't Hooft has been arguing for superdeterminism for quite some time. And it is a valid alternative to other interpretations of quantum mechanics. But I don't th

't Hooft has been arguing for superdeterminism for quite some time. And it is a valid alternative to other interpretations of quantum mechanics. But I don't think it really solves any of the problems people care about. It replaces superposition with a set of predetermined outcomes which you cannot possibly know. Instead of a random number generator, you have a list of numbers duplicated at every point in the universe -- but whose values cannot be read except by doing the thing and finding out the result. It works, and it is different. But I'm skeptical that it will actually lead to the kind of genuinely novel insights that 't Hooft suggests it will. Obviously, he's got a Breakthrough Prize and a whole passel of others, and I got nuthin', so I'd believe him over me. But I think that the "right track", if we ever find it, is going to be found in some completely different direction.