impossible. Partly because biology make the physics of everything is a lot more complicated because we each basically have our own unique universe inside our head. This is because each our causality is on a different level of "simple" physics.

        To put it simply, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove this non-argument, partly due to the sheer complexity of everything.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2012: You are making several assumptions based on the paradox of effectual causality, i.e., effects causing effects wherein causality comes after effect:

          1. "we (effect) must be able to comprehend (causal) everything in the universe (effect) just as the universe (effect) understands (causal) itself (effect)." = effect causing effect.

          2. "we (effect) must have the ability (causal) to be aware of everything (effect), small scale and large scale." = effect causing effect.

          I see you bought into the size paradox having to do with our knowledge of, or absent knowledge of, causality due to size. If something can be observed or measured then we have an effect/existence of something. However, if something is too small to be observed or measured, yet such a thing truly exists, then what caused that something to existence in the first place? Size has nothing to do with our understanding of cause and effect. As you have inadvertently demonstrated, your rational is not based on cause and effect. We are all effectual beings in that we are not the cause of our own existence. As you clearly demonstrated, we inherently think in terms of effects causing effects which blinds us to causality and thus we think effectual reality is reality.

          The coin-in-cup experiment at the http://temptdestiny.com home page clearly elucidates our mental blindness.

          As far as your assumption of complexity preventing us from understanding this topic, if we remove our blinders perhaps its not so complex after all...
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: #Manuel.

        Ahhh. After following this conversation this far (backwards), I now see the core problem of your view.

        You said, "The problem with such a position is that implies you were never born".

        The problem is that according to implications of Bell's Inequality Theorem (and Twin Slit Experiment) and even Schroedinger's Theorem, you WERE never born in an existentialist context but you were born in a localized context. This is not paradox. It is continuum.
  • thumb
    Nov 26 2012: cau·sal·i·ty/kôˈzalətē/
    Noun:
    The relationship between cause and effect.
    The principle that everything has a cause.
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2012: So that we are on the same footing, I define an effect as any"thing" that can be observed or measured. So now ask yourself can you or any"thing" be the cause of itself?
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2012: Yes I can act as both the cause and receive the result, life is something that is the only thing that can willingly be the cause of itself...
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2012: So you are saying that only the existence of effects, that which can be observed or measured, can cause effects. This mindset you describe is indeed a popular one for how can nothing cause something? In other words only a something can cause a something. Do I understand your position correctly?
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: Yes, I can and do act as both the cause and the effect. I am a self-created identity born OF intent by an aspect of my own greater being.
  • Nov 26 2012: It will have no lasting significance.

    It is not important whether the world is super deterministic. The important quality is that the world is unpredictable.

    If it could be demonstrated, that the world is super deterministic, then many philosophers and thinkers will certainly try to give this fact significance. They will question concepts such as free will, justice, responsibility, etc. People will give this "discovery" a great deal of needless attention. Then most people will realize that it will have no effect whatever on their lives. Regardless of whether criminal acts are the result of free will, society must still deal with criminal behavior.

    It does not matter whether our choices are directed by free will or by a deterministic process, like the choices made by computers. Suppose someone claimed that a new machine exercises free will. If you could not predict the outputs, It would be impossible to demonstrate that the machine lacks free will.

    Humans are in exactly that same situation. To all appearances we are biological machines that are subject to the laws of the universe in exactly the same way as any man made machine. People who see humans in this way understand that our choices are the result of some deterministic process. This does not free us of the necessity to make choices. Understanding that the world is super deterministic has no effect whatsoever.
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2012: You said a mouthful with your comment, "Understanding that the world is super deterministic has no effect whatsoever." Just to name a few effects:

      1. Mankind created deities in order to explain causality. Such a discovery, and by that I mean empirical evidence, would affect over one billion people in the world today.

      2. The tens of billions of dollars spent on particle research would be affected since it is based on quantum mechanics not on absolute determinism.

      3. A perfect (super-deterministic) input/output system would greatly affect the progress of quantum computing and nano technology.

      4. DNA and biomedical research would also be greatly affected by such knowledge.

      I agree with your understanding that we are biological machines in that we cannot act in violation of our own physical existence. See: http://TemptDestiny.com for more on this topic.
      • Nov 26 2012: 1. People of faith would not be affected. They would continue to believe that their choices come from their non-physical souls which are not limited by the laws of the physical universe. Everyone already behaves on the basic assumption that the universe is substantially deterministic, including people who say otherwise.

        2. Some particle research might be affected, but the research budget hardly at all. If you are thinking that super determinism means overturning the uncertainty principle, there is no reason to think so. The uncertainty principle would still hold, but it would be seen as a limitation on what we can know and learn, instead of a fundamental property of the particles.

        3. I disagree with this statement also. It is most likely the other way around, that research into quantum computing will result in the discovery of super determinism. In any event, the uncertainty principle will still have to be dealt with. The discovery of super determinism will have no affect on the outcome of past experiments, so "spooky action at a distance" will continue.

        4. You may be right. It is possible that super determinism would increase research in areas other than particle physics, and DNA research would most likely be one of these.

        I overstated my case, the discovery would affect some research, It would affect the thinking of people who do not fully understand its implications and limitations. Still, from the perspective of society as a whole, these affects will be extremely minor. Most people will still go about their daily lives in the same way as before. Our justice system will continue, unaffected in its actions even if the rationalization behind the actions changes slightly.

        My main point is that, regardless of whether the universe is super deterministic, the universe is unpredictable. Unpredictability has huge implications, and is a far more important quality than determinism.
        • thumb
          Nov 26 2012: 1. I agree, some people of faith will never venture out of their comfort zone of what they want to believe, others not so content, may be open to a perspective that they have not considered before.

          2. The uncertainty principle is based on the assumption that everything is uncertain. Uncertainty without certainty makes uncertainty a certainty, i.e., a paradox. Absolute determinism shows that QM is incomplete as Einstein had alluded to decades ago.

          3. Super-determinism has been discovered and is now included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M? and the manuscript can be found here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571

          What has been discovered is that causality is a dichotomy as are its effects and not a singularity as commonly assumed. This overlooked detail compromises all knowledge based on effectual causality for what was assumed certain or uncertain will now need to be reevaluated.

          Unpredictability stems from ignorance of causality. Please review the coin-in-cup experiment at http://temptdestiny.com
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: I don't understand how you can say, "2. The tens of billions of dollars spent on particle research would be affected since it is based on quantum mechanics not on absolute determinism." This is not a rational sentence in the context of your given conversation.
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2012: I would think that the variable of predicting causation would be too small to be comparable with reality. Especially at a subatomic scale... Right?
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2012: Our physical capability of predicting causation at the subatomic scale is indeed a limitation. However, scale in this case is relative to our "ability" to measure which is not relative to causality.
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2012: I thought that this whole thing was an expansion of the idea that causality determines the universe and that this was proven by a test. But regardless.

        Yes everything is effected by cause and effect, the nature of the universe, however to say that everything can be predetermine(I'm assuming long before the action takes place) is not true because life acts against natural law.

        Of course natural law still applies however free will can still apply under the laws of cause and effect.
        • thumb
          Nov 26 2012: I have found that our perspective is at the root of what prevents us from understanding what we call reality. We understand our world by observation or measurement of effects and we assume that effects cause effects. The problem with effectual causality is that effects cannot also be the cause of themselves. Hence the paradox we face.

          The laws that you speak of are based on effectual causality, not true cause and effect.
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2012: @Manuel: You see a paradox because you have concluded, without any evidence, that effects cannot be the cause of themselves.
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2012: My understanding is that this is merely a way to think of and to approach quantum mechanics, I'm not shure if it applies to real life because we are beings acting against natural laws, we are not merely particles.
    • thumb
      Nov 25 2012: Are you saying that we act in violation of our own physical existence? How would that be possible?
      • thumb
        Nov 25 2012: In a way this is a non-argument, there is no way to tell if the causation is know or created in the present, similar to the existence of god.

        But we are dictated by the laws of cause and effect, every action has a reaction, but to compare our reality to the actions of particles is to compare the action of the ocean to that of the fish.
        • thumb
          Nov 25 2012: Actually Zman there is a way to determine causation to that of reality via selections of potentials (tempt destiny experiment).
  • Nov 25 2012: Quantum mechanics is an incredible model. This is where I hit my wall in Graduate School. However, even man's greatest models may not be telling us everything we want or need to know. How can we really understand something like that? We are making a journey to the twilight zone. How can we know? To translate something that is ssublimely mathematical in to words should always be subject to questions.
    • thumb
      Nov 25 2012: No doubt QM has proven itself to be highly successful in predicting what we think of as reality. Question is can effects, that which can be observed or measured, actually be the cause of themselves or are there hidden variables that cause effects to exist in the first place? QM would have us believe the former rather than the later. It is no wonder why we are so confused?
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: QM DOES suggest the former rather than the later. That you are so confused is the effect of your lack of understanding (cause). So do you quit learning because you were pre-determined to fail before you even began?
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2012: The world is a battleground of influences; there are so many things that shapes our perception or worldview. But influence does not mean absolute since we still have the ability to reason, and engage our emotions, and make choices.
    • thumb
      Nov 25 2012: "... make choices." Are we free to choose what cannot be chosen is that what we call free will?
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2012: Even if the world was 'super-deterministic', as long as we don't crack its source code, we won't feel any difference in our daily lifes anyway.

    And given our incapacity to understand even the 'stock-market' there is much time to come without us worrying. ;o)
    • thumb
      Nov 25 2012: Very good point. So by your rational we need not bother to understand our reality because we don't have the mental capacity to do so?
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2012: Not at all. Yet on certain questions we can ask we'll never know a final answer.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2012: True, however just because we may not know the final answer to a question does not imply that there is none. It only means we are not aware of what caused the question to begin with.
      • thumb
        Nov 30 2012: 'True, however just because we may not know the final answer to a question does not imply that there is none.'

        Which does not make any difference to us, as we'll never find out about it.

        'It only means we are not aware of what caused the question to begin with.'

        I am pretty aware of the cause of my questions because I can not answer the meaning of my very existence to begin with. I don't even know if there is any meaning at all for me to be.

        Guesswork is different from knowledge so as long I can not use the concept of 'super-determination' to calculate my very next decisions two steps ahead, it does not make any difference to me if this theory was 'absolute' right or wrong. The impossibility to proof it, makes it irrelevant to claim.

        On my desk are two gummi bears. A red and a green one. Both of them can neither be seen nor touched. They are made of hyper-gum which does not interact with any force, energy or matter in this galaxy. I know that both of them exist. So what would be my point? What would be yours? None, as this claim would not make any difference in our daily lifes or knowledge... this claim was plain irrelevant.

        'Super-determination' is actually nothing but the good old 'Laplace's demon' escaping the trap of blurriness and randomness of quantum theory once again. This probably makes up for the 'super' part of it... :o)

        Yet even the Laplace's demon is plain irrelevant, as we won't even crack its source code as well. This is not even a matter of sheer 'calculating power', on this qantum computer may become pretty handy one day, it is a matter of the sheer number of unknown variables.

        We could not even track the position of any grain of sand in a small childrens sandbox, so who sets out to do the rest of the universe? I won't, as I have to watch those silly gummi bears ... ;o)
        • thumb
          Nov 30 2012: Interesting reply, how many of you are there? In any case, your opinion is based on an assumption that it is impossible to obtain absolute knowledge. Do you understand the mechanism that allows you to even make such an assumption? Have you ever ask yourself how you know what you know?

          Your gummy bear analogy is totally illogical. You state, "I know that both of them exist. yet you also say "Both of them can neither be seen nor touched." So now you are correlating conjecture of what you think may exist with the concept of physical existence and you claim this to be knowledge? I sorry, but I find your numerous assumptions of assumptions to be more about conjecture than about logic.
      • thumb
        Nov 30 2012: You can see in me as many as you wish for.

        If it is not impossible to you to obtain absolute knowledge, why is my gummy bear analogy then totally illogical?

        But even without this confusing thought, you understood my gummy bear analogy absolutely right. It is illogical and nonsensical! Just as much as the 'Super-Determination' theory is. This was what I was trying to make you understand!

        You claim the 'Super-Determination' to be real, yet you can't proof it. You may assume it, but this is as well conjecture and neither knowledge nor fact.

        To me there is no absolute knowledge. It stems from the concept of reason within or simple minds, as we can not cope with anything beyond our imagination.

        Give me a good proof that your Super-Determination is real and I will tell you the secret of the gummy bears... ;o)
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2012: To add further clarity to the central question, here is theoretical physicist John S Bell's understanding of superdeterminism as he stated in an 1985 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. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. 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."
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2012: Please be aware that the test that proved Bell right was based on entangled particles. Entangled particles are subject to different rules than particles that are not entangled. But even then, it alludes to the experiment itself being self-aware in a dimension of either non-time or another dimension of time, as does Twin Slit, as does Schroedinger.

      If the photons in the Bell experiment are entangled, then they are no longer two particles, but a at least three. or are really one multi-dimensional particle (not a paradox) - the most probable explanation. One of the three aspects of the core identity is not visible from our dimension making the apparent separation a perceptual illusion explained according to individual beliefs..