>I've always been mystified at why people take superdeterminism as a good explanation for anything, when it actually acts as a stopsign for thought. What? It's

>I've always been mystified at why people take superdeterminism as a good explanation for anything, when it actually acts as a stopsign for thought. What? It's like the opposite... Currently we don't have a perfect model for quantum physics, so what do we do when we try to create a model of something where we have data for, but we don't fully understand? We use statistics and probabilities to fit/approximate the behavior behind the model. Doing this can lead to a useful but imperfect model, but that doesn't prove one way or another that the behavior of what we're trying to understand is inherently random, just that it exhibits random behavior at some level or in some way. Now the opposite: saying things like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is full stop proven, is itself a stop sign for thought IMO. Whereas opposing such principles, and assuming behavior isn't inherently random (i.e. the idea behind determinism), opens for testable ideas on what might actually happening behind the apparent randomness of the model. You know... one which might lead to a perfect model fully explaining the behavior (which hey isn't that the purpose of science??) To put it backwards... the ideal in science is a model that explains how everything works, if this is ever realized it'll prove superdeterminism. To say stuff is inherently random, to me is equivalent to giving up and settling for less than the ideal...