5 ms·

Even in THE press conference of the Nobel Physics prize, one cannot expect to get the facts fully communicated clearly. Superdeterminism is a local hidden-varia

Even in THE press conference of the Nobel Physics prize, one cannot expect to get the facts fully communicated clearly. Superdeterminism is a local hidden-variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics. Edit: Sabine Hossenfelder has explained this much better than I ever can: See for example http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdetermini...

Strilanc 4y ago
Have people actually constructed a concrete example of a theory that's super deterministic in a way that violates the bell inequalities but is complex enough to contain Turing machines driving the tests? The requirement that you can encode Turing machines might sound silly but I really think it's the core of the issue. The ability to make computers implies a certain level of hard-to-control due to the existence of things like the halting problem and pseudo random number generators and cryptographic hash functions. My understanding is that super determinism is one of those loopholes where it's easy to say its a problem, but actually providung a plausible concrete model where it's a problem is very hard.
- q-big 4y ago
  > Have people actually constructed a concrete example of a theory that's super deterministic in a way that violates the bell inequalities but is complex enough to contain Turing machines driving the tests? I am not aware that such a theory exists, but the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft made some possible first baby steps into this direction: Gerard 't Hooft; The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics > https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  Turing machines will exist in even very simple universes, because they are very simple. Instead physicists usually use complexity theory to analyze any proposed new universe or a theory for our universe. If for example, the new theory ensures P=NP, then is suspect. There is a lot of work done on this, but I don't know a good reference off the top of my head. However, sometimes, people do think about Turing Machines. Here is one paper by Scott Aaronson http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctchalt.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctchalt.pdf
kryptiskt 4y ago
Superdeterminism is unscientific as it's utterly untestable. It's a cop-out.
- A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
  It's untestable by the definition of the term "superdeterminism" and the meaning of what it implies -- just as “1 + 1 = 3” is something that cannot make sense, by the very definition and meaning of its symbols. But this doesn't make it wrong. Superdeterminism is a very neat way of resolving physical paradoxes, such as the Wigner's Friend paradox: Any experimenter’s decision to take a measurement of a certain physical phenomenon is predetermined by events, so the experimenter can attain no outcome but the one he does eventually attain, and nothing is in superposition. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle nor Bell's inequality render this condition impossible, as Bell himself was well aware.
- q-big 4y ago
  > Superdeterminism is unscientific as it's utterly untestable. The same objection can be stated for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    Not sure if you’re defending the former or attacking the latter...
    - q-big 4y ago
      I cannot understand why superdeterminism is so much frowned upon while the many-worlds interpretation is considered to be perfectly fine. I rather think the same standard should be applied to both.
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        MWI is more suggestive to pop-sci readers and ill-defined enough to mean different things to different people, I guess.
cedilla 4y ago
Superdeterminism isn't a theory, it's more of a choice of assumptions that could lead to a local hidden variable theory. No convincing model has been proposed thus far. Other such assumptions that would allow local hidden variable theories are "a wizard did it" and the rejection of the principle of relativity. All three share that they have no convincing reasoning behind them and that they are largely incompatible with our model of falsifiable science.
shusaku 4y ago
I think people are downvoting you because they missed the mistake in the press release, so it sounds like you were claiming super determinism is the definitive theory

Strilanc 4y ago

Have people actually constructed a concrete example of a theory that's super deterministic in a way that violates the bell inequalities but is complex enough to contain Turing machines driving the tests? The requirement that you can encode Turing machines might sound silly but I really think it's the core of the issue. The ability to make computers implies a certain level of hard-to-control due to the existence of things like the halting problem and pseudo random number generators and cryptographic hash functions. My understanding is that super determinism is one of those loopholes where it's easy to say its a problem, but actually providung a plausible concrete model where it's a problem is very hard.

q-big 4y ago
> Have people actually constructed a concrete example of a theory that's super deterministic in a way that violates the bell inequalities but is complex enough to contain Turing machines driving the tests? I am not aware that such a theory exists, but the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft made some possible first baby steps into this direction: Gerard 't Hooft; The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics > https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6
abdullahkhalids 4y ago
Turing machines will exist in even very simple universes, because they are very simple. Instead physicists usually use complexity theory to analyze any proposed new universe or a theory for our universe. If for example, the new theory ensures P=NP, then is suspect. There is a lot of work done on this, but I don't know a good reference off the top of my head. However, sometimes, people do think about Turing Machines. Here is one paper by Scott Aaronson http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctchalt.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctchalt.pdf

kryptiskt 4y ago

Superdeterminism is unscientific as it's utterly untestable. It's a cop-out.

A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
It's untestable by the definition of the term "superdeterminism" and the meaning of what it implies -- just as “1 + 1 = 3” is something that cannot make sense, by the very definition and meaning of its symbols. But this doesn't make it wrong. Superdeterminism is a very neat way of resolving physical paradoxes, such as the Wigner's Friend paradox: Any experimenter’s decision to take a measurement of a certain physical phenomenon is predetermined by events, so the experimenter can attain no outcome but the one he does eventually attain, and nothing is in superposition. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle nor Bell's inequality render this condition impossible, as Bell himself was well aware.
q-big 4y ago
> Superdeterminism is unscientific as it's utterly untestable. The same objection can be stated for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
- kgwgk 4y ago
  Not sure if you’re defending the former or attacking the latter...
  - q-big 4y ago
    I cannot understand why superdeterminism is so much frowned upon while the many-worlds interpretation is considered to be perfectly fine. I rather think the same standard should be applied to both.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      MWI is more suggestive to pop-sci readers and ill-defined enough to mean different things to different people, I guess.

cedilla 4y ago

Superdeterminism isn't a theory, it's more of a choice of assumptions that could lead to a local hidden variable theory. No convincing model has been proposed thus far. Other such assumptions that would allow local hidden variable theories are "a wizard did it" and the rejection of the principle of relativity. All three share that they have no convincing reasoning behind them and that they are largely incompatible with our model of falsifiable science.

shusaku 4y ago

I think people are downvoting you because they missed the mistake in the press release, so it sounds like you were claiming super determinism is the definitive theory