Naturalism and Bell's Theorem

#1
Can anyone point me to a naturalist writer/philosopher who discusses implications of non-locality?

I understand that Bell's theorem has been confirmed by experiment and so is part of the current realm of science knowledge.
 
#2
Superdeterminism?

From Wiki:

Bell summarized one of the least popular ways to address the theorem,superdeterminism, in a 1985 BBC Radio 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 Awhat measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.[5]
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#3
Superdeterminism is weird...I mean isn't it sort a gnostic "The Universe is [fracking] with us!" idea?

From physicist Marko Vojinovic's essay Farewell to Determinism:

This kind of explanation, while logically allowed, is anything but reasonable, and rightly deserves the name of superconspiracy theory of the Universe. It is also a prime example of what is nowadays calledcognitive instability [12]. If we are predetermined to skew the results of our own experiments of Bell inequalities, it is reasonable to expect that other experimental results were also be skewed. This would force us to renounce experimentally obtained knowledge altogether, and to the question why to even bother to try to learn anything about Nature at all. Anton Zeilinger has phrased the same issue as follows [13]:

“[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist … This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature.”

@north :

There are other issues with the kind of mechanistic conception of the universe superdeterminism requires -> see here.

I think that naturalism doesn't necessarily have a problem with Bell's Inequalities, depending on how one defines naturalism - for example Gregg Rosenberg thinks consciousness is fundamental but fits this into a "liberal naturalism".

It is arguable that if one insists naturalism implies materialism that it's outrun what is known empirically, largely due to issues involving the weirdness of quantum level reality. Michel Bitbol gets into this in his paper A More Radical Critique of Materialism.

Of course one might simply see naturalism as a conservative strategy (which I guess would be "methodological naturalism") where ideas are admitted only after exhaustive investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#5
Can anyone point me to a naturalist writer/philosopher who discusses implications of non-locality?

I understand that Bell's theorem has been confirmed by experiment and so is part of the current realm of science knowledge.
When I have questions like these I usually look them up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It has an entry on Bell's theorem: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

It doesn't mention naturalism in particular but it is obviously written in a completely naturalistic way.
 
#7
#8
Top