- [20_17/01/22;09:06:32.01]; where reconciling the up/down input/output transforms
regarding the inter-relation of time and determinism:.

  - cite ref; http://jamesowenweatherall.com/SCPPRG/MenonTarun2009Man_FreeWillThm.pdf as linked.
  - where notes as found/quoted:.

    ] The third assumption, MIN, is potentially more controversial:.
    ]   It combines assumptions about:.
    ]      the free will of the experimenters,
    ]      special relativity and
    ]      the impossibility of backward causation.

    ] For a choice to be free just means that it is not functionally dependent
    ] on any information in its past half-space relative to any inertial frame.
        - note; that this requirement is strict, and moreover,
        is NOT necessary to establish useful conclusions
        regarding the nature of determinism
        in regards to hidden variables.

    ] It is assumed:.
    ]   - that the responses of the particles [at the 3rd person level]
    ]   are independent of the choices made at the opposite arm of the experiment [at the 1st person level]
    ]   because the two observers are space-like separated.
          - as a distinct proposition than the claim/recognition
          that the responses of the particles *are* mutually entangled at the 3rd person level.

  - where the statement of the set of assumptions
  as given in the FWT paper
  are not specified in the form of a fully expressed set of basis orthagionals
  at the level of principle;.
  - that the FWT assumptions (as input conditions) can be re-stated/re-listed as follows:.

    - 1; that the/any/all forms/notions of backward causation is/are strictly forbidden/impossible.

    - 2; that the theory of Special Relativity is ontologically true/applicable.
      - as providing a basis for the separation of two arms of the experiment,
      at the scale of the mesoscopic (and macroscopic),
      for the scientists,
      operating in a 1st person mode of relation,
      as being mutually regarded in terms of an absolute elsewhere,

    - 3; that the theory of Quantum Mechanics is ontologically true/applicable.
      - as providing a basis for the entanglement of virtualized potential particle states
      (at the microscopic level),
      regardless of the degree of absolute elsewhere separation
      (at the mesoscopic level).
      - that the notion of
        an entanglement as a relation of virtualized potentials
      is exactly distinct from
        the notion of a causal relation.
      - as that the EPR effect is to assert; if/when/where there is/was (observed to be)
      some influence connecting one arm to the other,
      (at either the scale of the microscipic, or the scale of the mesoscopic),
      that/therefore, we would have to countenance/accept (the idea of; the ontological reality of)
      backward causation
      (in some inertial frame).

    - 4; that the responses of particles
    (operating at the scale of the microscopic, as the 3rd person entities),
    can be measured
    by humans
    (operating at the scale of the mesoscopic, as the 1st person entities)
    using equipment/means/techniques
    that do/does not fully constrain, define, or determine the measurement outcomes.
      - where in other words,
        {the outcomes of the measurements of particles at the 3rd person level of scale}
      is strictly independent of
        {the state of the measuring apparatus/equipment/scientist at the 1st person level of scale}.
      - as allowing for the entanglement of virtual/potential particle states
      at the level of the microscopic
      to become evident
      at the the level of the mesoscopic.
      - where and moreover;
      that this assumption is applicable to both arms of the experiment,
      which are absolute elsewhere separated.

  - where there is an assertion
  that the experimenters are absolute elsewhere separated;.
  - that there is also the consideration
  of if the mesoscopic states of the two scientists,
  each operating in 1st person relation,
  at the level of the mesoscopic,
  are also fully separated.
    - as being either fully or only partially causally independent.
  - as a question of whether it is possible
  to regard the time evolution states of the two scientists
  as being/becoming deterministically incoherent.

  - that there are two scenarios:.

    - 1st:.
      - where the level of correlation
      that exists in the mesoscopic states
      of each of the scientists,
      as due to their having a mutual common past,
      is regarded as strictly decreasing
      with increased degrees of separation
      into the absolute elsewhere
      in proportion to the degree of separation,
      in time,
      as measured/considered in 1st person terms,
      by each of the scientists,
      from their last actual moment of temporal commonality/connectedness.
        - where this decrease in mesoscopic state correlation
        is due to the micro-states of each scientist
        being significantly modulated by an entropic time evolution,
        as a kind of chaos amplifying engine,
        since any amount of indeterminism
        at the scale of the microscopic
        will be successively increased
        when moving from the scale of the microscopic
        to the scale of the mesoscopic.
      - that it is also observed that the level and degree
      of observed correlations of the virtual potential states
      of particles at the scales of the microscopic
      does not also change.
      - that therefore,
      there is sustained the assumption of independence:.
        - as that the 3rd person observed results
        of measurements of particle states
        at the scale of the microscopic
        is NOT influenced, defined, or determined,
        by the state of the scientists
        operating at the 1st person mesoscopic level.

    - 2nd:.
      - where in contradistinction to the above;.
      - that the level of correlation
      asserted to exist
      in the mesoscopic states
      of each of the scientists,
      is assumed to remain total,
      due to their having a mutual common past,
      from which their current time evolution state,
      regardless of the level of separation that they may have,
      into the absolute elsewhere,
      is assumed/regarded to be perfectly deterministic,
      and information preserving.
      - and where there is observed an apparent consistency
      in the degree of correlation
      of measured actual particle states,
      as observed by each of the two scientists,
      when comparing notes later;.
      - that the level of alignment and correlation
      between the microscopic particle states,
      as observed at the 1st person level of the scientists,
      is either due to:.
        - 1; those microscopic particles,
        also having a common past,
        and bearing sufficient information in the present,
        as needed thereby to have consistent measurements
        in strict correlation and conjunction with the
        also complete mesoscopic state of the scientists.
          - as the microscopic particle information bearing condition.
        - 2; that the assumption of independence between measurer
        (the scientist, at the scale of the mesoscopic)
        and measured
        (the particle, at the scale of the microscopic),
        has been violated,
        leading to observed correlated measured particle states
        as actually being a side effect of the correlated measuring scientist states.
          - as the non-microscopic particle information bearing condition.

  - where for the 2nd scenario to hold, absolute and perfected superdeterminism
  at the level of the mesoscopic must be sustained,
  for if there was any degree of indeterminism at the level of the microscopic at all,
  that it would get amplified, by non-linear collision/interaction process, in complexity,
  to eventually convert scenario 2 into scenario 1.
  - therefore, if any amount of indeterminism is evident/available anywhere, to any degree,
  that it will be available everywhere, to a complete degree.
    - as a kind of catastrophic theorem; as an example of.

  - where insofar as the condition of 'no backward causation',
  and the notion of the 'absolute elsewhere' in GR,
  and the notion of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle,
  all define 'access control limits' on information;.
    - as operating at the scale of the mesoscopic, in the 1st person perceptual mode,
    and at the scale of the macroscopic, in the 3rd person perceptual mode,
    and at the scale of the microscopic, also in the 3rd person perceptual mode,
      - as being a direct explication and example of the trifold nature
      of the notion of 'Great Mystery'.
    - where the limit of access to a certain knowledge of the future,
    in the sense that one does not know ones own future, absolutely, perfectly,
    is due to finite limits in the amount of computational energy that would be required
    to predict that future, and also as due to the inaccessibility of the necessary
    'input information' that would be required, in terms of both global state
    (things far away eventually influencing things nearby) and in terms of
    micro-state (things very small eventually influencing things larger,
    as per the 'butterfly effect', chaotic dynamic systems, etc).
  - that each of these define the absolute limits and boundaries of what is can be known
  (even if currently unknown),
  and what must be regarded as absolutely and inherently unknowable.
  - that therefore, it simply cannot be known, cannot be observed, due to these epistemic limits,
  of if the condition of superdeterminism holds (scenario 2nd).

  - where for whatever level of correlation that be asserted to exist between the
  mesoscopic states of each of the scientists;.
  - that it will be *only* possible to *observe* outcomes which are modelable in terms of scenario 1.
    - as that it is not possible to have or generate an observation,
    via any procedure, that would fully and formally imply that notion of
    determinism, is/was true.
    - that the notion of determinism can neither be proven, nor falsified,
    particularly if regarding that any possible measurement generating
    falsification information (as an event) is itself posited to be
    simply/strictly due to superdeterministic aspects of the state of
    the experimenting scientist itself.
      - as being roughly analogous to the religious claims of "creationists",
      who posit that the appearance of fossil record evidence was instantiated,
      for that effect, along with the rest of the world as built in 7 days,
      some mere 8K years ago.
    - as that the notion of determinism has no possible epistemic basis,
    and that to claim it is to effectively be making a claim that is
    strictly equivalent in nature to (functionally isomorphic to) that of
    the philosophy/metaphysics of idealism.

  - where on the basis of Occam's razor;.
  - and where on the basis of the meaning of what it is to do science,
  as via the scientific method;.
    - as to only regard as ontologically true that which can be verified using
    an objectified epistemic process.
  - that only the 1st scenario hypothesis can be sustained.
    - as that the notion of 'indeterminism' is more fundamentally practical,
    as a theory of truth with actionable utility, than that of superdeterminsm.