gill1109 wrote:Superdeterminism means that experimentalists are deluded by thinking that they choose which experiments they will perform.
This is hyper sensationalism. That's why I think the name "superdeterminism" like many others in Quantum Foundations like "non-locality", etc are unfortunate choices.
Physics is reduced to "what will happen, will happen".
Absolutely, that is what physics is. What will happen, will happen. What alternative do you prescribe:
1. What won't happen, will happen?
2. What will happen, won't happen?
You see, you are jumping to conclusions based purely on sensationalism without doing the required analysis.
God has determined everything according to his own unknowable wisdom, at the time of the big bang.
More unfounded sensationalism. Focus on the analysis, not the rhetorical devices.
The idea that we can predict anything in the future by observing mere statistical regularities in the past is an illusion, since the future is already determined.
Here you commit the modal fallacy. We can predict things because "what will happen, will happen". So contrary to your claim it's the alternative that is an illusion. Secondly, the future is in fact determined, conditionally. If Alice measures at "a" she will obtain A(a), but if she measures at " a' " she will obtain A(a'). So yes, the future is determined conditionally. However, in hindsight, the future is determined exactly. What has happened has happened. Therefore what will happen will happen.
Suppose we perform a Bell experiment with Alice on Mars and Bob on Jupiter. Alice determines her measurement settings by literally tossing coins. Bob uses a state of the art pseudo random number generator with seed determined by his grandmothers birth date. According to Hossenfelder et al. the violation of Bell inequalities comes about because of an exquisite connection between Bob's grandmother's birthday and the prime numbers used in his RNG and Alice's photodetectors.
More sensationalism. They are using invariant set theory to say "fine-tuning", "non-locality" or "conspiracy" are not correct interpretations of any statistical dependence that exists between measurement settings and hidden variables. Don't mischaracterize them in order to argue against them. The paper you mention is actually not about superdeterminism at all.
Anyone who understands basic probability theory can look at equation (1) in their paper:
And see that being able to freely pick settings X is not the same thing as being able to freely pick hidden variables for X. They show in this paper that it is possible to violate statistical independence and yet have
for state spaces with non-trivial measure.
[quote="gill1109"]Superdeterminism means that experimentalists are deluded by thinking that they choose which experiments they will perform.[/quote]
This is hyper sensationalism. That's why I think the name "superdeterminism" like many others in Quantum Foundations like "non-locality", etc are unfortunate choices.
[quote]Physics is reduced to "what will happen, will happen".[/quote]
Absolutely, that is what physics is. What will happen, will happen. What alternative do you prescribe:
1. What won't happen, will happen?
2. What will happen, won't happen?
You see, you are jumping to conclusions based purely on sensationalism without doing the required analysis.
[quote]God has determined everything according to his own unknowable wisdom, at the time of the big bang. [/quote]
More unfounded sensationalism. Focus on the analysis, not the rhetorical devices.
[quote]The idea that we can predict anything in the future by observing mere statistical regularities in the past is an illusion, since the future is already determined.[/quote]
Here you commit the modal fallacy. We can predict things because "what will happen, will happen". So contrary to your claim it's the alternative that is an illusion. Secondly, the future is in fact determined, conditionally. If Alice measures at "a" she will obtain A(a), but if she measures at " a' " she will obtain A(a'). So yes, the future is determined conditionally. However, in hindsight, the future is determined exactly. What has happened has happened. Therefore what will happen will happen.
[quote]Suppose we perform a Bell experiment with Alice on Mars and Bob on Jupiter. Alice determines her measurement settings by literally tossing coins. Bob uses a state of the art pseudo random number generator with seed determined by his grandmothers birth date. According to Hossenfelder et al. the violation of Bell inequalities comes about because of an exquisite connection between Bob's grandmother's birthday and the prime numbers used in his RNG and Alice's photodetectors.[/quote]
More sensationalism. They are using invariant set theory to say "fine-tuning", "non-locality" or "conspiracy" are not correct interpretations of any statistical dependence that exists between measurement settings and hidden variables. Don't mischaracterize them in order to argue against them. The paper you mention is actually not about superdeterminism at all.
Anyone who understands basic probability theory can look at equation (1) in their paper:
[tex]\rho(\lambda|X) = \rho(\lambda)[/tex]
And see that being able to freely pick settings X is not the same thing as being able to freely pick hidden variables for X. They show in this paper that it is possible to violate statistical independence and yet have [tex]\rho(\lambda|X) = \rho(\lambda)[/tex] for state spaces with non-trivial measure.