> The paper replies with the following argument: in super-determinism, statistical independence is an emergent property which holds at macro scales, so classica

> The paper replies with the following argument: in super-determinism, statistical independence is an emergent property which holds at macro scales, so classical experiments do enjoy statistical independence. In your hypothesis - yeah, the game is rigged! > But superdeterminism comes into play at the quantum scale where we know things are already kind of fucked, which is why we're talking about this at all. But experiments already do use classical (i.e. macroscopic) sources of randomness. For example, to oversimplify a little, you might literally flip a coin to decide the specific measurements done in a run of a Bell test experiment. Such experiments still give puzzling results, so if superdeterminism is to work as an explanation of anything at all, it must hold all the way up. Superdeterministic explanations have to apply even to things like coin flips, which, again, leads to the end of science, wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.