It isn't compatible with determinism, I don't think — Apustimelogist

based on what?

It did occur to me that superdeterminism is possibly compatible with some indeterminism, but i couldn't find any confirmation of that online.

I'm saying it's not *ordinary* determinism. There's nothing ordinary about it. It is a TYPE of determinism, but not an ordinary one, not if you understand what superdeterminism is actually saying about the universe.

Right, so you *really* think all these scientists are talking about it like it's a unique propsoition clearly distinct from determinism, because physicists don't know what they're talking about and you know better.

I cannot roll my eyes harder.

No, superdeterminism is not normal determinism. You have failed to see the distinction, I hope no one else is fooled by that failure into thinking there isn't a distinction.

Seems like ordinary determinism to me. — ssu

It's not.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Something can be rational and untrue, and something can be irrational and true, in general. Rationality's goal is (often) truth, but it doesn't have direct access to the truth and is non synonymous with it. But belief in Christianity is not usually based in rationality anyway.

2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Rationality has nothing to do with it. If you don't believe that happened, you're not a literal christian - you might be a different kind of christian.

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism — Michael

I think the Copenhagen interpretation also rejects locality, no?

-edit, i guess i've always misinterpreted what the copenhagen interpretation is.

I'm pretty sure physics doesn't really have anything to say about realism, anti-realism, or idealism, but that hasn't stopped folks from trying. — Darkneos

You're right, it's not about the *philosophical* concept of realism, it's a physics concept.

In short, what quantum mechanical experiments, especially Bell's Test, give extremely strong evidence for, is that a classical physics type view of reality is incorrect. That's what "local realism" means.

In classical physics, for any given proerty you could measure, every object in existence has distinct values for that property - all the time, whether you're measuring it or not. Momentum, location, rotational velocity - everything has a distinct value for all measureable properties.

That's local realism, and *that* is what's not true, at least for the things we are generally inclined to think of as 'objects' at the fundamental level ie protons neutrons electrons.

Bell's Theorem demonstrates that you have to give up on at least one of locality or realism. In either words, either you have to choose to believe that causality can be non-local, faster than light, and contradict special relativity, OR you have to believe that measurable properties don't have singular distinct values when not being measured. Or both.

There is a third option, but... we don't talk about the third option.

I'm late to this conversation, but my take is:

The fact that the government is willing to have these public hearings tells me that the government doesn't actually have a whole lot to hide. If they had something to hide, they'd be trying much harder to hide it.

Then again, maybe that's exactly what the government wants me to think...

It's similar in a way. Apustimelogist answered but I would change a bit of his answer: rather than saying Bohmian is faster-than-light communication, I would say it's "retrocausal". I guess in practice that's indistinguishable from faster-than-light.

The similarity between Superdeterminism and Bohmian is that in both cases, the process producing the entangled particles somehow knows how the particles are going to be measured, and takes on the appropriate values (in aggregate) that Quantum Physics suggests. In Bohmian Mechanics, as I understand it, that's because the Wave Function is really real, it's just operating in a sort of retrocausal way. In superdeterminism... there is no explanation. Superdeterminism is basically saying "our experiments that prove Quantum Physics are wrong, but I can't tell you why they're wrong or how to fix the experiments. They just happen to be the exact right results to prove QM correct, but that's wrong, ignore your experiments and listen to me.".

What would matter is whether or not there is a non-physical aspect to mental processes, that would set it apart from the physical universe. — Relativist

Personally, I don't see why that would matter either.

But none of those things has much to do with superdetermism imo. Superdetermism is a very unique idea (uniquely stupid, in my opinion) about how to approach bells theorem. Some type of determinism could be true without it being superdetermism.

I've been reading up on this for the past few days or so because it came up in other conversations.

Superdeterminism is hands-down the *worst* possible take on quantum mechanics. Basically the overall narrative goes like this, as far as I can tell:

Quantum Mechanics comes and makes a bunch of predictions. Einstein (EPR) says "yeah well quantum mechanics is dumb and I don't think the world really works like that, I think it works like normal classical physics". John Bell comes in many years later and says "Hey guys, I figured out a way to test if QM or Einstein is right! If we do this experiment, then if we get these particular results, Einstein can't possibly have been right."

Well we do the experiments, Einstein was wrong, classical physics is wrong, QM was right.

Then Superdeterminists say "yeah but maybe it still works classically, but the reason we're getting the experimental result we're seeing is because *everything in the universe has conspired to trick us into thinking QM is true instead of some type of classical physics*."

That's more or less the philosophy of superdeterminism - that we should ignore all quantum experiments because any test result we get is the result of a universal conspiracy.

In western culture, it is exceedingly common to despise and oppose nationalism and imperialism; for it tends to be barbaric, supremacistic, unnecessary and exclusive. Instead, westerner’s are more and more apt to accepting a version of cultural relativism. Viz., why should I be proud of my country? Why should my country start wars in the name of its values? It is just a nation meant to facilitate the protections and needs of the people—after all! — Bob Ross

That isn't what cultural relativism is. You don't have to be a cultural (or moral) relativist to think those things, and being a relativist doesn't guarantee that you won't think all of those things.

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything - everything, not just some things and not others - has an explanation for its existence.

That principle is by no means obviously true. For after all, if it true, then it generates an infinite regress. A cannot be explained by A, and so B has to be posited. But B cannot be explained by B, and so C has to be posited. And on and on for an actual infinity. — Clearbury

I agree. It seems to me that, based on the reasoning above, there has to be a bedrock of facts which have no further explanation.

There's something on the tip of my tongue that touches on this idea - maybe Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, not sure.

edit: this was what I was thinking: Münchhausen trilemma

What do you think? — Seeker25

I think it's completely anti-scientific and shows a gross lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't care about coexistence at all, and balance is something evolution seems to achieve over long time-scales but evolution can create remarkably unbalanced situations over short time-scales.

There's also a lot of question-begging and logical leaps. It's not very compelling.

I guess I consider 'understanding' to be different from just raw information. Knowing information doesn't seem like understanding to me. I can know, for example, the sentence "King Charles I of England was executed on January 30, 1649" without understanding what a king is, what England is, what executed means, why he was executed, etc. If someone asks me it on a quiz, I can give the correct answer without understanding a single thing about why it's the correct answer or what it means for that to be correct.

edit. When I google "is knowing information the same as understanding?" google tells me:

No, knowing information is not the same as understanding:
Knowing
Is the awareness of facts or details about a subject. It's static and refers to discrete facts.
Understanding
Is the ability to analyze facts and put them in context to form a big picture. It's active and involves connecting information.

That loosely matches my intuitions about why understanding isn't the same as just knowing pieces of information.

Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. — Gnomon

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.

It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer.

Yes, I would say that learning something new like that is an increase to your understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wouldn't. Trivia =/= understanding

what are you saying they are? Just immoral?

people want to see a peevish, arrogant, and nakedly contemptuous pseudo-aristocracy punished for its abuses — Chisholm

I thought you were describing trump. Woops.

It always amuses me that the person these people chose to save them from the aristocrats is a perfect example of a spoiled child aristocrat.

I'm a physicalist, of sorts. Especially in regards to the mind. I don't see any reason not to be. We know physical stuff exists, we know physically affecting the brain changes mental function, and the closest we've ever come to constructing an artificial mind (LLMs can pass turing tests now) was by constructing a physical machine and implementing software in it (which is implemented physically) which in a simplified way mimicks the physical processes of the neuronal structures of our brain.

There's no non-physical model, period. No model at all. Just the english sentence, "the mind can't be physical" - that's what nonphysicalism has, but no model. So it's not like I'm accepting physicalism and rejecting other models - there simply aren't other models. Nobody's made one. No non-physicalist in the entire history of the world has made a compelling nonphysicalist model of a mind, of how a mind might work.

Maybe physicalism is wrong, I'm not 100% sure it has to be right, but I'm okay believing some things which have some tiny probability of being wrong.

Keep this in mind though: this universe is turing complete, which means that if minds are possible to implement in any way, they're almost certainly possible to implement here, out of physical stuff. The turing completeness of the universe makes non-physical ideas of the mind kind of obsolete - however you could implement them non-physically, you could just do that physically too. That's how I see it. We know we have physical stuff right here, we know it's turing complete, and we know when we mess with our physical brains we're messing with the functions of our minds. I don't see any reason to even entertain the model-less world of nonphysical minds. I imagine my reasoning above has a lot in common with why physicalism is the status quo among scientists.

Another accuser of Trump has come out


the Guardian – 23 Oct 24Donald Trump groped me in what felt like a ‘twisted game’ with Jeffrey... 1
Stacey Williams says the ex-president, whose spokesperson denied the allegations, touched her in an unwanted sexual way in 1993, after Epstein introduced them

Epstein led this model to Trump, and upon meeting her, Trump started groping her and feeling her up.

Now in any other world, a woman says this about a guy running for president and I have some reasonable doubt. Maybe she’s in it for fame, maybe she’s been paid off by the opposite party to lie - things like that are conceivable.

But we’re talking about trump here. Mr grab them by the pussy himself. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

And of course his own words make this weird relationship with Epstein credible too:

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine that year for a story headlined “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery.” “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

There’s no reason to take any future denial from Trump seriously, he’s already told us he’s the kind of guy to do stuff like this.

And let’s not forget Trump has already been found to be a rapist in court. Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

The commentary on the Law subreddit is interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1g9u07a/heres_what_was_in_the_evidence_document_trump/

I'm not sure how much of that community is actual legal experts (it would be naive to think they're all legal experts, but I think overly cynical to think there aren't a hell of a lot there), but there seems to be a consensus there that he did try to overturn the election results (rather than just the soft-ball wording of NOS4 that he was merely contesting the results), and that his actions throughout this ordeal were illegal.

That's what happens when you let someone with incontinence prepare your food.

Even if that's so, to ask him specifically to find the right number of votes to make him win... you don't think that smells? Whether he's asking him to find votes for trump or find illegal votes for biden, in either case he's calling a governor and telling him "make me win, do what you need to do to make me win." You don't think there's anything fishy about that at all?

Like maybe if he didn't specify who the votes were for, and didn't specify any quantity of votes, and just said something like "there were a lot of illegal votes in Georgia, I think you guys should put some more effort into identifying those illegal votes and throwing them out", that might make some sense. But to specifically find illegal votes for his opponent, and specifically the number that would make him win... He's asking the governor to make him win. It's mind boggling to me that that's acceptable to anybody.

So I ask again, if Kamala Harris does the same thing this year, you're cool with that? She calls up the governor of somewhere and says "find me the right amount of votes to make me win", you've got no problems with that?

I'm not asking what I would call it. I'm asking what you would think of it.

Now, you keep saying "find illegal voting" and that's not my understanding of what he said, nor is it the understanding of just about anybody else.

The words he said were, "I just want to find 11,780 votes". I mean, if you're saying trump asked him to find votes for trump, illegally, then yeah -but I don't think that's what you're saying. Trump then also tried to intimidated him into doing trumps bidding during the call, saying that if he didn't find those votes it would be criminal.

So if Kamala Harris calls up governors saying those words, "find me <the exact number of votes I need to win>" like trump did, you'd think that's totally above board, correct? I wouldn't. I have consistent principles here, I wouldn't think it was above board. Would you?

And imagine they succeed where trump failed. Imagine they lose in 2024, and they somehow manage to succeed in some of the strategies trump employed. They call governors asking them to find votes, they get Congress to not certify the electoral college, and in so doing Kamala takes the presidency. In this bizarro world, you'd feel like nothing untoward happened, correct?

you'd think Kamala is a hero of she loses the next election and calls governors asking them to find votes, decertify state elections, etc? Wow.

One candidate’s administration is going after — NOS4A2

As far as I can tell, the candidate's administration has very little to do with what's going on. And if someone did something illegal, the fact that they're running for election shouldn't stop them from getting a court case about it, should it? "in order to influence an election" this makes it sound like you think that because he's a candidate in an election, they should just let him get away with it. He did evil shit, I'm glad to see him being taken to court over it. I'd be gladder to see him in prison but that can wait.

I know for a fact that if biden did half the shit trump did, eg calling governors telling them to find votes, organizing fake elector schemes, jan 6 etc, you would be a lot less tolerant of it.

What's corrupt about it? Lmao. The american people don't have a right to know about the anti-democratic bullshit the presidential nominee got up to?

proof that the swamp does in fact need draining - of him and the people who enable him.

Have you guys all seen this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1g6kb8n/trump_judge_releases_1889_pages_of_additional/

Trump judge releases 1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence against the former president

It includes various plans for Pence to help them change the election results.

It also includes evidence that Trump called AZ officials and asked them explicitly to decertify the electoral college vote

Trump and his team are truly despicable. It's not an exaggeration to say they're a threat to democracy.

What are LLMs? Large language models? — MoK

Yes

I don't think there's any reason to assume a detemrinistic system cannot have 'doubt' implemented into a thing in that system. Doubt is a feature of a model, not of the system itself - so as long as you can implement a model in a deterministic system, that model can have measures of doubt and uncertainty. I'm actually pretty sure LLMs have already learned to internally represent various degrees of certainty in particular situations.

hear hear. I second the motion.

I'm a physicalist, but an emergentist at that, and I've begun to identify not with my body and brain itself, but from the emergent thing that's implemnted by my body and brain.

Not sure how to describe it clearly though. It's almost like a platonic form that's made real by a physical manifestation - but also the platonic form I am now is not the platonic form I was 5 seconds ago... Idk if that makes sense. Probably not.

Which is why the thread is titled "Atheism about a necessary being". — Hallucinogen

Why use the word 'atheism' at all, instead of just saying 'not believing there is some necessary thing is a contradiction'?

Atheism isn't a general term for not believing something...

There's literally nothing in that argument that goes any way towards suggesting that the first "necessary" thing is anything like what we would call a God. Atheists aren't making the claim 'nothing is necessary', they're saying 'these deities in these books don't exist'.

>then you're not an atheist about a necessary entity

And this quote proves what I'm saying - you're confusing 'atheism' about personal gods with some other claim that atheists generally don't make. It seems you've made atheism into something it isn't in order to construct this argument.

It's like saying 'atheism is wrong, because there's fruit. See, look at this fruit. If you believe this fruit exists, then you're not an atheist about fruit". Atheism *isn't about fruit* you goof.

Maybe laymen and philosophers, but that's not the view of those who study perception scientifically. — Michael

I going even think most philosophers are naive realists. They're mostly non skeptical realists but that's substantially different.

I think will be just a different model of reality from our own, not necessarily closer, not necessarily more correct (though possibly more correct, and possibly better at predicting certain things - that's the measure of any model, right? predictive success). It will have its own abstractions, it will slice reality up differently to how we do, but maybe similar in some important ways.

But there's really no telling until it actually starts being built and learning things. We already know that neural nets have their own ideas about things that are similar to ours in some ways but different in some surprising ways. I expect that to be the same with this guys project, if this guys project even ever gets working.

My was AI doesn't think. Concepts are associated with thinking.

Either way, I do not see how this reveals the questions that came after it. If you can explain. — I like sushi

You specifically asked "How can AI have a concept of reality?"

I have shown pretty solid evidence that AI internally models the stuff it interacts with (and thus, if it interacts with reality, it will - or at least in principle can - have an internal model of that reality). To me, it seems fairly self-evident how that's relevant to the question you asked. An internal model of reality, to me, seems like what someone might mean when they say 'a concept of reality'.