Arguments Against Superdeterminism

Descartz2000

I think if there is any kind of consistent logic in the Universe, then 'yes' I believe if re-run and the conditions and configurations were identical, the Universe would lead me to this very spot, sitting here typing. If not, then it seems obvious we live in a world without consistency and the various configurations in the Universe throughout time and their relationships and interactions with each other do not correlate to macro scale phenomena. If the outcome could be different, and let's say I did not exist as a result, or I was washing my car instead of typing at this moment, all of this points to a world where conditions, variables, configurations, and relationships do not consistently correlate with macro scale outcomes.

Blenton

Yes it is strange how the laws of physics come together to form us, and me typing the post now. It could be stranger.

Portia, J. A.

I first encountered the term "Superdeterminism" when physicist John S. Bell used it twice (?) during a BBC radio interview with Paul Davies in 1985:

And...

I realize this thread is a year old, but I just discovered it a few days ago and thought these quotes would be essential additions. Perhaps they will even serve to resurrect the thread itself.

skippy1729

The following video lecture from Perimeter Institute seems relevant to this thread:

What are the costs of dealing with "states of reality" in quantum theory?
Speaker(s): Caslav Brukner
Abstract: Bell and experimental tests of his inequality showed that it is impossible to explain all of the predictions of quantum mechanics using a theory which satisfies the basic concepts of locality and realism, but which (if not both) is violated is still an open question. As it seems impossible to resolve this question experimentally, one can ask how plausible realism -- the idea that external properties of systems exist prior to and independent of observations -- is, by considering the amount of resources consumed by itself and its non-local features. I will construct an explicit realistic model in which the number of hidden-variable states scales polynomially with the number of possible quantum measurements. In the limit of a large number of measurements, the model recovers the result of Montina, that no hidden-variable theory that agrees with quantum predictions could use less hidden-variable states than the straightforward model in which every quantum state is associated with one such hidden state. Thus, for any given system size, realistic theories cannot describe nature more effic
Date: 28/09/2009 - 11:00 am

http://pirsa.org/09090084

Boy@n

Cannot quantum entanglement be explained with considering cause/effect at some other dimension rather within the 'popular' four with the 'need' of SD?

When we separate entangled particles to great distances could it be possible that at certain dimension a certain property (one which affects the spin) of two particles still stays close together, so, when changing spin of the one particle simultaneously changes spin of the other particle, regardless of the particles distance in four dimensions?

Boy@n

So, if determinism is true in nature, for all scales and dimensions (as most people here seem to believe), then this means that if I had to choose, say, 10 numbers out of 1000 (no rules imposed), my picks are determined and not free choices at all?

Moreover, if Big Bang happens again with same initial conditions, I’d choose same 10 numbers again?

I know what I’ll say now is not science, but this just doesn’t feel right. If you refer just to your feelings and forget what you know, what you feel/see?

Given eternity, same conditions which created our Universe must happen infinite times, that is, if determinism is true! God (if existing) might choose the same, or not, we cannot know that, but if we say determinism is true then same must happen infinite times. So, you are reading this now infinite times. And even ALL the time, since who says there is just one Universe. If space-time with quantum fluctuatins is infinite then there must be infinite number of Universes, and among those there must be a subset of still ininite number of those with same initial conditions, thus, exactly the same YOU is reading this infinite times all the time.

Via science we might never be absolutely sure if determinism is true or not, until we do, I choose to believe in free-will.

Existence as this one is without free-will just pointless for a conscious being.

The mere ability to ask if free-will is possible tells me, it is.

nismaratwork

I don't believe in determinism, but as conscious beings who are unlikely to ever be able to grasp initial conditions and variables to the point of making accurate predictions, it probably doesn't matter in terms of our free-will or lack thereof.

wuliheron

Assuming you can test it is there any conceivable use for such a theory? Likewise, assuming you could find out the initial conditions how could you possibly calculate anything useful? It seems little better than assuming the entire universe is stochastic and nonlocal effects are merely coincidence. Certainly if it can be tested it might be interesting to see the results, but without any possible constructive use I would personally doubt there validity.

ThomasT

Yes, according to determinism.

If our universe is evolving deterministically, then we might have the illusion of free will without actually having free will.

But don't worry, there's absolutely no way to 'prove' that our universe is evolving deterministically. At least not afaik.

nismaratwork

Nor AFAIK either... and we still enjoy life so... does it matter? If the universe is deterministic then we still enjoy a particular illusion that has such fidelity that we can never expose it. Not bad, all things considered.

Boy@n

ThomasT and nismaratwork thanks for calming me down, ops sorry, I should thank Universe for making you two to say those words. ;)

But really, the more I am thinking about it (in pleasure not worrying sense) the more it seems to me that even though physical world 'must' be deterministic (so it's consistent and natural laws valid and universal) I see no logical reason for self-consciousness to be the same way, even though consciousness may well energe via physical existence alone.

SW VandeCarr

As an early participant in this thread, I resisted getting involved again. However I feel compelled to say there is no "must'. The world is probabilistic at the quantum level. This is the science. Whether there is a deeper deterministic substratum is a matter of speculation.

Moreover, there is no known way to predict when a given atom will decay. It appears completely random although the half-life of any isotope is well defined from large ensembles of atoms. The 'need' for a completely determined universe is not founded in science, but in a belief that every event must have a cause and in principle that cause can be known. That's called philosophy.

Boy@n

I appreciate your response and clarification, I even agree with it.

I'd like to clarify myself too. I was not referring to quantum world though, but to classical. I see classical emerging out of quantum in alike manner I see consciousness emerging out of both (brains being a manifestation of both quantum fluctuations in brains which we can observe, when we silence our mind, like noise, or say particles of that which may through our will form into thoughts, images, words etc. and classical construct of physical brains in sense of organized molecules).

Thus, I agree that on quantum scale all happens pretty random, while on classical physical scale, as we experience it, all is consistent, natural laws being universaly valid, so, we could say physical reality of 'our' scale would be developing in a deterministic way if let to itself. But since consciousness and moreso self-consciousness can and does interfere with it (not in sense that free-will can violate natural laws, but it sense that when multiple choices arise free-will enables us to choose one specific to our consciousness interpretation, which models own rules and values - not being universal at all, but specific to individual's consciousness). So, our Universe is not evolving in deterministic way, but in a mixed way of determinism and non-determinism.

SprocketPower

SW VandeCarr,

Philosophy, like math, is a theoretical science, and is included under cognitive science.

nismaratwork

In no way is philosophy a science in the sense of the word that renders it meaningful... it is an art... only the study of philosophers under an fMRI or MEG is real science relating to it.

SprocketPower

There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.

SW VandeCarr

Quid est in mundus? Back when philosophy was generally accepted as a science, educated people anywhere could read my first sentence as easily as if it were in their native language. It's still pretty simple Latin, I suppose, meaning "What is in the world?". That's the basic ontological question that natural philosophy was supposed to answer. However, experimentally based sciences and "special sciences' based on careful observation and analysis have since de facto displaced pure philosophy in answering these questions. I don't know if any university philosophy department in the modern world has a budget for experimentally based research, but if you know of one, please inform us.

To the extent that you can consider subjects like mathematics, logic and linguistics as sciences within philosophy, then modern philosophy does have a scientific aspect. You might ask how many university mathematics departments want to be part of the philosophy department. If you Google "Philosophy of Science", you get a lot of results. However, if you Google "Philosophy as Science" you don't get much. Here's one result:

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContSten.htm