Bell's superdeterminism compared to determinism

  • I
  • Thread starter user30
  • Start date
  • #51
96
11
Do you have a source for that “established by Bell” assertion?
The fact that he goes into great lengths to flesh it out, that he includes it as a loophole? How many reasons do you need? I haven't seen him discuss Bertand Russells invincible tea pot theory and give it the status of a loophole, nor have I seen him flesh that theory out.

To say that something is implausible is simply that you would never bet on it. That's not terribly interesting scientifically. Scientists are wrong all the time.
 
  • #52
Lord Jestocost
Gold Member
608
415
Why the need for a "super" inclusion to postulate that human beings are subject to determinism just like everything else? I would presume that this was the prevailing scientific wisdom among physicists ever since Newtonian Mechanics. Why did Bell feel the need to invent a new term that seems superflous. He's just describing determinism.
"When I first chatted with ‘t Hooft for an article eight years ago, he told me he wasn’t sure how to evade Bell’s reasoning. Since then, he has sought to jump through a loophole known as superdeterminism. It’s a weird and downright disturbing idea. Only three other people I know support it, notably Sabine Hossenfelder of the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, who blogged her views last week.

The sober way to put it is that physicists are never able to conduct a fully controlled experiment, since the experimental setup they choose is not strictly independent of the processes that created the particles. Even if the experimentalists (conventionally named Alice and Bob) live on Earth and the particles come from quasars billions of light-years away, they share a common past in the very early universe. Their subtle interdependence creates a selection bias, misleading physicists into thinking that no deeper level of physics could explain the particle coordination, when in fact it could.

The dramatic version is that free will is an illusion. Worse, actually. Even regular determinism – without the “super” – subverts our sense of free will. Through the laws of physics, you can trace every choice you make to the arrangement of matter at the dawn of time. Superdeterminism adds a twist of the knife. Not only is everything you do preordained, the universe reaches into your brain and stops you from doing an experiment that would reveal its true nature. The universe is not just set up in advance. It is set up in advance to fool you. As a conspiracy theory, this leaves Roswell and the Priory of Sion in the dust."

From: "Does Some Deeper Level of Physics Underlie Quantum Mechanics? An Interview with Nobelist Gerard ’t Hooft" by George Musser
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...interview-with-nobelist-gerard-e28099t-hooft/
 
  • #53
96
11
The sober way to put it is that physicists are never able to conduct a fully controlled experiment, since the experimental setup they choose is not strictly independent of the processes that created the particles. Even if the experimentalists (conventionally named Alice and Bob) live on Earth and the particles come from quasars billions of light-years away, they share a common past in the very early universe. Their subtle interdependence creates a selection bias, misleading physicists into thinking that no deeper level of physics could explain the particle coordination, when in fact it could.
And the statistical distribution during measurement? How does superdeterminism resolve it?

It says here that: "Superdeterminism is a term introduced in the 1980's by John Bell to explain the mysterious correlation of results for spacelike-separated measurements in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments."

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/superdeterminism.html
 
  • #54
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
14,363
6,733
Why not if you have a very finely tuned initial state.
Apart from the problems of that sort of fine tuning, it would need to be deliberately tuned to correlate what needs to be correlated to make it look like QM works but nothing else. We don't find that experiments generally are exceptionally correlated.
 
  • #55
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
14,363
6,733
"When I first chatted with ‘t Hooft for an article eight years ago, he told me he wasn’t sure how to evade Bell’s reasoning. Since then, he has sought to jump through a loophole known as superdeterminism. It’s a weird and downright disturbing idea. Only three other people I know support it, notably Sabine Hossenfelder of the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, who blogged her views last week.
What would happen if we did an experiment using the digits of ##\pi## and ##e## as input? Sure, the decision to do this could be superdetermined, but how would the initial conditions of the universe correlate the digits of ##\pi## and ##e## indefinitely?
 
  • #56
96
11
Apart from the problems of that sort of fine tuning, it would need to be deliberately tuned to correlate what needs to be correlated to make it look like QM works but nothing else. We don't find that experiments generally are exceptionally correlated.
And that's why superdeterminism appears to be an arbitrary cop -out at quantum scales, unless we are missing something. Any correlation observed in the macroscopic world is not only compatible with determinism but a requirement of it.
 
  • #57
96
11
Furthermore, the fine-tuned universe theory has nothing to do with superdeterminism in our current understanding of it. It neither supports nor undermines it. It has so to do with cosmological constants to generate life form. All it states is that there are other possible configurations that do not give rise to human life form, and we are in a universe that is conducive to generate a life form.

The only possible revelation of that theory is that human life form is not a given, but that wasn't exactly far fetched.
 
  • #58
96
11
Here's how Hoft explains superdeterminism, which he also subscribes to

Ordinarily, we think that Bell’s theorem would rule out a classical model. So, how do we overcome that issue?

GtH: Yes, that’s not easy. I do not have the complete answer, because whatever answer I think of, I am always the first to criticize. The only answer I can come up with today is that there are correlations all over, presumably because the entire universe started with a single big bang. Everybody in our universe has a common past, and so they are correlated. The photons emitted by a quasar are correlated with the photons emitted by another quasar. It’s not true those quasars are independent.

That could be the answer to Bell. You can do the exercise. You can ask about a source emitting photons and the ancestors of Alice and Bob. While the source emits photons, Alice and Bob have not yet been born. They are many, many light-years away from each other. Those ancestors–the atoms in them–eventually cause Alice and Bob to make their decisions. Those atoms are correlated with the atoms of the source. Everything is correlated with everything else–not a little bit, but very, very strongly.
 
  • #59
96
11
So he can give an account of local hidden variables down this route and it is due to the interconnectedness assumption, which is ruled out in the standard way of looking at statistical distribution

Deep...
 
  • #60
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
30,728
9,721
superdeterminism appears to be an arbitrary cop -out at quantum scales
Deep...
Since you seem unable to keep this thread focused on what superdeterminism says, instead of your personal opinions about it, this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu

Related Threads on Bell's superdeterminism compared to determinism

  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
628
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
63
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
394
Replies
153
Views
7K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
850
Replies
7
Views
2K
Top