Does entanglement violate special relativity?

[Unredeemed]

In this months edition of Scientific American, the main article is on how entanglement violates Special Relativity as it allows for the seemingly instantaneous transmission of information (which spin the other particle has etc.). I asked my physics teacher about this and he said that he did not think this to be a violation of Special Relativity as he didn't see at as being the transmission of information but as the resolution of an uncertainty. I was wondering if anyone could help and shed some light on this for me?

Thanks!

 

[mgb_phys]

The simple answer is that since you can't choose which state your observe particle collapses into you have no control on what the state of the other particle would be - so no transfer of information.
It's like putting a black and a white ball into two separate boxes, posting one to your friend in Australia - when you open yours you know what the colour of his ball is instantly but you can't use this to send him a message

 

[Unredeemed]

The simple answer is that since you can't choose which state your observe particle collapses into you have no control on what the state of the other particle would be - so no transfer of information.
It's like putting a black and a white ball into two separate boxes, posting one to your friend in Australia - when you open yours you know what the colour of his ball is instantly but you can't use this to send him a message

But with that analogy both balls always had one definite colour, we just didn't know what it was. I thought the point of entanglement is that the particles themselves don't "know" what their spin is going to be before it is measured? If this is so, then by measuring one we actually affect the other and, therefore, is this not a transmission of information?

 

[mgb_phys]

I thought the point of entanglement is that the particles themselves don't "know" what their spin is going to be before it is measured? If this is so, then by measuring one we actually affect the other and, therefore, is this not a transmission of information?

They are allowed to affect each other instantly - there is no rule against that.
Information has a very specific meaning in relativity - sending a random value that you can't influence isn't information.

 

[Unredeemed]

They are allowed to affect each other instantly - there is no rule against that.
Information has a very specific meaning in relativity - sending a random value that you can't influence isn't information.

What does relativity define information as then?

 

[nikman]

They are allowed to affect each other instantly - there is no rule against that.
Information has a very specific meaning in relativity - sending a random value that you can't influence isn't information.

You can say "what so-called information are you talking about that could conceivably be transferred?" because all our models of Information are classical. Even in quantum computation you have to collapse the qubit by measuring it and then settle for a "0" or "1" classical output. It's essentially incoherent to talk about "quantum information" or what's "inside" a superposed particle. Nobody knows and it's conceivable that nobody ever will.

That said, there's increasing talk about possible conflict between "spooky action" and SR and the discussion's not going to stop. If all you knew about two entangled particles was what we can imagine them "knowing about themselves" you might not think of them as physically separated, even though the distance between them could measure billions of miles. Two or more entangled particles are a unitary physical system, just as though they were buckets of water interconnected by pipes. But neat though that might sound we still need to deal with the fact that in spacetime terms the distances between the entangled particles measure as the distances between them measure.

A physicist for whom I have enormous respect, Anton Zeilinger at the IQOQI (Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information) affiliated with the University of Vienna, flat-out describes entanglement as an effect operating "outside of time and space." He can get away with that because he's Anton Zeilinger. All I dare do is quote him. How exactly does that outside-of-spacetime operation operate? No answer yet. Would it avoid contradicting SR? Well, Relativity is a description of Space-Time-Gravitation, not of whatever might lie outside of Space-Time-Gravitation. So presumably it could avoid a contradiction.

 

[StatusX]

As has been pointed out, it's impossible to use an entangled pair to send any information. To elaborate a little, the point is that you can only make one measurement, and a single measurement tells you very little about a state. For example, if you measure the spin of an electron to be up, then you only know that it's not in the spin down eigenstate. On the other hand, if you do a bunch of repeated measurements on electrons all prepared in the same state, and get spin up every time, it's a good bet the state is at least approximately equal to the spin up eigenstate.

Turning back to the original scenario, let's say two particle are entangled so that they have opposite spins: if one is up, the other is down. These are sent off to obserers A and B. Then A will try to send a message to B, say an answer to a yes or no question, by the following scheme:

1. If he wants to send yes, he should measure the electron, collapsing its state.
2. If he wants to send no, he should not measure it, leaving it in a superposition.

Now if B measures his electron, let's say he finds it to be spin up. What does this mean? Well, either A wanted to send yes, and measured his electron to be spin down, or he wanted to send no, and B was the one who collapsed the state. These are equally likely, so there's no way for B to know what A did, and so no information is sent.

On the other hand, let's say B could copy the state of his electron into the states of many other electrons (ie, so that all the electrons have the same state as the original), and measure all of their spins. If he found them all to be spin up (or all spin down), he'd be reasonably sure A collapsed the state, and so wanted to send yes. If the distribution is 50/50 spin up and spin down, he'd know the state was not collapsed, and so the message is no.

Thus if it was possible to copy states, it would be possible to send information faster than light. Luckily, there's a theorem called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem" which says it's not possible to copy states in this way. The proof of this uses simple linear algebra. It's interesting that such a simple, and seemingly unrelated, mathematical property of quantum mechanics is crucial to the consistency of quantum mechanics with special relativity.

 

[lightarrow]

What amazes me of that article by David Albert in Scientific American is how categorically he dismiss locality: "...And so the actual physical world is nonlocal. Period."

Did anyone had a look on this, instead? :
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604064

 

[debra]

The underlying reason for the special relativity constraint is that 'cause and effect' cannot be violated. i.e. the effect cannot be allowed to happen before the cause. This principle results in Lorentz, and its not fundamentally the speed of light at issue but speed of information travel. The speed of gravity information travel must be the same.


State correlation between entangled particles is not a cause followed by an effect, so there is no 'speed of travel' involved at all.

 

[p764rds]

The underlying reason for the special relativity constraint is that 'cause and effect' cannot be violated. i.e. the effect cannot be allowed to happen before the cause. This principle results in Lorentz, and its not fundamentally the speed of light at issue but speed of information travel. The speed of gravity information travel must be the same.


State correlation between entangled particles is not a cause followed by an effect, so there is no 'speed of travel' involved at all.

Lets think of it in terms of information. 3 D space is given by information stored in data (3D space does not actually exist in the normal human-sense, its actually information) and held in the so-called 'information space', then correlating spin entanglement needs not much - 1 bit that both particles point to (and held in the same information space that gives the illusion of 3Space). There is no problem with separation in 3D then, because they 'exist' in information space and there is no physical separation in that space.

Note SR would be required result in information space processing too, else it would not work - as you said - cause and effect would be wrong. Such a field model requires SR to work.

 

[feynmann]

But with that analogy both balls always had one definite colour, we just didn't know what it was. I thought the point of entanglement is that the particles themselves don't "know" what their spin is going to be before it is measured? If this is so, then by measuring one we actually affect the other and, therefore, is this not a transmission of information?

No, that's not transmission of information.
The transmission of information always involved in transfer of energy
Can you transmit information without transfer of energy, e.g. wireless communication?

 

[Fredrik]

If this is so, then by measuring one we actually affect the other and, therefore, is this not a transmission of information?

The effect is instantaneous, but the only thing directly affected at the other end is something unmeasurable (the wave function). That's why you can't send FTL messages this way.

If you want to prove me wrong (or just understand this better), I suggest that you try to design a thought experiment in which Alice can (in principle) send an instantaneous 1-bit message to Bob, for example to let him know the result of a coin flip she just did.

 

[Slashbe]

I only recently learned of quantum entanglement. My first reaction was that this seemingly instantaneous transmission of data was actually in fact instantaneous.

I understand that by believing the above, I am believing in an action that violates SR. However, I looked at this situation like this:

As you approach the speed of light time slows down. I assumed that if you were to *ever* achieve the speed of light then time would therefore stop. Now to me, time = movement. If there is no time there is no movement. So I assumed that to the two particles that are traveling at the speed of light, although from our perspective are light years apart, to them, since they are moving at the speed of light, are right where they started out, that is, close enough to each other so that the transmission of data doesn't violate SR as the distance between the two particles, in their view, is minimal.

I'm sure I've just confused the ever loving heck out of everyone. But that's how I viewed quantum entanglement.

 

[Fredrik]

I only recently learned of quantum entanglement. My first reaction was that this seemingly instantaneous transmission of data was actually in fact instantaneous.

It's instantaneous, but there's no transmission of data.

I assumed that if you were to *ever* achieve the speed of light then time would therefore stop.

Massive particles can't reach the speed of light, but they can get arbitrarily close.

So I assumed that to the two particles that are traveling at the speed of light, although from our perspective are light years apart, to them, since they are moving at the speed of light, are right where they started out, that is, close enough to each other so that the transmission of data doesn't violate SR as the distance between the two particles, in their view, is minimal.

The entangled particles aren't moving at all. I mean, they can be, but that would only make the experiment unnecessarily complicated. The typical scenario that's considered in discussions about entanglement involves two particles with the same velocity.

 

[p764rds]

It's instantaneous, but there's no transmission of data.


Massive particles can't reach the speed of light, but they can get arbitrarily close.

Information has no intrinsic mass, but if it were possible for information (eg a series of 1s and 0s) to be massless it would still be limited by special relativity and the Lorentz.

Why? Because otherwise it could violate cause and effect, and that is the determing factor - (not energy directly).

ps
Quantum States pass as information very well and have no mass per se - but they could not be 'transmitted' FTL.

 

[Demystifier]

What amazes me of that article by David Albert in Scientific American is how categorically he dismiss locality: "...And so the actual physical world is nonlocal. Period."

Did anyone had a look on this, instead? :
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604064

I don't think that a reinterpretation of QM can make it local:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0703071
Essentially, since no interpretation can remove nonlocal elements of the theory (such as wave functions in the configuration space or something equivalent), the theory should be considered nonlocal, irrespective of its interpretation.

 

[Demystifier]

The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is: Not necessarily.
Namely, even if information is transmitted locally, it is still possible that special relativity is obeyed. Special relativity, by itself, does NOT say that information cannot exceed the velocity of light. All it says is that the laws of physics should not depend on the Lorentz frame of coordinates.
Here is one possibility how can QM be made explicitly nonlocal (with superluminal transmition of information) without violating special relativity:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.1905 [accepted for publication in Int. J. Quantum Inf.]

 

[ueit]

Here is one possibility how can QM be made explicitly nonlocal (with superluminal transmition of information) without violating special relativity:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.1905 [accepted for publication in Int. J. Quantum Inf.]

My question is somehow off-topic but I am really curious if the particle trajectories retain their objectivity in the relativistic form of BM you describe in the paper. Are they uniquely defined for any observer? I remember reading one paper in which it was claimed that this is not the case.

 

[Isaac_Newton]

My question is somehow off-topic but I am really curious if the particle trajectories retain their objectivity in the relativistic form of BM you describe in the paper. Are they uniquely defined for any observer? I remember reading one paper in which it was claimed that this is not the case.

Its a fudge that gives the spurious pilot wave credibility. I prefer the little fairy that travels backwards in time meets complex i, makes time an operator which it isn't really and kindly makes everything OK after squaring and adding.

 

[DrChinese]

... I prefer the little fairy that travels backwards in time ...

...Which has the advantage (if that is important to you) that all apparently non-local effects are explained with complete respect of relativity (making +/- c the "universal" speed limit).

 

[lightarrow]

I don't think that a reinterpretation of QM can make it local:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0703071
Essentially, since no interpretation can remove nonlocal elements of the theory (such as wave functions in the configuration space or something equivalent), the theory should be considered nonlocal, irrespective of its interpretation.

And what do you think about realism? Do you think it's necessary to keep it?

 

[Demystifier]

My question is somehow off-topic but I am really curious if the particle trajectories retain their objectivity in the relativistic form of BM you describe in the paper. Are they uniquely defined for any observer? I remember reading one paper in which it was claimed that this is not the case.

Particle trajectories are not unique, in the sense that they depend on the choice of initial conditions. But once these initial conditions are chosen, the trajectories do not depend on the observer.

 

[Demystifier]

And what do you think about realism? Do you think it's necessary to keep it?

Personally, I certainly prefer realism. Still, I do not have a proof that it is really necessary to keep it. Hence, I am slightly open for non-realism as well.

 

[Demystifier]

Its a fudge that gives the spurious pilot wave credibility. I prefer the little fairy that travels backwards in time meets complex i, makes time an operator which it isn't really and kindly makes everything OK after squaring and adding.

If I would answer in your style, I would say that I prefer that nothing exists at all, because everything is only in our minds, which do not exist as well. This makes quantum mechanics perfectly consistent with relativity, because those also do not exist. Such an explanation is certainly much more convincing than pilot waves and fairyes, isn't it?

 

[Demystifier]

...Which has the advantage (if that is important to you) that all apparently non-local effects are explained with complete respect of relativity (making +/- c the "universal" speed limit).

A disadvantage of this approach is that nobody has yet been able to write a simple mathematically formulated theory of fairyes that agrees with existing experiments.

Another disadvantage is the following: Nobody ever detected fairyes. On the other hand, particles, whenever detected, are detected as very small objects. Bohmian mechanics says that they indeed allways ARE very small objects. Standard quantum mechanics says that single particles may also manifest as big objects (for example when their momentum is measured), but nobody ever detected a single particle as a big object.

 

[Isaac_Newton]

If I would answer in your style, I would say that I prefer that nothing exists at all, because everything is only in our minds, which do not exist as well. This makes quantum mechanics perfectly consistent with relativity, because those also do not exist. Such an explanation is certainly much more convincing than pilot waves and fairyes, isn't it?

Well, try this: The pilot wave with information travels FTL but cannot implement until the particle arrives a lot later. Place a negative in our maths and affirm that cause and effect is not transgressed and SR is not violated (because the FTL information cannot be used) An appropriate minus is all you need. Of course, another nearby particles are not allowed to use the FTL information in the pilot wave because that would really mess up cause and effect and sr permanently.

Anyone reading this thread will realize that Demystifier is a true Mystifier of the type that holds up Physics waiting for him to be recognised. So carry on muddying the water dearest Mystifier.

 

[Isaac_Newton]

A disadvantage of this approach is that nobody has yet been able to write a simple mathematically formulated theory of fairyes that agrees with existing experiments.

Another disadvantage is the following: Nobody ever detected fairys.

Nobody has ever detected Bohms Pilot Wave either (fairies would be detected before that ever happened)

 

[Demystifier]

The pilot wave with information travels FTL.

No it doesn't. The travel of pilot wave is described by a wave equation (Klein-Gordon, Dirac, ...), which does not allow FTL travel. You clearly don't understand what pilot-wave theory says.

 

[Demystifier]

Nobody has ever detected Bohms Pilot Wave either

That is true. But the pilot wave is the same wave as the wave function in standard QM, described by Schrodinger equation (or its relativistic modification). So nobody ever detected such a wave function either.

 

[Demystifier]

Anyone reading this thread will realize that Demystifier is a true Mystifier of the type that holds up Physics waiting for him to be recognised. So carry on muddying the water dearest Mystifier.

Anyone reading this thread will realize by himself what I am, so they don't need you to tell them your personal opinion.

 

[ZapperZ]

Anyone participating in this thread who does not get back to the main topic and stop the personal attack won't be here for very long.

Zz.

 

[ueit]

I don't think that a reinterpretation of QM can make it local:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0703071
Essentially, since no interpretation can remove nonlocal elements of the theory (such as wave functions in the configuration space or something equivalent), the theory should be considered nonlocal, irrespective of its interpretation.

This is not true. The wave-function could simply describe correlations that are caused locally by other means, in the same way you can synchronize two or more distant clocks, by light-speed communication with a master clock.

 

[Demystifier]

This is not true. The wave-function could simply describe correlations that are caused locally by other means, in the same way you can synchronize two or more distant clocks, by light-speed communication with a master clock.

In principle, you could be right. But the fact is that nobody yet has been successfull to mathematically reformulate QM in a completely local form. The (unproved) conjecture in the paper above states that such a local reformulation is indeed impossible.

 

[fermi]

I don't think that a reinterpretation of QM can make it local:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0703071
Essentially, since no interpretation can remove nonlocal elements of the theory (such as wave functions in the configuration space or something equivalent), the theory should be considered nonlocal, irrespective of its interpretation.

I fully agree, but I have a follow-up question: Unlike QM, the quantum field theory (QFT) bends over backwards to be a "local" theory. In fact, it is unclear how to write down a self-consistent non-local field theory. I have always (implicitly) assumed that QFT was a generalization of QM, and it included QM as a special case for slowly moving particles. Does this really mean then, that QFT does not completely include QM? If so, this would mean that QFT is incomplete since QM's entanglement has been shown to be in agreement with all experiments. Perhaps QFT is also non-local in some subtle way?

 

[ueit]

In principle, you could be right. But the fact is that nobody yet has been successfull to mathematically reformulate QM in a completely local form. The (unproved) conjecture in the paper above states that such a local reformulation is indeed impossible.

What if you choose to reformulate BM so that the trajectory of each particle is a function of only the initial conditions at Big-Bang (wave function + particle distribution)? As these initial conditions can be treated as a constant, you have a formally local theory.

 

[Demystifier]

What if you choose to reformulate BM so that the trajectory of each particle is a function of only the initial conditions at Big-Bang (wave function + particle distribution)? As these initial conditions can be treated as a constant, you have a formally local theory.

Such a local reinterpretation does not make the theory formally local in the sense of formal locality as defined in the paper mentioned above. You still must work with nonlocal wave functions, your (otherwise reasonable) idea does not avoid this.

 

[Demystifier]

... I have a follow-up question: Unlike QM, the quantum field theory (QFT) bends over backwards to be a "local" theory. In fact, it is unclear how to write down a self-consistent non-local field theory. I have always (implicitly) assumed that QFT was a generalization of QM, and it included QM as a special case for slowly moving particles. Does this really mean then, that QFT does not completely include QM? If so, this would mean that QFT is incomplete since QM's entanglement has been shown to be in agreement with all experiments. Perhaps QFT is also non-local in some subtle way?

You misunderstood the origin of nonlocality of quantum theory. QFT is not more local than ordinary QM. They are both local, in the sense that the classical Lagrangians/Hamiltonians (which these theories quantize) describe classically local interactions. But nonlocality emerges from entanglement (which does not have a classical analog), which is equally present in both QM and QFT.

Still, it IS questionable whether QFT includes QM as a special case, but for other reasons.

You can see a more detailed (and pedagogic) discussion of all these aspects of quantum theory in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163 [Found.Phys.37:1563-1611,2007]

 

[Isaac_Newton]

Are we off topic (BM etc)? Entanglement correlation and SR:
a) Its not actually information so it may travel FTL and not violate SR.
b) It is information and does travel FTL but does not violate SR. How?
c) There is nothing that travels from one entangled particle to the other.
d) Its all done in information where there is no space anyway.
e) Anything else?

I am on Twitter (Isaac_Newton) because 2 lines of QM is a good byte sized quantity. Join me.

 

[Demystifier]

Are we off topic (BM etc)? Entanglement correlation and SR:
a) Its not actually information so it may travel FTL and not violate SR.
b) It is information and does travel FTL but does not violate SR. How?
c) There is nothing that travels from one entangled particle to the other.
d) Its all done in information where there is no space anyway.
e) Anything else?

I vote for b). How exactly it happens? We don't know. But I have provided one example how it MIGHT happen. This example demonstrates that it is at least possible. Yes, it is based on pilot-wave theory, and yes you are right that pilot waves are not observed. Yet, it does not imply that pilot waves do not exist. You will say that it is not reasonable to believe that unobserved objects exist, and you may be right. Still, the point is that it IS possible to have FTL and SR at the same time. Many people think that it is simply impossible, so finding a counterexample, even if a very unnatural one, is a valuable result.

Of course, I also feel that this counterexample is also very natural. However, naturalness is not something that can be objectively defined, so let us not discuss the issue of naturalness.

And let us avoid personal attacks, OK?

So, what do YOU vote for?

 

[ueit]

Such a local reinterpretation does not make the theory formally local in the sense of formal locality as defined in the paper mentioned above. You still must work with nonlocal wave functions, your (otherwise reasonable) idea does not avoid this.

The only thing you need is the wave function at Big Bang and particle configuration at Big-Bang. Because BM is a deterministic theory you can calculate anything you want from those two parameters (which can be included as constants into the law of motion). You can describe the trajectory of any particle only as a function of these constants and time. The theory is local.

I would say that no deterministic theory can be proven to be non-local because there exists at least a formulation (only in terms of some initial conditions) that does not require any type of interaction, much less a non-local one. Newtonian gravity is another example.

 

[yossell]

They are allowed to affect each other instantly - there is no rule against that.
Information has a very specific meaning in relativity - sending a random value that you can't influence isn't information.

The first sentence surprises me. It is commonly thought that an absolute notion of simultaneity goes against Special Relativity - but 'instantly' seems to introduce exactly such a notion. Is this wrong?

I can see that it's possible to save the predictions of SR if it turns out that the 'privileged' frame of reference, the one where simultaneity in this frame is identical with this absolute notion of simultaneity, is undetectable - we had better not be able to synchronise distant clocks using these affects that are transmitted 'instantly'. And, indeed, the no signalling theorem shows that we can't. But the collapse postulate, understood as a genuine dynamical law, would not be true in different Lorentz frames.

 

[Dmitry67]

The only thing you need is the wave function at Big Bang and particle configuration at Big-Bang. Because BM is a deterministic theory you can calculate anything you want from those two parameters (which can be included as constants into the law of motion). You can describe the trajectory of any particle only as a function of these constants and time. The theory is local.

The return of Laplace determinism :)
particle configuration at Big-Bang defines what I am going to type right now.
Imagine that it is right. Doesnt it mean that the entropy at Big bang was VERY HIGH, contrary to what we know about it?

 

[ueit]

The return of Laplace determinism :)
particle configuration at Big-Bang defines what I am going to type right now.
Imagine that it is right. Doesnt it mean that the entropy at Big bang was VERY HIGH, contrary to what we know about it?

We don't have a theory capable of describing the Big-Bang, therefore I have no idea what the entropy was back then.

Also, BM in its current form does not account for particle creation, so we cannot go too far with this idea. I wanted only to point out that for a generic deterministic theory it is impossible to prove its non-locality in a mathematically rigorous manner.

P.S.

Do you have a problem with the fact that your actions were predetermined at Big-Bang? Do you prefer them to be randomly chosen?

 

[Dmitry67]

P.S.

Do you have a problem with the fact that your actions were predetermined at Big-Bang? Do you prefer them to be randomly chosen?

As you remember, I am MWI fan, so neither is applicaple to me :)

P.S.
And yes, even CI randomness is better then the Laplace determinism. If everything is predetermined then the TOE looks like
* several TOE equations - 1 page
* Appendix 1: Initial conditions, 10^1000000000 pages :)

 

[ueit]

As you remember, I am MWI fan, so neither is applicaple to me :)

P.S.
And yes, even CI randomness is better then the Laplace determinism. If everything is predetermined then the TOE looks like
* several TOE equations - 1 page
* Appendix 1: Initial conditions, 10^1000000000 pages :)

On what exactly do you base your assumptions that the initial conditions must be so complex?

Isn't MWI in the same situation (but messed up because there is no way to know in which branch you are going to be)?

 

[ueit]

As you remember, I am MWI fan, so neither is applicaple to me :)

P.S.
And yes, even CI randomness is better then the Laplace determinism. If everything is predetermined then the TOE looks like
* several TOE equations - 1 page
* Appendix 1: Initial conditions, 10^1000000000 pages :)

On what exactly do you base your assumption that the initial conditions must be so complex?

Isn't MWI in the same situation (but messed up because there is no way to know in which branch you are going to be)?

 

[Ilja]

I would say that no deterministic theory can be proven to be non-local because there exists at least a formulation (only in terms of some initial conditions) that does not require any type of interaction, much less a non-local one. Newtonian gravity is another example.

The notion of causality makes only sense if you assume independent decisions of experimenters.

Superdeterministic theories (everything has to be computed from initial values) simply have no notion of causality, thus, it makes no sense to talk about locality.

But in deterministic theories you can make sense of causality. It is a property of the evolution equations of the theory.

 

[ueit]

The notion of causality makes only sense if you assume independent decisions of experimenters.

Superdeterministic theories (everything has to be computed from initial values) simply have no notion of causality, thus, it makes no sense to talk about locality.

But in deterministic theories you can make sense of causality. It is a property of the evolution equations of the theory.

A fundamental theory that is deterministic is necessary superdeterministic. A deterministic theory at a fundamental level allowing "independent decisions of experimenters" is logically contradictory, therefore it makes no sense to seriously speak about it.

 

[Dmitry67]

A fundamental theory that is deterministic is necessary superdeterministic.

Wrong
It is true only if you assume (like most people do) "single history" which is not a case in MWI

 

[Dmitry67]

On what exactly do you base your assumption that the initial conditions must be so complex?

Isn't MWI in the same situation (but messed up because there is no way to know in which branch you are going to be)?

No, MWI everything can start from an empty space, for example 0
Then there are fluctuations, you get 01 and 10 branches
In each area of space fluctuations ddmore and more entropy: 0001, 0010, 0101, ... etc.
System becomes more and more complex