5 ms·

> Superdeterminism, arguably misnamed, simply argues that QM is deterministic, where Bell and others have argued it is not. No, this is completely wrong. Super

> Superdeterminism, arguably misnamed, simply argues that QM is deterministic, where Bell and others have argued it is not. No, this is completely wrong. Super-determinism is more than determinism. Super-determinism is about conspiratorial coincidences – so the measurement settings you choose just happen to be the ones which will make it look like the world is quantum. Other quantum interpretations are also deterministic, like many worlds and pilot wave theory. Bell's theorem doesn't assume determinism, but most importantly (1) locality (2) counterfactual definiteness (3) a single classical world (4) no retro-causality and (5) no super-determinism.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
geertj 5y ago
I think these consequences are only conspirational if time is an independent variable? What if everything, the entire universe’s past, present, and future ‘happened’ at the same time, as a self consistent solution of some kind of underlying equation or set of rules? Our brain, the seat of our perception of time, is part of the same universe that we’re trying to explain. Maybe time is an artifact of the self referential feedback loop that causes our consciousness.
- lmm 5y ago
  It's still conspiratorial. You just happened to choose the right particles to measure? It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined, you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable.
  - geertj 5y ago
    Well, I don’t know of any physical law that allows you to choose anything. Whether or not you believe QM is normally deterministic or super deterministic, you have to believe in something outside physics to make all of us not a necessary outcome of an initial state. That doesn’t diminish the pleasures or the reality of consciousness though, or the (illusion) of free will, at least not for me.
    - lmm 5y ago
      I'm not particularly concerned about free will. But we have to have some notion of effects following from causes if we're to be able to reason about physics at all - otherwise the universe might as well be just a pile of stuff happening one after another with no rhyme or reason to it. Superdeterminism undermines that completely.
  - temp438 5y ago
    > It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. Everything we do is a mockery - life expectation is 75 if you are lucky and universe doesn't care about your achievements >you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable. [shrugs]If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent?
    - lmm 5y ago
      > The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. > If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? I'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. > What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent? I don't know or particularly care, but the learning happens - you can't understand the behaviour of the system otherwise.
      - temp438 5y ago
        > But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. Wait, how does it deny it? > i'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. it's separating us from the environment and saying that one part changed the other, but that's just a simplification as our heads can't contain the whole system with all it's events. A blurry reflection. So now we "look" at this reflection and say : this is wrong, it makes no sense Without simplification, we had some "initial" state and it "goes" somewhere. Like sand in a clock. We all know where the sand goes and what will happen in an hour. We have words like "interesting, learn, understand" which don't really mean anything when we think about determinism. Science requires an observer but who is looking?
naasking 5y ago
Many worlds is not deterministic in the sense that the experimenter cannot predict in which world they will end up. Pilot wave theory is deterministic, but non-locality is retrocausal influence under GR. I also don't think your take on superdeterminism is entirely correct. As Sabine says, "statistical independence" is the "no superdeterminism" assumption, and some superdeterministic theories can be conspiratorial, but that doesn't mean all such theories are conspiratorial. This is the mistake.
- slavik81 5y ago
  > Many worlds is not deterministic in the sense that the experimenter cannot predict in which world they will end up. It is deterministic. The experimenter ends up in all of them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

geertj 5y ago

I think these consequences are only conspirational if time is an independent variable? What if everything, the entire universe’s past, present, and future ‘happened’ at the same time, as a self consistent solution of some kind of underlying equation or set of rules? Our brain, the seat of our perception of time, is part of the same universe that we’re trying to explain. Maybe time is an artifact of the self referential feedback loop that causes our consciousness.

lmm 5y ago
It's still conspiratorial. You just happened to choose the right particles to measure? It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined, you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable.
- geertj 5y ago
  Well, I don’t know of any physical law that allows you to choose anything. Whether or not you believe QM is normally deterministic or super deterministic, you have to believe in something outside physics to make all of us not a necessary outcome of an initial state. That doesn’t diminish the pleasures or the reality of consciousness though, or the (illusion) of free will, at least not for me.
  - lmm 5y ago
    I'm not particularly concerned about free will. But we have to have some notion of effects following from causes if we're to be able to reason about physics at all - otherwise the universe might as well be just a pile of stuff happening one after another with no rhyme or reason to it. Superdeterminism undermines that completely.
- temp438 5y ago
  > It makes a mockery of the idea of trying to do science at all - the experiments you take are already determined The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. Everything we do is a mockery - life expectation is 75 if you are lucky and universe doesn't care about your achievements >you can't learn anything about what causes have what effects because you can't ever change a causal variable. [shrugs]If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent?
  - lmm 5y ago
    > The laws of physics were there before people started studying physics. Didn't make it less interesting for those who were interested. But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. > If you don't have free will, then how can you change smth? I'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. > What part of a computer "learns" during gradient descent? I don't know or particularly care, but the learning happens - you can't understand the behaviour of the system otherwise.
    - temp438 5y ago
      > But they're interesting because they are laws - because there's some structure there, because the same causes consistently have the same effects. Superdeterminism denies all that. Wait, how does it deny it? > i'd say that if you're an inherent part of the causal chain that makes something happen then it's fair to say that you changed it. You don't have to assume free will to acknowledge that we affect our environment. it's separating us from the environment and saying that one part changed the other, but that's just a simplification as our heads can't contain the whole system with all it's events. A blurry reflection. So now we "look" at this reflection and say : this is wrong, it makes no sense Without simplification, we had some "initial" state and it "goes" somewhere. Like sand in a clock. We all know where the sand goes and what will happen in an hour. We have words like "interesting, learn, understand" which don't really mean anything when we think about determinism. Science requires an observer but who is looking?

naasking 5y ago

Many worlds is not deterministic in the sense that the experimenter cannot predict in which world they will end up. Pilot wave theory is deterministic, but non-locality is retrocausal influence under GR. I also don't think your take on superdeterminism is entirely correct. As Sabine says, "statistical independence" is the "no superdeterminism" assumption, and some superdeterministic theories can be conspiratorial, but that doesn't mean all such theories are conspiratorial. This is the mistake.

slavik81 5y ago
> Many worlds is not deterministic in the sense that the experimenter cannot predict in which world they will end up. It is deterministic. The experimenter ends up in all of them.