3 ms·

> She rejects Bell’s statistical independence assumption, which she sees as a mere dogma rather than a prerequisite for doing science. It does sound like Aaron

> She rejects Bell’s statistical independence assumption, which she sees as a mere dogma rather than a prerequisite for doing science. It does sound like Aaronson is begging the question here. Why must we accept the outcome that "doing science" is possible? I understand why it is an appealing assumption for people whose job it is to do science, but that's not a counter-argument to the claim that the statistical independence assumption is mere dogma. > Crucially, she never explains the mechanism by which superdeterminism, once allowed into the universe (including into macroscopic devices like computers and random number generators), will stay confined to reproducing the specific predictions that quantum mechanics already told us were true, rather than enabling ESP or telepathy or other mischief. Again this seems like argumentum ad consequentiam. It may be uncomfortable to think that we live in a world of "ESP or telepathy or other mischief", but rejecting them a priori and then arguing backwards against superdeterminism is not a sound argument, and nor is it science.

effie 5y ago
Indeed, most refutations of superdeterminism seem to be mere "that's ridiculous, my worldview would break down". But lots of accepted science was first ridiculous too. Let the idea float, and let the people try to experimentally test it.
red75prime 5y ago
> It may be uncomfortable to think that we live in a world of "ESP or telepathy or other mischief" The problem is we don't observe those. Do you reject a theory "Angels move planets in exactly the same way as GR predicts, but they can rebel and wreck havoc on Earth"? Is it because it's uncomfortable to live in a world where angels can kill you? Or because it's a theory, which doesn't explain why angels choose general relativity and not, say, Newtonian mechanics to move planets?

effie 5y ago

Indeed, most refutations of superdeterminism seem to be mere "that's ridiculous, my worldview would break down". But lots of accepted science was first ridiculous too. Let the idea float, and let the people try to experimentally test it.

red75prime 5y ago

> It may be uncomfortable to think that we live in a world of "ESP or telepathy or other mischief" The problem is we don't observe those. Do you reject a theory "Angels move planets in exactly the same way as GR predicts, but they can rebel and wreck havoc on Earth"? Is it because it's uncomfortable to live in a world where angels can kill you? Or because it's a theory, which doesn't explain why angels choose general relativity and not, say, Newtonian mechanics to move planets?