5 ms·

It's extremely unlikely that the universe compels scientists to make certain measurements at certain times in a conspiracy to make quantum physics look real. h

• miltondts 6y ago
  Why? All physics theories we have are deterministic.* So if we take that to the limit, then we are also deterministic. To me, there is nothing conspiratorial about that. *Yes, quantum mechanics is kind of debatable.. But if I understand it correctly, the actual theory is deterministic. It's just the interpretation of the measurements that can lead to some debate. However they can also be viewed in a deterministic framework, as the link you cite shows.
  • DennisP 6y ago
    "We are deterministic" is no big deal, it's what scientists thought for centuries going back to Newton. In classical mechanics, if you knew the exact state of every particle then you could predict everything. But superdeterminism is nothing like that. It's determinism not based on past states, but based on future states, where the universe prevents anyone from making decisions that would cause them to learn a certain type of information. How would that work?
    • miltondts 6y ago
      Superdeterminism just says that there is no statical independence. Not sure where you are getting the future determines the past from that. However, yes, in a deterministic world there is only one way to get to a certain future, so I guess the future does indeed determine the past. Is that what you mean?
      • DennisP 6y ago
        No, I mean that classical determinism says "here is the current set of particle positions/momentums/etc, so we can work forward and predict everything from that." Superdeterminism says "if you do X then you will learn Y, so you aren't going to do X." That doesn't necessarily mean signals going back in time. It could mean that the initial condition of the universe was set, such that nobody would do X. But that's still a way of the past (initial condition) being determined by the future, even if the future was just predicted via determinism. It makes physics teleological. A common criticism of superdeterminism is that it eliminates falsifiability from science. E.g. to quote physicist Nicolas Gisin, "If we did not have free will, we could never decide to test a scientific theory. We could live in a world where objects tend to fly up in the air but be programmed to look only when they are in the process of falling." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
        • miltondts 6y ago
          The rebuttal from someone more knowledgeable in the field than I am: https://youtu.be/YglT09Korr0?t=1115 https://youtu.be/YglT09Korr0?t=1115
          • DennisP 6y ago
            So her criticism #3 of essentially my second paragraph is that you can't assume anything, because we don't actually have a superdeterministic theory to evaluate. Maybe there's a dynamic law we haven't figured out that could make it work without initial fine tuning. Fair enough I guess, but I'm not convinced it's a good answer to say "I think a theory with property X is the answer, and you can't criticize it because I have no actual theory with property X." I think it makes more sense to give little credence to superdeterminism until someone comes up with a plausible superdeterministic theory.
  • lisper 6y ago
    > quantum mechanics is kind of debatable No, it isn't. Quantum randomness is of a fundamentally different character than chaos. Bell's theorem (and concommitant experiments) shows that it is not possible for the results of quantum experiments to depend on information that exists in our universe before the experiment was actually conducted. So if the results of quantum experiments are deterministic, the information that determines their outcomes can only exist outside of our universe.
    • kdtop 6y ago
      My understanding was that Bell's theorem rules out hidden LOCAL variables, but doesn't address or rule out hidden GLOBAL variables. Bohmian mechanics haven't been disproven, right?
      • lisper 6y ago
        That's right, except that the opposite of "local" in this case is not "global". (This is physics, not software engineering.) The opposite of "local" in this case is "non-local", which refers to state that propagates faster than the speed of light. Bell's theorem shows that describing reality requires some kind of non-local state. In the case of both Copenhagen and Bohm, that non-local state resides in the wave function. But here's the thing: you cannot know the state of the wave function because of the no-cloning theorem. The best you can do is prepare sub-systems in known states. So QM really is different. You cannot predict the outcome of a quantum experiment even in principle and even with arbitrarily advanced technology.
        • AnHonestComment 6y ago
          Okay — but inability to predict doesn’t equate to random outcomes. So it sounds like we all agree you stated an interpretation in excess of demonstrated model.
        • bluepoint 6y ago
          Best, most precise and accurate comment. Thank you.
  • ddxxdd 6y ago
    I'm a day late to this immense comment chain, but my point is that Bell's Theorem specifically rules out local hidden variables unless scientists are forced to choose never to conduct an experiment that will expose those local hidden variables. I'm not talking about determinism, I'm talking about Superdeterminism, which is akin to saying that coins will always land heads-up because people are compelled to avoid flipping coins in situations where it will land on tails. Please see my link.