Closing the Superdeterminism Loophole?

In summary: He should try harder.In summary, most physicists reject superdeterminism because it does not make sense based on what we know about the universe.
  • #36
Nullstein said:
It doesn't suffice to just claim that. You'd have to put forward a well-defined theory and derive your claims from it. Then one can study it and see whether it additionally answers some yet unexplained phenomena. If it doesn't, one would reject it according to Occams razor. If it does, it might be worth studying more deeply, because it seems to have more predictive power than the previous theory.
And why does that not apply to Hossenfelder's SD?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
PeroK said:
And why does that not apply to Hossenfelder's SD?
It does. And it also applies to the MWI. The MWI adds no predictive power at all to QM. (And of course neither does any other QM interpretation, so the same applies to all of them.)
 
  • #38
PeroK said:
And why does that not apply to Hossenfelder's SD?
It does. She doesn't have a proper theory yet, in my opinion and I don't expect any progress soon. However, I think that trying to make progress in that direction isn't apriori a bad idea, especially given the fact that the alternative, non-locality, is also a quite undesirable feature. (In general, I'm not really convinced by hidden variable theories in the first place, but if people want to study them, why not. The really interesting question is: What research should receive funding?)
 
  • #39
Nullstein said:
It does. She doesn't have a proper theory yet, in my opinion and I don't expect any progress soon.
That's no better than me, then! This is ridiculous.
 
  • #40
PeroK said:
That's no better than me, then! This is ridiculous.
Well, we had a lot of funding in string theory for quite a few decades now without getting any testable predictions. In my opinion, it can't hurt to spend a little money on a few people studying some unpopular approaches. Keep in mind that QM is a very peculiar theory to begin with and no proposed interpretation is really satisfactory so far.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
  • #41
The thing which is interesting about the debate, to me, is that even though superdeterminism does seem way too far fetched for me in the end, Sabine still appears to win most of her arguments through technicalities. And it is very hard for her detractors to go beyond the word "seems". If nothing else, Sabine has pressured people to attempt to think more precisely.

An example is the fine tuning argument, which is used very frequently. We all seem to have some intuitive understanding of what that argument is, and most of us accept it, but nobody (at least in the discussions I've read through) is able to precisely state the argument in a logically valid form.

One of my favorite comments on Aaronson's blog is from Atai,

Atai said:
I would really like to understand what you are arguing for because history shows that quantum mechanics confuses the hell out of very smart people and one can never be certain one is not on the confused side on any given argument. I hope we can mutually engage here within the context of this attitude…

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215

Scott and the others who are very confident of the absolute absurdity of SD may well be on the not-confused side in this case (they seem to be right). But for me, I can't take that for granted simply because I personally don't know enough to be sure there are no faulty assumptions, jumps of logic, mistakes, or simply cases where intuition has mislead us in surprising ways, that have been overlooked somewhere along the line. The point is, when I hear from Aaronson, I want precise arguments that get to the details and clarify, not just reiteration of poorly formulated arguments, or "Just trust me ...".

Another comment on the blog I liked is from Steven Evans,

Steven Evans said:
Also, there is a real problem here, and thinking about a real problem may lead to some insight even if the original idea doesn’t prove correct. Unlike, for example, completely random speculation about fine-tuning and multiverses which aren’t known to mean anything even.
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215
 
  • Like
Likes Lynch101 and gentzen
  • #42
What exactly is meant by "the initial conditions" in SD? It needs a first moment of time. But there isn't one in the standard cosmological model!
 

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
10
Replies
333
Views
12K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
97
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Replies
75
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
25
Replies
874
Views
32K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
6
Replies
175
Views
7K
Back
Top