davidm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:28 pm
That said, we don't need to focus, as philosophers, on QM. I believe our attention is better directed toward analyzing the premises of causal determinism. To do this, we can disregard QM.
QM is statistical. If one were impatient, looking only at a few results, one would have no "theory" at all. The inputs don't specify the outputs.
Bell's inequality is the most revolutionary when we imagine we are "freely choosing" the orientations of our measuring devices. If we don't have that bias, it's less interesting.
http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-06.htm
'...
In fact, when Bell contemplated the possibility that determinism might also apply to himself and other living beings, he coined a different name for it, calling it “super-determinism”. Regarding the experimental tests of quantum entanglement he said
>> One of the ways of understanding this business is to say that the world is super-deterministic. That not only is inanimate nature deterministic, but we, the experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment rather than another, are also determined. If so, the difficulty which this experimental result creates disappears. <<
But what Bell calls (admittedly on the spur of the moment) super-determinism is nothing other than what philosophers have always called simply determinism.
...'