I was curious so I looked up your comments. > There is no such thing as a controlled experiment > The superdeterministic explanation is: "well, there's nothin

I was curious so I looked up your comments. > There is no such thing as a controlled experiment > The superdeterministic explanation is: "well, there's nothing to explain. You were simply determined to lose by the initial conditions of the universe. It couldn't have gone any other way." This eventually led me to a quote from Anton Zeilinger about his dislike for it. > 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. My question is, does it matter if we are seeing a false picture as long as the result of experiments within it are consistent and lead to new discoveries that themselves are actionable? If everything we experience is in this “false picture” is it really false or simply a different set of rules based on underlying circumstances. I think the whole point being made by the authors here is that QM is dead-ending and that superdeterminism could give us more answers, not less. Why not see if it leads somewhere?