Does superdeterminism undermine the scientific method?

[wittgenstein]

TL;DR Summary

I think superdeterminism does not.

Anton Zeilinger, wrote, " "We 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"

So, a computer that has no free will cannot solve problems? Why can't we lack free will and figure out things? If one objects by saying that our free will created the computer that argument also applies to our brain. Our brain was created by evolution not conscious reasoning.

I understand the objection that if our thoughts are determined they cannot be rational, but I see no reason to think that. If our thoughts are not determined how can that be called free will. That is just randomness. Also, to say that there is no reason something happened (free will) seems to me the opposite of science. Is Zeilinger the core of the objection to superdeterminism? If so the objection seems silly to me. Is there a deeper and more profound objection?

If that is the only reason superdeterminism is rejected by modern physics then superdeterminism should not be rejected. Is there another reason?

 

[wittgenstein]

Order can arise from disorder. https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm#:~:text=Other%20examples%20of%20natural%20processes%20that%20produce%20order,act%20of%20creation%20of%20a%20linked%2C%20stable%20structure.

 

[wittgenstein]

In other words from the initial conditions at the big bang order and information can evolve. Do those that endorse a information belief about matter also believe in God (that a free will conscious being is required)? Probably not but they would be inconsistent if like Zeilinger they require free will for information to exist because free will requires consciousness.

 

[wittgenstein]

IMHO The rejection of superdeterminism implies an embrace of supernatural (beyond materialism) consciousness.

 

[kith]

I don't think you need to get this metaphysical to see the problem with superdeterminism.

The choices of the experimentalist can indeed be outsourced: Alice and Bob might let dice or even cosmic rays decide which angles to use in a Bell test. For local realistic theories, Bell's theorem predicts that Bell's inequality holds if the angle settings of Alice and Bob are uncorrelated. Observed is a violation of Bell's inequality. So the angle settings and therefor the dice or cosmic rays of two arbitrarily distant places need to be correlated in a very peculiar way.

 

[Jarvis323]

In other words from the initial conditions at the big bang order and information can evolve. Do those that endorse a information belief about matter also believe in God (that a free will conscious being is required)? Probably not but they would be inconsistent if like Zeilinger they require free will for information to exist because free will requires consciousness.

You should make an effort to understand the difference between superdeterminism and determinism. Everything could be deterministic without superdeterminism.

In my view, superdeterminism actually would very strongly suggest the universe was designed by an omnipotent supernatural being. And one that had a special interest in messing with us by fixing our measurement outcomes in a misleading way. It would be hard to fathom superdeterminism explaining the violation of Bell's inequality otherwise.

Zellinger's opinion is a person philosophical one. The idea is that if our universe was organized by a God that has specifically made an effort to fool us by fixing our scientific measurements in such particular ways, then of course our scientific results would be open to question because everything we do could be have been rigged from the start by a higher power.

 

[CoolMint]

The shadows in Plato's cave

 

[wittgenstein]

Please explain where I am misunderstanding. Is it that the Zeilinger quote is taken out of context? He seems to be saying that rationality requires free will. That is obviously not true. If it were true computers ( since they lack free will ) would be incapable of performing logical operations. Is he saying that according to superdeterminism we would have to know the outcome of an experiment before we performed it? That is obviously absurd. I am grateful for your time. I really want to understand this.

 

[wittgenstein]

I mean that since knowing the outcome of an experiment before we perform it is obviously absurd superdeterminism is obviously absurd. Is that the argument against superdeterminism?

 

[wittgenstein]

I read this, "The problem with Superdeterminism from the perspective of most physicists is that it seems to invalidate the process of science itself. That is, if the scientists’ own thoughts, ideas, and judgments are just as determined as the behavior of inanimate matter, then science itself has no claim to seek or find the truth."
Is that the objection to superdeterminism? If so it is silly. What is the real reason for rejecting superdeterminism?

 

[StevieTNZ]

I read this, "The problem with Superdeterminism from the perspective of most physicists is that it seems to invalidate the process of science itself. That is, if the scientists’ own thoughts, ideas, and judgments are just as determined as the behavior of inanimate matter, then science itself has no claim to seek or find the truth."
Is that the objection to superdeterminism? If so it is silly. What is the real reason for rejecting superdeterminism?

You really need to provide references.

 

[Jarvis323]

I mean that since knowing the outcome of an experiment before we perform it is obviously absurd superdeterminism is obviously absurd. Is that the argument against superdeterminism?

No, but super-determinism is believed by some to be equivalent on some level to a deterministic retro-causal interpretation, in where future events are causes for past events. Actually, the time-travel interpretation is considered by many to still be more plausible than super-determinism.

 

[wittgenstein]

What is the objection to superdeterminism? Is it that scientists think that if we are determined by natural laws, we cannot discover natural laws? That makes no sense. Free will and logic are not related.

 

[Fra]

From a pragmatic perspective, the problem I see with "superdeterminism" is that it's a fictional causal mechanism that does not provides no explanatory value not decison guidance for a real agent. For this to have any value, the causal rules must be known and computable in timely manners, and the complete initial values must be know with perfect precison. This is not how "learning" proceeds.

/Fredrik

 

[wittgenstein]

Here is that source. Is it what physicists really think? I doubt it because that is silly. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/does-superdeterminism-resolve-dilemmas-around-free-will/

 

[wittgenstein]

If that is what physicists really think (I STRONGLY DOUBT THAT) they are implying that we are beyond natural laws and in a sense a supernatural entity.

 

[wittgenstein]

I really cannot believe that anyone thinks that if we are determined by natural laws, we cannot be rational.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am probably misunderstanding the Zeilinger quote but it seems to imply that science must be based on something outside of nature. I strongly disagree with that conclusion.

 

[wittgenstein]

You guys are much more informed than I so bear with me. I have concentrated on that Zeilinger quote. Is he saying what I think he is saying? That we cannot be a part of nature if we understand nature? That is silly. Here is that quote again, "We 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" OK so our thinking cannot come from nature, our brains. That seems way too mystical for me.

 

[wittgenstein]

Zeilinger is obviously not a serious objection to superdeterminism. I need help to understand the actual objection to superdeterminism. Let's use the worst possible scenario, at the big bang was total chaos. Can realistic and rational thinking evolve out of that? I say yes. I believe in evolution and that order can come from chaos thru a totally natural process. Does rational realistic thinking require something outside nature? I do not think so. But are the demands of superdeterminism more than that? Does superdeterminism require something unreasonable?

 

[wittgenstein]

To accept Zeilinger's objection is to believe that we are outside nature, and our thinking is not caused by our brains (a biological and natural organ). I find that too mystical. I want science not Zeilinger's metaphysics.

 

[wittgenstein]

No, but super-determinism is believed by some to be equivalent on some level to a deterministic retro-causal interpretation, in where future events are causes for past events. Actually, the time-travel interpretation is considered by many to still be more plausible than super-determinism.

Why does it have to be retro-causal? I am more advanced than the one celled organism that began life on earth. Does that mean that the one celled organism is a more advanced life form than me because everything I am evolved from it?

 

[Fra]

To accept Zeilinger's objection is to believe that we are outside nature, and our thinking is not caused by our brains (a biological and natural organ). I find that too mystical. I want science not Zeilinger's metaphysics.

I think I see your issue!. It touches upon the philosophy of science and some interpretation of foundations of physical law, people may view this differently, but I think one problem in Zeilingers scentence is this...

"then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature"

I think the solution to the confusion is to see that there is no, and need not be any, objective answer to what is the "true picture of nature". Nature may very wel be simply a game of interacting pictures. All that can be checked, is wether they are in tune with each other, and that mates well with evolutionary ideas. No need or mystics or outside nature.

I think the confusion from our simplistic understanding of the nature of law, knowledge and truth.

IMO, this is related to this

Precedence and freedom in quantum physics​

"A new interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed according to which precedence, freedom and novelty play central roles. This is based on a modification of the postulates for quantum theory given by Masanes and Muller. We argue that quantum mechanics is uniquely characterized as the probabilistic theory in which individual systems have maximal freedom in their responses to experiment, given reasonable axioms for the behavior of probabilities in a physical theory. Thus, to the extent that quantum systems are free, in the sense of Conway and Kochen, there is a sense in which they are maximally free.
We also propose that laws of quantum evolution arise from a principle of precedence, according to which the outcome of a measurement on a quantum system is selected randomly from the ensemble of outcomes of previous instances of the same measurement on the same quantum system. This implies that dynamical laws for quantum systems can evolve as the universe evolves, because new precedents are generated by the formation of new entangled states.
"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3707

/Fredrik

 

[wittgenstein]

The question that torments me is if superdeterminism is true (yes that is a big "IF" but let's take that as a provisional assumption) what consequences are outrageously unreasonable? That we have no free will? Most reasonable people think our thoughts are determined and if they are not determined that is randomness not free will). Free will is a very mystical concept. That science is impossible without free will? As I proved that is silly. I have a feeling that there is a serious objection to superdeterminism . I am not saying that it has not been mentioned. I just need more details to understand that objection.

 

[Fra]

For me superdeterminism is an extrinsic concept which seems noninferrable for a real observer. Thus it is fictional and not obasrvable. To say its wrong would be as weird as to i. Even if it was true, i see no reason why it couldn't give the illusion of free will. But it would not have any constructive value as i see it. I also for that reason think its the wrong way to understand causation. Its like to say that there is a hidden rule (which is unknown and likely not computable) that would predict things. That is clearly an answer to the wrong question.

/Fredrik

 

[wittgenstein]

The initial condition of the universe did not conspire to create us or the current state of the universe. That is a misunderstanding of the anthropic argument. By analogy my parents did not conspire to create me and all my characteristics. Similarly, someone that wins the lottery cannot say that the universe conspired to make him win. There is no need for retro causality!

 

[kurt101]

Here is Sabine Hossenfelder's video in support of superdeterminism:

 

[wittgenstein]

I agree with her! What I am asking for is a real reason (Not Zellinger's mysticism) that superdeterminism is wrong.

 

[PeterDonis]

What I am asking for is a real reason (Not Zellinger's mysticism) that superdeterminism is wrong.

You can't prove that superdeterminism is wrong, any more than you can prove that it is right. Which one you prefer is up to you, but it's just a personal preference.

 

[PeroK]

You can't prove that superdeterminism is wrong, any more than you can prove that it is right. Which one you prefer is up to you, but it's just a personal preference.

That's what the superdeterminists would have you believe: that they have an irrefutable theory that has as much scientific validity as any other.

The main issue, I believe, is what happens if we accept SD and ask what we do next? Let's do all science from now on assuming SD is correct. There is nothing to do. There is no substance behind the theory - not even a hint of how the laws of physics actually work. SD is indistinguishable from believing that everything is controlled by an unknowable and capricious deity. And, therefore, SD is (IMO) fundamentally anti-scientific. At best it's pseudo-science.

Moreover, for a superdeterminist, there is no hard scientific work to be done. Hossenfelder has a paper where she plays about with a few concepts from QM and some statistics. But, it's no more than that. It bears no relation to the hard science and complex experiments that underpin conventional physics - such as the muon anomaly saga.

Everything, of course, is personal choice. Creationism, flat-Earth, solipsism, superdeterminism. But, these are not scientific choices. These are a personal choice to abandon science.

 

[PeterDonis]

That's what the superdeterminists would have you believe: that they have an irrefutable theory that has as much scientific validity as any other.

Something that is just a personal preference is not a theory. A theory makes testable predictions. So if they are claiming it's a theory, I would say they are incorrect.

Everything, of course, is personal choice.

I didn't say personal choice. I said personal preference. As contrasted with a theory that actually makes testable predictions. Of course you can ignore testable predictions that have been tested and found to be true (or false), as creationists, flat earthers, etc. do), but that's not the kind of "personal preference" I was talking about.

Let's do all science from now on assuming SD is correct. There is nothing to do.

But no superdeterminists actually do this. Sabine Hossenfelder hasn't stopped doing science because she believes superdeterminism is correct. You might not think she is doing "hard scientific work", but from your description I would say most theoretical (as opposed to experimental) physics is not "hard scientific work" by your criterion.

 

[PeterDonis]

That's what the superdeterminists would have you believe: that they have an irrefutable theory that has as much scientific validity as any other.

Note, btw, that in the post of mine that you were responding to here, I was not responding to superdeterminists; I was responding to the OP, who was asking for a "real reason" to believe that superdeterminism is wrong. Since superdeterminism makes no testable predictions, there isn't one. That was my point.

 

[WernerQH]

If that is the only reason superdeterminism is rejected by modern physics then superdeterminism should not be rejected. Is there another reason?

Sabine Hossenfelder argued that there is no evidence for the statistical independence "assumption". She might as well have said that there is no evidence for probability theory. Common sense demands an explanation for correlations, not for their absence. Superdeterminists claim a special license to disregard probability if they dislike the results. It is logically possible to eschew probability theory, but it means giving up most of science.

Free will is a bit of a red herring. (It's a meaningful concept, but not in physics.) One could base the settings in Bell-type experiments on a play by Shakespeare, or on Bach's music. The experiments would involve rather long causal chains, and superdeterminists haven't explained why deviations from statistical independence would have to be taken into account in this case, but can be ignored in drug trials, for example. Hossenfelder offers only a rather vague criterion that the effects show up only in the "quantum world"; obviously she doesn't want to jettison probability theory altogether.

Superdeterminism is an attempt at restoring locality and determinism to the description of one single class of experiments. But it fails badly with respect to locality, because in principle one would have to consider possible correlations of any experiment with the entire universe. In my view it makes more sense to give up locality and determinism, which are preconceptions firmly rooted in classical physics.

 

[PeroK]

Note, btw, that in the post of mine that you were responding to here, I was not responding to superdeterminists; I was responding to the OP, who was asking for a "real reason" to believe that superdeterminism is wrong. Since superdeterminism makes no testable predictions, there isn't one. That was my point.

Hossenfelder has written a paper where she claims (among other things) that SD is not an interpretation of QM and if enough effort went into SD research (!), then a new theory would emerge with testable predictions.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01324.pdf

To be fair to her, she is not trying to hide behind an unchallengeable theory that is impossible to test and cannot be disproved by definition.

 

[PeterDonis]

To be fair to her, she is not trying to hide behind an unchallengeable theory that is impossible to test and cannot be disproved by definition.

I agree she is not trying to, since she says that if enough effort were put into research in this area, it would result in a new theory with testable predictions. But that's an "if". Unless and until the "if" gets realized, the claimed new theory with testable predictions does not exist.