There is no 'faster than light' signal between particles. In the spin orientation example the spin orientations of both particles are determined when the particles are created. Must be for the spin orientation of the two particles to be conserved. However that exact mutual spin orientation is indeterminant with respect to a measuring device until one particle reveals it by decohering with the device. At that point the exact mutual spin orientation becomes known and confirmed by a measurement on the 2nd particle.

Elementary particles contain the complete data of what they are. — Edgar L Owen

It's us who contain the data and compute. There is no structure in reality that computes the data of the electron behind the scenes. You project an idea on the electron.

Ah yes. I see what you mean. So only in the case nothing is determined determinism can have impact?

There is no 'faster than light' signal between particles. In the spin orientation example the spin orientations of both particles are determined when the particles are created. Must be for the spin orientation of the two particles to be conserved — Edgar L Owen

I agree there is no FTL signal. I don't agree that the spin orientations are determined because the spins must be conserved. The spins of two electrons are entangled when interacting. Because the electrons can't be in the same state, the spin states are opposite. And they stay opposite during their separation. Without each of them having a fixed direction yet. Their direction is fixed upon measurement. The spin entanglement transcends space which makes it look that there is a FTL signal traveling. Which there isn't.

In the spin orientation example the spin orientations of both particles are determined when the particles are created. — Edgar L Owen

The spin orientation of both particles are not locally determined when the particles are created. That is the whole point of the Bell tests. The particle does not locally "know" what its spin is at creation. We have good experimental data to support this.

What superdeterminism says is that the particles could be globally determined, including the experimenter in the determinism (i.e the experimenter has no free will and was always going to do what he did).

Yes, in any useful sense.

The spin orientation of both particles are not locally determined when the particles are created. That is the whole point of the Bell tests. The particle does not locally "know" what its spin is at creation. We have good experimental data to support this. — PhilosophyRunner

Experiments don't rule out non-local hidden variables. There are even experiments thinkable to decide if there are these things.

Again - For this thread I’d like to focus just on the meaning of the words “cause” or “causalty,” not on any other philosophical issues. Also, as I noted, I’d like the focus to be on physical causes. — T Clark

Would the input and output of a computer be considered a physical cause and effect? If so, then is the processing of information a causal event? What about you typing your posts (the effect) as being caused by your beliefs and your intent to communicate them? It seems to me that forcing the term "physical" into the discussion of causal events is what creates many of the problems that you are trying to solve.

Experiments don't rule out non-local hidden variables. There are even experiments thinkable to decide if there are these things. — Haglund

Yes, which is what superdeterminism is. It could be a global hidden variable that includes the experimenter.

In which case the standard scientific method runs into problems, if the experimenter is behaving deterministically according to a global hidden variable (a script of the universe, for example).

Can you think of a possible experiment that rules out all global hidden variables? I don't think one exists - I'm sure that whatever experiment you think up, I can show how a global hidden variable could be consistent with the results, whatever the results.

Superdeterminism seems to include the choices made. Non-local hidden variables don't involve choices made. It are the objective variables and are the underlying mechanism leading to the observed chance behavior, like there are determining processes in the throwing of a dice.

Superdeterminism seems to include the choices made. Non-local hidden variables don't involve choices made. It are the objective variables and are the underlying mechanism leading to the observed chance behavior, like there are determining processes in the throwing of a dice. — Haglund

I don't think there is a non-local, non-experimenter hidden variable theory that is consistent with the results of the Bell tests.

Those experiments ruled out hidden variables that do not include the experimenter. Whether that objective variable is in the particle or elsewhere doesn't matter. In order to find a loophole in the experiment, the hidden variable must include the experimenter.

Alternatively it could be that our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

But it can't be a determined global hidden variable that does not include the experimenter.

In order to find a loophole in the experiment, the hidden variable must include the experimenter. — PhilosophyRunner

Why? Non-local hidden variables exist without any observer

Why? Non-local hidden variables exist without any observer — Haglund

Read about the Bell tests. They are a somewhat complicated but brilliant set of experiments done in reply to the hypothesis of hidden variables.

You can calculate the probability that a pair of entangled spin polarised particles will pass through two separate polarisation filters if there is the behaviour of the particle is governed by an objective hidden variable. This is Bell's inequality.

The experimental results show that Bell's inequality does not hold. And the experiments have been replicated, in many different ways, with the same outcome.

As a result, the only way to maintain determinism is to include the experimenter in the determinism - the choice of filter the experimenter made was also determined. That is consistent with he results.

Or our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

Yes. The Bell tests. Bell invented them as he was an advocate of hidden variables (he couldn't imagine an observer, an experimenter with knowledge of QM) to cause collapse of the wavefunction in the past. The test doesn't rule out non-local HV, only local ones. And the non-local ones are needed to explain entanglement and global collapse of the wavefunction.

Another intractable problem with determinism is it implies a block time/block universe theory in which everything is predetermined in advance of it happening. How, pray tell, is a causally determined universe created prior to the actual causality that creates it? See the problem?

Anyway, in my view, the notion of causality is an outmoded physicalist way of modeling the universe that simply refers to repeatable sequences of events that are actually computed instead of caused in any physical mechanistic sense. At this point I'll probably turn my attention to another thread. Thanks guys for the interesting discussion!

It seems to me that forcing the term "physical" into the discussion of causal events is what creates many of the problems that you are trying to solve. — Harry Hindu

As I noted, I just wanted to keep things simple. I think there are issues with non-physical causes that would muddy the waters of a discussion.

Another intractable problem with determinism is it implies a block time/block universe theory in which everything is predetermined in advance of it happening. How, pray tell, is a causally determined universe created prior to the actual causality that creates it? See the problem? — Edgar L Owen

Why it implies a block universe? That's what we project on it. Rigid iron world lines with motors in them pulling all particles along in the predetermined, preconstructed rails in a static universe. This image though denies the particles their own determination. I don't feel I'm pulled along worldlines.

Anyway, in my view, the notion of causality is an outmoded physicalist way of modeling the universe that simply refers to repeatable sequences of events that are actually computed instead of caused in any physical mechanistic sense. At this point I'll probably turn my attention to another thread. Thanks guys for the interesting discussion! — Edgar L Owen

Then the question pops up: what computes? In a sense I think you're right. I think the gods calculated how the particles should behave in order for life to emerge.

The universe is a computational system that continually recomputes its current data state from its previous data state. Minds sample the universal data state as neural data structures in our brains and simulates it as the familiar 'physical' world we experience.

My model of how this happens is discussed in detail in my Complete Theory of Everything at https://EdgarLOwen.info

The universe is a computational system that continually recomputes its current data state from its previous data state. Minds sample the universal data state as neural data structures in our brains and simulates it as the familiar 'physical' world we experience.

My model of how this happens is discussed in detail in my Complete Theory of Everything at https://EdgarLOwen.info — Edgar L Owen

This is not a thread about the mathematical nature of the universe. It's about cause. I haven't seen anything you've posted here that relates to that.

The it from bits got it the wrong way round. For example, it states the universe is a simulation that runs before our eyes. For example it says the happenings inside a 3d volume are directed, by entanglement, like the strings of a puppet) by states on a surface around it. But its the other way round. The states on the surface get entangled only if matter has passed it and only around a black hole the entanglement lasts long enough to send out the inside information of the last internal state, thereby saving unitarity.

I think he did. It are computations behind the scene causing things.

Yes. The Bell tests. Bell invented them as he was an advocate of hidden variables (he couldn't imagine an observer, an experimenter with knowledge of QM) to cause collapse of the wavefunction in the past. The test doesn't rule out non-local HV, only local ones. And the non-local ones are needed to explain entanglement and global collapse of the wavefunction. — Haglund

Like I said in my post, the test rules out non local hidden variables, except if the experimenter is included in the determinism (superdeterminism) or our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

If you want non local determinism, that does not include the experimenter, then you will have to explain faster that the speed of light communication, or a new understanding of correlation, or a different understanding of locality - in particular one where the laws of physics are not local.

What is needed to explain entanglement is at least one of:
- Superdeterminism
- New understanding of locality
- Speed of light is not the upper bound of information transfer
- New understanding of correlation.
- Something completely new we are yet to think of

We don't know which of the above is true.

Can you give a theory of non-local hidden variables that does not require one of the above points?

Like I said in my post, the test rules out non local hidden variables, except if the experimenter is included in the determinism — PhilosophyRunner

The test just doesn't rule out non-local variables. It doesn't matter if you include the observer or not. If there was an entangled pair of electrons 13 billion years ago, then non-local hidden variables took care of the spins being non-causally related. If one of them interacted by spin, the other would automatically fall into one state.

The test just doesn't rule out non-local variables. It doesn't matter if you include the observer or not. If there was an entangled pair of electrons 13 billion years ago, then non-local hidden variables took care of the spins being non-causally related. If one of them interacted by spin, the other would automatically fall into one state. — Haglund

As i said in my post in the rest of the sentence you posted:

Or our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

You can use non locality to explain entanglement, if you change the understanding of locality in physics. - if you hypothesis that locality is not valid. That is not really a non-local hidden variable.

In your example, where is the non-local hidden variable? How does this variable communicate information with the particles?

In your example, where is the non-local hidden variable? How does this variable communicate with the particles — PhilosophyRunner

Well, it could be that hidden variables constitute space. This would establish the connection between gravity and QM. So the space between and around two electrons connects them globally. Non causaly, without time involved.

Well, it could be that hidden variables constitute space. This would establish the connection between gravity and QM. So the space between and around two electrons connects them globally. Non causaly, without time involved. — Haglund

That would violate special relativity.

Time is not involved. There is no causal interaction between the electron spins. Space connects them globally without information going instantaneously or traveling in space.

Right. A computational universe is inherently non-local. And when one realizes ST dimensionality emerges from the interaction of particles in the conservation of energy and momentum the way is cleared to unify quantum reality and relativity because it transcends the apparent incompatibility between quantum theory's ST where ST is a passive stage where events take place and relativity's ST in which ST is affected by the presence of mass/energy. Instead if we realize how in a computational universe particle interactions create the dimensional relationships mind models as dimensional ST we get a unified universe in which both quantum theory and relativity hold.

Time is not involved. There is no causal interaction between the electron spins. Space connects them globally without information going instantaneously or traveling in space. — Haglund

That's not a hidden variable theory though. You are in effect hypothesizing wormholes between entangled electron pairs.