Arguments Against Superdeterminism

[Blenton]

One weird consequence of such a belief is that the single source of all deterministic reality obviously wants to fool us about its true nature, by implanting in the deterministic sequence of events conflicting concepts of false gods - Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., the 6-day creation, the 6000 year old Earth, etc. Essentially, according to the deterministic model of the universe, god is not very different from a Nigerian scammer(the fraudulent emails being manifested by holy books).

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

 

[Portiaja]

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

"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. 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 it's outcome, will be." - John S. Bell

And...

"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." - John S. Bell

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]

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.

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]

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?

Yes, according to determinism.

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

it seems to me that enven though physical world 'must' be deterministic (so it's consistent and natural laws valid and universal).

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]

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.

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 more so 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]

SW VandeCarr,

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

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]

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.

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

In what way does philosophy even CLAIM to follow the scientific method? SW VandeCarr has made a fine point, now it's time for you to do the same if you can. The scientific method is a clear method which philosophy doesn't want or attempt to emulate, and is in fact, an art.

 

[SprocketPower]

SW VandeCarr,

The article is inrteresting. Philosophy is a general and theoretical science and a basic one. Descartes classified it as the root with 2 branches leading from it including all the other sciences. But your claim that the experimental sciences have displaced philosophy is not at all true because philosophy has always dealt with different questions. And your not goingto find it in anexperimental framework because it is theoretical. And here is what 1 of my classmates said in our on-line metaphysics course:

"Here, Here !

Philosophy is not just a science. It's the science of sciences. It's the source and the core of every science. This can be easily viewed especially in ancient philosophy texts and especially Plato. It is with philosophy that human intellect tried to answer basic and more complex questions about the natural world: reality, being, and existence. It is the effort to answer the primary "why" behind everything."

nismaratwork,

SW VandeCarr did not make a fine point at all and I did. And I didn't say philosophy follows the standard scientific method. It is theoretical, not experimental. If you say that philosophy isn't a science you would have to say the same thing about math and theoretical physics, too.

 

[SprocketPower]

Bell says that SD would get rid of superposition. How would it do this?

 

[Maui]

In what way does philosophy even CLAIM to follow the scientific method? SW VandeCarr has made a fine point, now it's time for you to do the same if you can. The scientific method is a clear method which philosophy doesn't want or attempt to emulate, and is in fact, an art.

Philosophy is an inseparable part of the interpretation of the experiemental facts of science and deeply rooted in its assumptions, so science is a form of art?

 

[SprocketPower]

ThomasT and kote,

Why would someone simulate reality? And if we are living in a Matrix, then the reality out there would be the same as in here so it doesn't have much meaning whether we are or not. But there is something that seems rather strange to me and that's the supercluster shaped like a human figure-- a clue hidden in plain sight? Sometimes I wonder.

 

[nismaratwork]

You resurrected a thread to argue a point that is absurd... I'm gone.

 

[Evo]

Time to say goodbye.