3 ms·

It kind of smells like superdeterminism? In which the universe is conspiring to make you choose the correct measurements during Bell tests to result in the obse

It kind of smells like superdeterminism? In which the universe is conspiring to make you choose the correct measurements during Bell tests to result in the observed correlations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

sampo 4y ago
> It kinds of smells like superdeterminism? Yes. From your link: Physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer have argued that superdeterminism "is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics". (Tim Palmer is the author of the posted article.)
naasking 4y ago
It is superdeterminism. "Conspiracy" is a feature of some superdeterministic theories, but not all.
- n4r9 4y ago
  Do you mean "theories" or "models"? If the former, please could you provide an example of a superdeterministic theory?
  - naasking 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224172
rafaelero 4y ago
Or the observed correlations are caused by the measurement?
sph 4y ago
> Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be. Layman here. This smells like handwaving all the complexity away with "This quantum particle when measured collapsed into state X because that was its destiny." I struggle to see how "everything has already been decided since the Big Bang" is conceptually any different than saying it's fate we get an outcome instead of the other.
- lupire 4y ago
  These are interpretations (metaphysics). It's arcane philosophy, science.
cma 4y ago
I think superdeterminism doesn't need to conspire to affect your choices (other than asserting they are deterministic, but it doesn't need to guide away from any particular choices in a conspiracy). It just needs to simulate both sides together on both side to know whether the measurements should correlate or not (say both sides have hidden state that resimulates the entire universe to see which measurement the other side would choose, this gets around it for Kochen-Specker/Conway freewill theorem at least, I'm not sure about for Bell's). As long as everything was in causal contact at the start of the big bang, it can let every particle have machinery inside that resimulates everything else to decide whether a given measurements randomness is correlated with another's, without invoking non-locality. With non-locality allowed it can just do it superliminally with threads of entanglement. Both are equivalent unless something can leak out of the resimulation other than how correlated a measurement should be with another, xor if info can be sent through entanglement other than the degree of correlation, or if the numbers turn out to be truely random or at least not be algorithmically random, like maybe Chaitin's constant.

sampo 4y ago

> It kinds of smells like superdeterminism? Yes. From your link: Physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer have argued that superdeterminism "is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics". (Tim Palmer is the author of the posted article.)

naasking 4y ago

It is superdeterminism. "Conspiracy" is a feature of some superdeterministic theories, but not all.

n4r9 4y ago
Do you mean "theories" or "models"? If the former, please could you provide an example of a superdeterministic theory?
- naasking 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33224172

rafaelero 4y ago

Or the observed correlations are caused by the measurement?

sph 4y ago

> Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be. Layman here. This smells like handwaving all the complexity away with "This quantum particle when measured collapsed into state X because that was its destiny." I struggle to see how "everything has already been decided since the Big Bang" is conceptually any different than saying it's fate we get an outcome instead of the other.

lupire 4y ago
These are interpretations (metaphysics). It's arcane philosophy, science.

cma 4y ago

I think superdeterminism doesn't need to conspire to affect your choices (other than asserting they are deterministic, but it doesn't need to guide away from any particular choices in a conspiracy). It just needs to simulate both sides together on both side to know whether the measurements should correlate or not (say both sides have hidden state that resimulates the entire universe to see which measurement the other side would choose, this gets around it for Kochen-Specker/Conway freewill theorem at least, I'm not sure about for Bell's). As long as everything was in causal contact at the start of the big bang, it can let every particle have machinery inside that resimulates everything else to decide whether a given measurements randomness is correlated with another's, without invoking non-locality. With non-locality allowed it can just do it superliminally with threads of entanglement. Both are equivalent unless something can leak out of the resimulation other than how correlated a measurement should be with another, xor if info can be sent through entanglement other than the degree of correlation, or if the numbers turn out to be truely random or at least not be algorithmically random, like maybe Chaitin's constant.