-1
$\begingroup$

Bell's inequalities show that we have to give up freedom or local realism. If we give up freedom, we have super-determinism, if we give up local realism, we have free-will.

In super-deterministic theories, why does any particular value manifest from a measurement?

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that a particular value is selected at random.

The Many-worlds interpretation of QM says that each possible value occurs in respective closed realities.

If there is not an element of randomness as to which value manifests in our reality, what determines the particular values that the universe decides to show us?

Could it not be that it is a function of the universe to determine our own ideas in the exact way that we would do so if had we free-will. That is, could our thoughts be determined intelligently by the universe in the exact manner that we would think had we free-will, thus making it so that we effectively have free-will even though we don't actually as individuals? Perhaps the universe has free-will in that it conspires to makes individual people act in the exact same way that they would had they free will.

As a secondary question. Doesn't freedom of choice imply mental causation? Doesn't this contradict conservation laws?

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by ACuriousMind, user36790, AccidentalFourierTransform, CuriousOne, Gert May 12 '16 at 1:42

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ you forgot a few other possibilities: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics $\endgroup$ – user83548 May 11 '16 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ I mentioned the CI and MWI just to make my question more coherent, which is not about theories involving non-realism or non-locality. I'm aware that there are many other interpretations. :) $\endgroup$ – Bonj May 11 '16 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ "freedom" and "local realism" are purely philosophical terms that have no useful application in science. Neither explains anything and neither allows you to understand nature any better. If you want to discuss them in the philosophy department, that's fine, but you can't expect nature to give you answers to questions that she doesn't pose. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 11 '16 at 20:46
3
$\begingroup$

It could sound silly, but the universe does what the universe does.

Claiming that the universe manifests a particular outcome is question begging.

For instance you brought up many worlds. In that theory, there is a wavefunction and it has support, regions in configuration space where it is nonzero. And over time the support splits into disjoint regions. So the wave can then be written as two waves, each of which has disjoint support and evolves on its own as if it were the only wavefunction.

Absolutely nothing made it manifest a particular one of those wavefunctions. And it didn't. It's just that each one can act like it is the only one and get on with its evolution.

And other superdeterministic theories would have similar stories. For instance Bohmian Mechanics has a point in configuration space that evolves in addition to the wave. So it simply enters one of those disjoint regions of support since it avoids the non support regions.

So again, the value doesn't manifest, the support splits into disjoint regions.

The values are mere labels you assign to the regions of support. And the wave splits because it evolves according to the actual Hamiltonian and that Hamiltonian is the kind of thing that causes that split when that incoming wave is there.

If you want to ask why particular Hamiltonian's lead to splits, that's an excellent question. But it's basically just asking what makes something a good measurement or observation.

There is zero evidence that minds are involved. In fact every bit of evidence indicates that it is the Hamiltonian that is 100% what is involved and absolutely nothing else. And the Hamiltonian in a measurement interaction splits the support of the wave over time, because those are exactly the interactions we call measurements.

It's semantics 101.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.