- #71
Aidyan
- 180
- 13
I'm sick of seeing these permanent and stubborn attempts trying to recover the anthropocentric classical determinism and local realism.
It seems that most arguments pretending to recover realism and locality by refuting Bell's theorem fall mainly in two categories:Aidyan said:I'm sick of seeing these permanent and stubborn attempts trying to recover the anthropocentric classical determinism and local realism.
facenian said:It seems that most arguments pretending to recover realism and locality by refuting Bell's theorem fall mainly in two categories:
1_ Those which are simply wrong from a logical and interpretacional point of view
2_ Those resorting to very implausible arguments such as superdermism
I think the correct word would be "irrelevant". "Whatever happens ... happens" is not a useful statement in science. It maybe a valid logical one, but one that everybody that wants to make science will ignore ... by design.ueit said:Why do you think superdeterminism is implausible?
mattt said:It is not that Superdeterminism is "impossible", it is just that, it is so "ad hoc" that it really explains NOTHING (and of course it predicts nothing in general, so, it is mostly useless).
And yes, I know t'Hooft is working on a Superdeterminism model of Physics, but still...
I agree, I feel it is similar to discussing God's existence in scientific termsmattt said:It is not that Superdeterminism is "impossible", it is just that, it is so "ad hoc" that it really explains NOTHING (and of course it predicts nothing in general, so, it is mostly useless).
mattt said:It is not that Superdeterminism is "impossible", it is just that, it is so "ad hoc" that it really explains NOTHING (and of course it predicts nothing in general, so, it is mostly useless).
And yes, I know t'Hooft is working on a Superdeterminism model of Physics, but still...
stevendaryl said:Actually, superdeterminism is not a theory, it's a feature of a theory. And as far as I know, there is no plausible theory that has that feature.
ueit said:Please see my above post. Pretty much all field theories have that feature ('t Hooft's CA interpretation is an example of a discrete field theory).
ueit said:A minimalist version of superdeterminism only requires a denial of statistical independence assumption between detector settings and the spins of emitted particles. In order for this assumption to fail it is enough to show that some physical states of the detectors are incompatible with some physical states of the particle source. Take any mainstream field theory, like classical EM and write down the states. For this particular example the states will contain position and momenta of all charged particles inside the detectors and source (electrons and nuclei, or quarks if you like) as well as magnetic and electric field vectors. It is obvious that most states will not be compatible (like a net positive charge at detector A and a null electric field at the source) so the statistical independence assumption fails. Can you point out any ad-hoc assumption in the above argument?
stevendaryl said:I'm not sure who you're talking to, but I disagree with both of these assertions. As I said, superdeterminism is a feature of a theory, it's not a theory. A superdeterministic theory might very well be testable and useful. But we don't currently have an example of one.
I actually don't think that t'Hooft's automata is a definitive example. He hasn't shown that such automata can plausibly reproduce EPR-type experiments.
One post was removed for a rules violation; and then the posts replying to it, including one of yours, were removed because they no longer had any context. You should have received an alert telling you this happened (if you didn't, it's because I accidentally didn't check the box to make that happen, and I apologize).mattt said:Ummm, some messages have suddenly dissappeared, what happened?
Yes. That's not a problem.mattt said:Ah, no problem, I was just curious. But...is it allowed here to talk about Superdeterminism anyway?
mattt said:I was responding to ueit, but now I am interested in your position.
Do you think we are ever going to find a Superdeterministic model that can actually predict, for example, our choices about instrumental settings?
It is not impossible in principle, but I highly doubt it.
mattt said:I was responding to ueit, but now I am interested in your position.
Do you think we are ever going to find a Superdeterministic model that can actually predict, for example, our choices about instrumental settings?
It is not impossible in principle, but I highly doubt it.
Superdeterminism is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics that suggests that all events and outcomes in the universe are predetermined and cannot be altered by human actions or choices.
Superdeterminism proposes that there are hidden variables that determine the outcomes of quantum events, rather than the randomness and uncertainty described by traditional quantum mechanics. These hidden variables are predetermined and cannot be influenced by human actions.
Currently, there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of superdeterminism. It is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics and has not been proven or disproven by empirical data.
One major criticism of superdeterminism is that it goes against the principle of free will, as it suggests that all events and outcomes are predetermined and cannot be altered by human choices. Additionally, it has not been able to provide a clear explanation for certain quantum phenomena, such as entanglement.
As of now, there is no known way to test for superdeterminism. It is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics and does not make any specific predictions that can be tested through experiments. However, some scientists are working on developing experiments that could potentially provide evidence for or against superdeterminism.