I Bell's superdeterminism compared to determinism

[user30]

It's being discussed in another thread but I really think clarification is in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

I've known about Bells quote for years but I never got what his point was.

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.

I'm fairly well-read in philosophy of science and I can't recall the term superdeterminism ever being used, since it merely describes determinism applying to everything, and the conventional view of determinism is that it does apply to everything, and certainly human behavior.

If I somehow misunderstood Bells use of it, feel free to expand on what he meant and how it differs from regular determinism

 

[user30]

It appears that both Bell and Zellinger struggle with the notion that human beings can't arrive at scientific truth if they are part of the deterministic chain themselves. But there is no problem of you view the entire universe as a mathematical construct. It isn't any different from learning an equation. Healthy brains are deterministicly rational and can correspondingly arrive at scientific truth through different means, and can discern when they haven't done so, and are determined to react when they haven't

 

[PeroK]

As I understand it, one difference is the difference between pre-determined and correlated. Consider that two scientists conduct experiments at remote locations. Each throws a coin to decide what to do. And their results are correlated.

With determinism, someone might be able to predict exactly the coin tosses in every case. But, they would still be an equally frequent collection of HH, HT, TH, TT. And there would be no correlation between a H in the first lab and a H in the second lab. In other words, you deterministically predict all the results, but there are no correlations in the results at the two remote labs.

With superdeterminism, there may also be a correlation. In other words, something might conspire in order that it's always HH or TT, say. And never HT or TH. Determinism alone can't achieve that.

If you did always get HH or TT, then determinism cannot explain that. You need an addition assumption that correlates what happens at two remote locations. Not only an assumption that the coin tosses are predetermined.

 

[EPR]

There is no freedom of choice in superdeterminism. I take it to mean every concievable action performed by a human was predetermined and couldn't have been any other way. This has implications for what Alice's and Bob's choice of measurement were.

 

[PeroK]

There is no freedom of choice in superdeterminism. I take it to mean every concievable action performed by a human was predetermined and couldn't have been any other way. This has implications for what Alice's and Bob's choice of measurement were.

... not just predetermined, but they also have to be correlated to make it look like QM is correct!

 

[user30]

If you did always get HH or TT, then determinism cannot explain that.

Is this strictly with respect to quantum mechanics and spooky action at a distance? I have never heard of determinism having any issue with correlations.

There is no freedom of choice in superdeterminism. I take it to mean every concievable action performed by a human was predetermined and couldn't have been any other way. This has implications for what Alice's and Bob's choice of measurement were.

That is the default position of regular determinism.

the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/determinism

 

[user30]

The operational definition for determinism is:

if you know the state ket at one point in time then you can predict the state ket at all future times

 

[EPR]

But determinism can be in principle unpredictable and hence not wholy predictable(while still being predetermined or maybe not). Hence, it can look random to us because we can't probe events as they arise at the smallest possible scales. Superdeterminism on the other hand posits that no small scale event(even those unobservable events) can change the route of how events unfold. Like weather seems predetermined but is it?!
With billions factors involvled, it's hard to say. Or maybe it's even impossible.
Superdeterminism is a dead-end for science.

 

[PeroK]

Is this strictly with respect to quantum mechanics and spooky action at a distance? I have never heard of determinism having any issue with correlations.

Here's an example. Suppose a syndicate was able to fix all soccer matches, so that the results were decided in advance. But, the results are fixed to look like the normal soccer results. Everything is predetermined, but there are no unexpected correlations. To anyone who is not in on the deceit, the results will look normally random.

Alternatively, if the results are fixed so that the home team always wins, then that is no more or less predetermined that the previous case. But, now there is a perfect correlation between playing at home and winning. This is what superdeterminism requires: predetermined with strong or perfect correlations, where required.

QM predicts correlations between outcomes that cannot be predicted classically. So, either QM is correct, or some other influence is predetermining the results with the appropriate correlations.

 

[user30]

But determinism can be in principle unpredictable and hence not wholy predictable

Hence Bell's theorem, which of course nobody knew of before Quantum Mechanics

 

[user30]

Like weather seems predetermined but is it?!
With billions factors involvled, it's hard to say. Or maybe it's even impossible.

Based on the data, I would say the odds are that it is:

"A seven-day forecast can accurately predict the weather about 80 percent of the time and a five-day forecast can accurately predict the weather approximately 90 percent of the time. ... A seven-day forecast is fairly accurate, but forecasts beyond that range are less reliable."

https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/

 

[user30]

(while still being predetermined or maybe not).

It should be noted that predetermination (fatalism) and determinism is not the same thing. Predetermination entails that this conversation you and I are having had to take place. Determinism entails that it had to take place once the parameters of the universe was set. This is why many philosophers refrain from using the word predetermination when speaking of determinism.

One could imagine a random generator giving rise to a deterministic universe. Determinism only concerns the system within, not anything outside of it.

 

[Nugatory]

The operational definition for determinism is:
if you know the state ket at one point in time then you can predict the state ket at all future times

Yes, and superdeterminism adds additional claims: not only that the forward evolution of the single ket that represents the entire state of the universe can be predicted at all future times, but also that that evolution will produce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and that this explains the apparent non-locality observed in Bell-type experiments.

These claims is not falsifiable, but it is possible to construct thought experiments (examples available upon request) that suggest that it is quite extraordinary.

 

[user30]

Yes, and superdeterminism adds additional claims: not only that the forward evolution of the single ket that represents the entire state of the universe can be predicted at all future times, but also that that evolution will produce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and that this explains the apparent non-locality observed in Bell-type experiments.

These claims is not falsifiable, but it is possible to construct thought experiments (examples available upon request) that suggest that it is quite extraordinary.

Does Bells theorem cast doubt on the nature of classical mechanics given that measurements/interaction between macroscopic and microscopic objects cause decoherence (which it logically predicts would happen) but still leaves us with non locality? So in other worlds, only half of what you would expect classical mechanics "overtaking" would achieve?

 

[PeroK]

Does Bells theorem cast doubt on the nature of classical mechanics given that measurements/interaction between macroscopic and microscopic objects cause decoherence (which it logically predicts would happen) but still leaves us with non locality? So in other worlds, only half of what you would expect classical mechanics "overtaking" would achieve?

Classical mechanics was long gone. The theory of the atom; the photoelectric effect; Compton scattering. Bell's theorem was a test for QM against alternative "local hidden variable" theories.

 

[martinbn]

The way I understand it superdeterminism is determinism plus special initial conditions. Such that lead to all the results that we observe and baffle us.

 

[PeroK]

The way I understand it superdeterminism is determinism plus special initial conditions. Such that lead to all the results that we observe and baffle us.

It's much more than this. It has to correlate things according to QM rules, which no amount of determinism can possibly achieve.

 

[user30]

Classical mechanics was long gone.

But classical mechanics principles have to be in effect in some way during measurement or else we wouldn't have decoherence.

 

[PeroK]

But classical mechanics principles have to be in effect in some way during measurement or else we wouldn't have decoherence.

But it doesn't pertain to the physics being investigated, whether that is photon polarisation or electron spin. The whole concept of quantised measurements is non-classical.

 

[user30]

The whole concept of quantised measurements is non-classical.

Statistical distribution is part of classical/deterministic mechanics as well.

 

[PeroK]

Statistical distribution is part of classical/deterministic mechanics as well.

Look, you've posted in the QM subforum. We're talking QM here.

 

[user30]

Look, you've posted in the QM subforum. We're talking QM here.

Yes and I was referencing your usage of the word "hole" concept. What I mean is that the entire feature of quantum measurement is not non-classical. There are however fundamental aspects of it that make it non classical, yes, regardless of QM interpretation.

 

[Nugatory]

Does Bells theorem cast doubt on the nature of classical mechanics given that...

No, more than sufficient doubt had already been cast in the preceding half-century.

Bell’s theorem closed off the avenue of investigation suggested by EPR’s use of the word “incomplete”: the possibility that quantum mechanics is itself an emergent theory derivable from some as-yet-undiscovered local and realistic theory in the same way that the classical theory of ideal gases can be derived through statistical mechanics and Newtonian physics.

 

[user30]

No, more than sufficient doubt had already been cast in the preceding half-century.

Bell’s theorem closed off the avenue of investigation suggested by EPR’s use of the word “incomplete”: the possibility that quantum mechanics is itself an emergent theory derivable from some as-yet-undiscovered local and realistic theory in the same way that the classical theory of ideal gases can be derived through statistical mechanics and Newtonian physics.

But it was declared "locked and shut" in advance, which is in violation of the scientific enterprise.

Up to 2015, the outcome of all experiments that violate a Bell inequality could still theoretically be explained by exploiting the detection loophole and/or the locality loophole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

 

[Nugatory]

But it was declared "locked and shut" in advance, which is in violation of the scientific enterprise.

Up to 2015, the outcome of all experiments that violate a Bell inequality could still theoretically be explained by exploiting the detection loophole and/or the locality loophole.

“Theoretically”, yes... but the assumptions required to exploit these loopholes were becoming increasingly contrived and implausible. There’s no way of closing the “gravity might change tonight” loophole but that doesn’t mean that I’m violating the spirit of the scientific enterprise by asserting that the law of gravity means that a dropped object will fall tomorrow just as it does today.

And it is simply factually untrue that it was declared “locked and shut” - if it were there would have been no reason to do the 2015 experiment. What is true is that the loophole arguments were looking less and less plausible as more evidence came in over several decades of experiments. Do remember that several of the very early experiments showed no violation of Bell’s inequality, so in the beginning the question was very much open. Only after these experiments couldn’t be replicated or were found to be flawed in some way while other experiments increasingly confirmed violations did we get to where no one was surprised by the 2015 result.

 

[user30]

And it is simply factually untrue that it was declared “locked and shut” - if it were there would have been no reason to do the 2015 experiment.

It was declared locked and shut by many physicists in various publications on the subject. Can you name a physicist who did not reference Bells theorem as decided before 2015? The info pages prior to 2015 made it clear that more experiments are needed, but that was not the picture drawn by physicists to the general public.

 

[user30]

These claims is not falsifiable, but it is possible to construct thought experiments (examples available upon request) that suggest that it is quite extraordinary.

What do you mean by "quite extraordinary"? Anybody who would have proposed a quantum thesis before it was discovered would have institutionalized. The fact that Bell even mentions must mean that it has some merits to it, even though he personally rejected it.

 

[PeroK]

What do you mean by "quite extraordinary"?

"Quite extraordinary" is a euphemism for implausible and unscientific.

 

[PeroK]

It was declared locked and shut by many physicists in various publications on the subject. Can you name a physicist who did not reference Bells theorem as decided before 2015? The info pages prior to 2015 made it clear that more experiments are needed, but that was not the picture drawn by physicists to the general public.

It's quite amusing actually to think of unscientific philosophers throwing superdeterministic mud at practising experimental physicists for getting on with the job of doing science - and not sharing their unscientific, philosophical misgivings!

 

[user30]

I googled my own countries wiki page on superdeterminism and it references superdeterminism as claimed to be proven empirically, and cites these articles:

http://absimage.aps.org/image/APR11/MWS_APR11-2010-000037.pdf
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3571

 

[EPR]

I googled my own countries wiki page on superdeterminism and it references superdeterminism as claimed to be proven empirically, and cites these articles:

http://absimage.aps.org/image/APR11/MWS_APR11-2010-000037.pdf
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3571

The GS Journal is a free for all internet blog "The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient. Judgement by the few runs counter to the spirit of scientific exploration. The internet provides a potential world of criticism and support. Authors who make their theories known in this manner will probably find both."

 

[user30]

The GS Journal is a free for all internet blog "The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient. Judgement by the few runs counter to the spirit of scientific exploration. The internet provides a potential world of criticism and support. Authors who make their theories known in this manner will probably find both."

I thought so. Wiki should have deleted it as reference.

 

[user30]

It's quite amusing actually to think of unscientific philosophers throwing superdeterministic mud at practising experimental physicists for getting on with the job of doing science - and not sharing their unscientific, philosophical misgivings!

LOL. Bell was the one who coined it, as I suspected.

 

[user30]

Free will is an illusion - that gets us out of the crisis, does it?

That's correct. In the analysis it is assumed that free will is genuine, and as a result of that one finds that the intervention of the experimenter at one point has to have consequences at a remote point, in a way that influences restricted by the finite velocity of light would not permit. If the experimenter is not free to make this intervention, if that also is determined in advance, the difficulty disappears.

(The Ghost in the Atom, P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown, ch.3, p.47)

 

[user30]

This so called extraordinary theory of superdeterminism seems to have gotten some traction in physics nonetheless

"In the Solvay conference (1927) Einstein argued against the quantum nonlocal decision at detection on the basis of a simple single-particle experiment, but thereafter he withdrew towards the more complicated 2-particle EPR argument. It has been claimed that Einstein was seeking for an "epistemic interpretation". In the light of a recent experiment I argue that Einstein missed an important point: One cannot have conservation of energy without nonlocality at detection. This experiment refutes also straightforwardly "epistemic" and "ontic" alternatives to quantum theory, and shows that Einstein's "epistemicism" entails "superdeterminism".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4451

 

[user30]

If you did always get HH or TT, then determinism cannot explain that. You need an addition assumption that correlates what happens at two remote locations. Not only an assumption that the coin tosses are predetermined.

I think I'm starting to get it now.. . What they are saying is that traditional, causal determinism cannot account for correlations in QM, for that we need superdeterminism.

If I understood it right, it sounds a bit like Leipniz's view of determinism.

"Leibniz is the most famous proponent of pre-established harmony. In his hands, the pre-established harmony has four main tenets: (1) no change in the states of a created substance is due to another created substance (i.e., there is no intersubstantial causation); (2) all (non-initial, natural) change in the states of a created substance is due to that substance itself (i.e., there is intrasubstantial causation); (3) each created substance has a “blueprint” (i.e., a complete concept or law of the series) that lists all of its states; and (4) each “blueprint” conforms with the blueprints of all other created substances (i.e., each of a created substance's natural states cohere with all the natural states of every other created substance)."

 

[PeterDonis]

It was declared locked and shut by many physicists in various publications on the subject. Can you name a physicist who did not reference Bells theorem as decided before 2015? The info pages prior to 2015 made it clear that more experiments are needed, but that was not the picture drawn by physicists to the general public.

Whether or not it was "declared locked and shut" is not a question of physics, it's a question of personal opinion. As such, it is off topic for this discussion. Please keep discussion focused on the thread topic, which is superdeterminism.

 

[Nugatory]

Free will is an illusion - that gets us out of the crisis, does it?

It does not. Rejecting free will is necessary but not sufficient for a superdeterministic explanation of quantum correlation.

Here’s a thought experiment that relies on superdeterminism and requires much more than just a rejection of free will:
I design a clever automated device with a polarizing filter and a chamber into which we can insert a billet of uranium; the device sets its orientation for each measurement according to the pattern of random radioactive decay in that uranium billet. I make two copies my design blueprints; one goes into storage on Earth and the other goes into something like the Voyager spacecraft . A few tens of millennia later the spacecraft reaches an inhabited planet, and these alien physicists build the machine according to the blueprint I sent them, including locating an ore deposit and mining and refining some uranium. Meanwhile my remote descendants are doing the same thing with the blueprints left back on earth. After a decade or so exchanging radio messages to confirm that both sides have set up their devices, some entangled photon pairs are generated and sent to both detectors (another few years) and then the results are shared by radio (even more years)... and it is seen that Bell’s inequality has been violated.

The superdeterminist explanation is that there is a relationship between the decay patterns of two ostensibly independent pieces of uranium mined and refined on different planets light-years apart and the BBO crystal we’re using to generate our entangled photon pairs. It’s possible - all three deterministically evolved from the same cloud of intergalactic schmutz a few billion years ago - but I feel justified in applying adjectives like “extraordinary” and “implausible” to that possibility.

On the other hand... if I reject superdeterminism, then I must also give up one or both of realism and locality...

 

[user30]

... not just predetermined, but they also have to be correlated to make it look like QM is correct!

Oh I see. Doesn't superdeterminism lead to holism then? I understand how it would be devastating to the scientific enterprise but that of course is not an argument against it.


Holism in science, or holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) which aims to gain understanding of systems by dividing them into smaller composing elements and gaining understanding of the system through understanding their elemental properties.[1] The holism-reductionism dichotomy is often evident in conflicting interpretations of experimental findings and in setting priorities for future research.

"Richard Healey offered a modal interpretation and used it to present a model account of the puzzling correlations which portrays them as resulting from the operation of a process that violates both spatial and spatiotemporal separability. He argued that, on this interpretation, the nonseparability of the process is a consequence of physical property holism; and that the resulting account yields genuine understanding of how the correlations come about without any violation of relativity theory or Local Action.[10] Subsequent work by Clifton, Dickson and Myrvold cast doubt on whether the account can be squared with relativity theory’s requirement of Lorentz invariance but leaves no doubt of an spatially entangled holism in the theory.[11][12] Paul Davies and John Gribbin further observe that Wheeler's delayed choice experiment shows how the quantum world displays a sort of holism in time as well as space.[13]"

 

[user30]

On the other hand... if I reject superdeterminism, then I must also give up one or both of realism and locality...

Actually no.. The Many Worlds interpretation prescribes an expanded form of realism, not abandoned, and is a local theory.

If by realism you mean this:

"Realism in the sense used in physics[6] is the idea that nature exists independently of man's mind"

 

[user30]

Now as for the non realistic ones, to me, the Copenhagen interpretation is no longer tenable precisely due to Bells theorem in conjuction with this:

"Heisenberg did not try to specify exactly what the collapse of the wavefunction meant. He, however, emphasized that it should not be understood as a physical process.[11] Niels Bohr also repeatedly cautioned that we must give up a “pictorial representation.” The founders of the Copenhagen Interpretation preferred to stress the mathematical formalism of what was occurring.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The problem with viewing wave function collapse as epistemic/knowledge reduction is that according to Bells theorem, Quantum Mechanics is not incomplete.. Hence the knowledge reduction as a way of explaining probabilities is no longer justified.

Many Worlds at least attempts to explain it through a subjective experience route within a branching process, the Copenhagen interpretation does not even make an attempt, which was acceptable until Bell's theorem, in my opinion.

 

[PeterDonis]

the Copenhagen interpretation is no longer tenable

Please review the forum rules for this forum, in particular the following:

Claims about a particular interpretation being true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong, better/worse, like/don't like are not helpful to discussion and will be moderated strictly.

Please keep discussion focused on what various interpretations say, not on yours or anyone's personal opinions about which ones are "tenable".

 

[user30]

Please review the forum rules for this forum, in particular the following:
Please keep discussion focused on what various interpretations say, not on yours or anyone's personal opinions about which ones are "tenable".

Alright then. Back to superdeterminism: this is in other words determinism+pre arrangement in an effort to obviate puzzles in our QM model. I did some digging in the archives and fine-tuning was a different term they used which made it more sensible.

It's been established by Bell, at least, that this is a possible world, incredibly. With that out of the way we need to move forward to what the reasons would be for such a world to be in existence. Anybody got an idea that is grounded in science and is not arbitrary (it just is that way)?

 

[PeterDonis]

we need to move forward to what the reasons would be for such a world to be in existence

Basically you appear to be asking why the universe should be arranged in a way that doesn't make sense to humans. I don't see any particular reason why it should be arranged in a way that does make sense to humans. I don't think you can rule out superdeterminism just on the grounds that you don't like it or that you can't see a reason for it to be that way.

 

[Nugatory]

It's been established by Bell, at least, that this is a possible world, incredibly.

Do you have a source for that “established by Bell” assertion?

The quote in the original post in this thread is not such a source. There Bell is just stating two things that were already well-known and uncontroversial: we cannot prove that the universe is not superdeterministic; and if it is then his inequality need not hold. That doesn’t mean that the possibility has to be taken seriously.

Note also the following sentences in the Wikipedia article, which state correctly (and with some understatement) that Bell considered this possibility “implausible”.

At this point I have to really seriously urge you to get hold of a copy of Bell’s book “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics”.

 

[A. Neumaier]

The operational definition for determinism is:

if you know the state ket at one point in time then you can predict the state ket at all future times

This is not operational since a state cannot be measured unless it is extremely simple.

 

[jedishrfu]

The wikipedia article on superdeterminism mentions a discussion the Gerard T'Hooft had with John Bell on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft discussed this loophole with John Bell in the early '80s. "I raised the question: Suppose that also Alice’s and Bob’s decisions have to be seen as not coming out of free will, but being determined by everything in the theory. John said, well, you know, that I have to exclude. If it’s possible, then what I said doesn’t apply. I said, Alice and Bob are making a decision out of a cause. A cause lies in their past and has to be included in the picture."[6]

The implications of superdeterminism, if it is true, would bring into question the value of science itself by destroying falsifiability, as Anton Zeilinger has commented:

[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature.[7]

 

[jedishrfu]

And there's this article in Frontiers in Physics:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full

and this arxiv paper by Sabine Hossenfelder and TN Palmer

https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462

and lastly, Sabine's blog post on it:

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-forgotten-solution-superdeterminism.html

 

[martinbn]

It's much more than this. It has to correlate things according to QM rules, which no amount of determinism can possibly achieve.

Why not if you have a very finely tuned initial state.

 

[user30]

Why not if you have a very finely tuned initial state.

Well for starters, super determinism is superflous to the every day science conducted that presumes determinism (reproducibility). So why would it be part and parcel of Quantum Mechanics? If your only reason to insert it is to resolve Quantum Mechanics, then it's arbitrary and no more plausible than a theory of divine planning. If you can however derive superdeterminism at large, then we can start talking.

Is there anything you observe outside of Quantum Mechanics that cries out for a superdeterministic theory of everything?