Why is superdeterminism not the universally accepted explanation of nonlocality?

[DrChinese]

Thanks for the reply. But you're doing it also. I really don't know what you guys mean by superdeterminism.

The superdeterminism part is simple: it is the new particle properties and physical interactions which need to be added to explain Bell test results. This cannot be done with known currently physical processes within a local realistic setting.

 

[lugita15]

By the way i think you should be focusing more on simply c and d which i presume are next to the measurement devices and thus are far apart so they are the "conspirators", because they causally effect the outcome of the measurements by bumping the measurement device into whatever angle. either way a and d or c and d doesn't matter which you consider to be conspiring. There should be nothing conspiratorial about particle d being able to affect particle c and therefore effect a because in the history of the universe, the 10^10^MILLION (who can say how many?) interactions that have taken place, through causality and info exchange, HAVE PREDETERMINED that particle d was going to effect c and therefore a. you say a and d seemingly have nothing to do with each other. THEY HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER! Simple logical determinism would lead you to the conclusion that d had causal effects on perhaps everything in the universe which ultimately led to the causal outcome of the measurement of a. Not only that but particle d,d1,d2,d3 d infinity not only via cause-effect cause-effect cause-effect...eventually caused c to affect the measurement device for a, but d, d1, d2... caused the experimenters to make the experiment take place in the first place.

Actually, we find experimentally that A has a nonlocal correlation with D, but C does not have any correlation with D. So what you're saying doesn't make much sense.

i don't believe faster than light info transfer will be an issue here as it is not an issue with normal entanglement, because info transferred at the speed of light will always beat instantaneous info transfer to the punch. Sending light in opposite directions i suspect would be solvable by relativity to give the same conclusion.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Obviously the speed of light is finite, so if there were such a thing as instantaneous information transfer then light wouldn't be able to beat it.

dont think of it not particles all knowing about each other, think of it as historical interactions in the universe as spreading a virus to every particle in the entire universe.

its not that every particle knows everything about every other particle. it only knows what has happened to it in the past. but the addition of all current states of particles which are in their current state because of their continuous past history traced back in time will give you the full information in the universe, and having this information, you would be able to predict it. and if you could predict it, that would mean it must be deterministic as a whole. so although we cannot predict the future, and the future isn't predictable, que sera' sera'.

I've told you this several times already, but the conspiratorial part is NOT the mere fact that all the particles in the universe (or their ancestors) interacted in some way or another with each other at some point in the past. The conspiratorial part is that they used the information derived from this interaction to set their initial states in just the right way so as to produce a Bell-type nonlocal correlation. There's lots of possible interactions particles can have; how did they have just the right kind of interaction so that they would get the right kind of initial states? That's what a superdeterministic theory would have to explain if it didn't want to be considered ad hoc.

 

[DrChinese]

...its not that every particle knows everything about every other particle. it only knows what has happened to it in the past. but the addition of all current states of particles which are in their current state because of their continuous past history traced back in time will give you the full information in the universe, and having this information, you would be able to predict it. ...

There is not a scintilla of evidence this is so. Do you not see that you are making up the physics as you go along? This is why I refer to superdeterminism as "ad hoc".

Please note that photons A and D only exist for a short period of time, and have never been in contact with each others' light cones. Yet they are entangled. That entanglement can be made to occur AFTER they cease to exist. (Yes you read this correctly.)

See page 5 especially:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201134

So none of that is contemplated by your version of superdeterminism. Since by your definition, causes must precede effects. Obviously, if I choose to entangle particles that no longer exist, then I am changing the past (which I am in quantum terms).

And if I am correct, in that you are creating an ad hoc theory, I am sure a modification will be forthcoming in an attempt to keep the idea going. Or perhaps you will say uncle, and realize that some additional research on quantum theory would be beneficial to you. There is a lot of fascinating stuff out there!

By the way, we have all been down similar roads at one point or another. No one is picking on you, and we are not foolishly pro free will. I really don't care if there is free will or not, I still have to make the same decisions every morning either way.

 

[kith]

Maybe we should consider another point of view on the "conspiracy".

I'm not sure, if this wording is really a good choice. Seemingly very special initial conditions in other areas are well-known, consider the problem of finetuning. So maybe the "conspiracy" is analogous to the situation there.

If the universe started in a very dense state, it seems probable, that all particles are correlated. And since quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the stability of atoms, the special choice of initial conditions could be explainable by the anthropic principle: a world with only classical correlations would not support life.

 

[lugita15]

Obviously, if I choose to entangle particles that no longer exist, then I am changing the past (which I am in quantum terms).

That characterization of delayed choice experiments is a controversial one that's not agreed on by everyone. In fact, I think there was an old thread where Demystifier set out to show that almost no major interpretation of quantum mechanics would actually interpret delayed choice as changing the past. But yes, I agree that delayed choice poses some thorny issues for deterministic theories.

 

[lugita15]

And since quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the stability of atoms, the special choice of initial conditions could be explainable by the anthropic principle: a world with only classical correlations would not support life.

Entanglement seems to be a relatively rare phenomenon (does it occur in nature at all, except with some nonlinear crystals?), so how important could nonlocal correlations be to life?

 

[DrChinese]

That characterization of delayed choice experiments is a controversial one that's not agreed on by everyone. In fact, I think there was an old thread where Demystifier set out to show that almost no major interpretation of quantum mechanics would actually interpret delayed choice as changing the past. But yes, I agree that delayed choice poses some thorny issues for deterministic theories.

I referred to it in the quantum sense of temporal order, just as you might refer to quantum non-locality. Quantum non-locality is not the same as having physically non-local forces. Of course there are interpretations, such as Bohmiam which we already mentioned, that do not involve retrocausality and in fact are deterministic.

On the other hand, I consider any interpretation in which there are elements of time symmetry or block structure to be retrocausal. The point is, time exhibits a degree of freedom. Any way you look at it, in the experiment cited, the decision to entangle is made after the entangled pair is detected. So whatever you choose to call that, it isn't viable under superdeterminism UNLESS jadrian postulates ever more and more new and exotic features to our universe. Which is I think what we are both saying, the ad hoc nature of the theory never ceases to grow.

 

[DrChinese]

Seemingly very special initial conditions in other areas are well-known, consider the problem of finetuning. So maybe the "conspiracy" is analogous to the situation there.

If the universe started in a very dense state, it seems probable, that all particles are correlated. And since quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the stability of atoms, the special choice of initial conditions could be explainable by the anthropic principle: a world with only classical correlations would not support life.

The reason this is not possible is: there are NO initial conditions that lead to these results! That is the point, you must add new and otherwise hidden physical laws to account for the results. And they can't just be hidden variables, as Bell showed.

No, you must now add physics which explains the experimenter's choice of measurement directions as being part of everything, i.e. themselves part of the initial conditions AND causally connected to the results themselves. We don't have anything in current theory that does that. So you have to make it up as you go along.

So as I devise new and more devious Bell test setups (all perfectly viable), you have to invent new physics.

As to the possibility that all the particles in the universe are correlated or entangled: that is perfectly reasonable. In fact, I would venture a wild guess that the total spin of the universe is precisely zero. That would make everything entangled in some small way. However, that piece of information is worthless when looking at any particular subset of particles, which could have any total spin value. So the point is that the initial condition of zero total spin (or any other value) does NOT in any way explain correlations between particular pairs of particles.

So I wouldn't recommend initial conditions as an explanation of Bell test results, you need particular physics too.

 

[kith]

Entanglement seems to be a relatively rare phenomenon (does it occur in nature at all, except with some nonlinear crystals?)

Entanglement as such is not rare. Most decay processes yield entangled particles. In principle, all fermionic states are entangled (because of their antisymmetry). Also most open systems are entangled with their environment. As DrC points out, it seems more like entanglement is the standard thing.

The reason that it is rarely present in experiments, is that we either don't want to keep track of it (because we are interested in analyzing the properties of single particles), or that we are not able to keep track of it (because we don't have direct access to the other particles). So most experiments are simply missing Bob.

so how important could nonlocal correlations be to life?

Quantum mechanics may be important for life (because classical atoms are not stable). Nonlocal correlations have not to be directly related to this. They may be just another consequence of the structure of quantum mechanics.

 

[kith]

The reason this is not possible is: there are NO initial conditions that lead to these results!

If superdeterminism is a valid point of view, then initial conditions determine everything. Of course, they can be initial conditions of some unknown superdeterministic laws and need not have to be initial conditions of orthodox quantum mechanics.

My criticism was the wording "conspirational", which seems to refer to the following situation: in the beginning of the universe, all degrees of freedom (of our possibly superdeterministic laws) have conspired to make future experimenters make choices in such a way that the universe looks nonlocal to them, while in truth it isn't. If the initial conditions had been less improbable ("non-conspirational"), the universe would be classical.

So if people use this argument to criticize superdeterminsm, one can reply by the anthropic principle: in these non-conspirational, classical universes, atoms would be unstable and life would not exist.

That is the point, you must add new and otherwise hidden physical laws to account for the results. And they can't just be hidden variables, as Bell showed.

Didn't Bell himself say the contrary in his famous superdeterminism quote? His theorem shows that no local realistic theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics under the assumption of free choice of the observables to be measured (please object if you think this is wrong).

 

[DrChinese]

Didn't Bell himself say the contrary in his famous superdeterminism quote? His theorem shows that no local realistic theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics under the assumption of free choice of the observables to be measured (please object if you think this is wrong).

Sure, he did. I don't take that very seriously though, and I doubt he did either (I think of it as a joke). As I have said, you can also say that God intervenes to make it look like Bell test results reflect reality. My point being that it takes a candidate theory to have anything meaningful to discuss. There aren't any.

And as to your comments about initial conditions: I repeat that this does NOT produce an answer for Bell test results. You need completely new physics of a type never seen before. Please do not wave your hands on this point. If you want to explain Bell test results outside QM, you need to explain the mechanism or otherwise give me something to bite my teeth into. So okay, what is it? (Because anything you throw I will falsify experimentally.)

 

[Demystifier]

In fact, I think there was an old thread where Demystifier set out to show that almost no major interpretation of quantum mechanics would actually interpret delayed choice as changing the past.

Yes, here it is for the case someone is interested:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402497
Pay particular attention to posts #1 and #21.

 

[Demystifier]

Thanks for the reply. But you're doing it also. I really don't know what you guys mean by superdeterminism.

OK, here is a simple example of superdeterminism which does not involve quantum mechanics.

Assume that John runs a lottery business. And assume that his son Bob wins the main prize every time.

How to explain that? Well, the most obvious explanation is that John cheats, in order to make his son pick up the big money. This is what most people believe, including police. Confronted with the police accusations, he argues with police as follows:

John: No, I don't cheat. It is not my guilt that my son Bob wins every time.
Police: Then how do you explain that your son wins every time?
John: I don't now, maybe he is just lucky.
Police: Come on, nobody can be that lucky to win every fu****g time.
John: Maybe God wants him to win every time. So it's God, it has nothing to do with me.
Police: God cannot have anything to do with it. That's because lottery is a deterministic process, i.e., the winning numbers are determined by the details of initial conditions. God cannot change the initial conditions.
John: OK, I admit that lottery is deterministic, but maybe it's not only that. Maybe lottery is not only deterministic, but superdeterministic.
Police: What do you mean by "superdeterministic"?
John: Well, God wants my son to win every time. And yet, He wants to obey his own deterministic laws. So what does He do? He chooses the initial conditions in a very special way to make sure that my son will win every time. That's superdeterminism; deterministic laws plus very special initial conditions chosen by God to create one additional rule that otherwise could not be explained by the deterministic laws alone. In this case, the additional rule is: my son will win every time.
Police: So, is that supposed to prove that you are innocent?
John: Of course. I certainly don't have this power to fine tune all the initial conditions in the Universe. Only God can do that.

---------

So, would you buy this superdeterminism argument and reject the idea that John is cheating? Likewise, would you buy superdeterminism as explanation of quantum correlations and reject the idea that nature is nonlocal?

 

[IttyBittyBit]

Demystifier, I don't see how your analogy is valid at all. No one mentioned anything about 'God'. How would superdeterminism be like rejecting the idea that John cheats? If anything, it means accepting that he cheats, and acknowledging that maybe the Universe cheats all the time and this is the natural order of things.

There are certain facts we have to accept. One fact is that the Universe certainly seems to be non-local. Thus, any deterministic theory that attempted to model the Universe accurately would have to be superdeterministic. This is one of the implications of Bell's theorem. That's it. Bell's theorem is not a proof that superdeterminism is false, any more than the EPR paradox is proof that hidden variables must exist, or the twin paradox is proof that relativity is impossible, or Schrodinger's cat is proof that wavefunction collapse does not apply to macroscale objects.

Everyone in this thread should acknowledge that there is, at this point in time, no scientific reason to reject superdeterminism. It's all just speculation and intuition, and we all know how well that goes. As I said in my first reply, first we need to develop a set of superdeterministic theories (there are currently none), then test them against experiment, and compare them with non-deterministic theories. Until then, any thoughts on the matter are premature.

 

[juanrga]

Everyone in this thread should acknowledge that there is, at this point in time, no scientific reason to reject superdeterminism. It's all just speculation and intuition, and we all know how well that goes. As I said in my first reply, first we need to develop a set of superdeterministic theories (there are currently none), then test them against experiment, and compare them with non-deterministic theories. Until then, any thoughts on the matter are premature.

Determinism and variants are clearly in contrast with scientific method. Let's leave determinism and variants for philosophers.

 

[Demystifier]

Demystifier, I don't see how your analogy is valid at all. No one mentioned anything about 'God'. How would superdeterminism be like rejecting the idea that John cheats? If anything, it means accepting that he cheats, and acknowledging that maybe the Universe cheats all the time and this is the natural order of things.

Thomas asked us to explain what do we mean by superdeterminism, and I have explained what do I (and not only I) mean by that. Obviously you mean something else by this term, so it would be nice if you could give your explanation as well. In particular, you should explain the difference between determinism and superdeterminism.

Of course, it was not necessary to use God in my explanation, but the concept of "God" in some very general sense seems suitable to talk about the cause of initial conditions. For what else might be the cause of initial conditions?

 

[lugita15]

Yes, here it is for the case someone is interested:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402497
Pay particular attention to posts #1 and #21.

Thanks, Demystifier. And while I have your attention, do you have any thoughts on the Zurek paper I referenced earlier in this thread? Here it is again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405161
If decoherence is sufficient to derive the Born rule, why can't this derivation be carried over into Bohmian mechanics?

 

[lugita15]

Of course, it was not necessary to use God in my explanation, but the concept of "God" in some very general sense seems suitable to talk about the cause of initial conditions. For what else might be the cause of initial conditions?

To be fair, a superdeterminist need not believe that the special initial conditions that give rise to conspiratorial behavior are due to supernatural agency or chance. Instead, you can have a theory where at some time in the past all the particles in the universe (or their ancestors) interacted with each other in such a way that they gave each other the right initial conditions. In other words, they literally met and "agreed" on the conspiracy. So then superdeterminists would have to invent some form of local particle interaction which gives the particles the special initial states necessary to produce nonlocal correlation later on. And that seems like a really hard task.

 

[lugita15]

Demystifier, I don't see how your analogy is valid at all. No one mentioned anything about 'God'. How would superdeterminism be like rejecting the idea that John cheats? If anything, it means accepting that he cheats, and acknowledging that maybe the Universe cheats all the time and this is the natural order of things.

Yes, "the Universe cheats" is actually a pretty good description of superdeterminism

There are certain facts we have to accept. One fact is that the Universe certainly seems to be non-local. Thus, any deterministic theory that attempted to model the Universe accurately would have to be superdeterministic. This is one of the implications of Bell's theorem. That's it. Bell's theorem is not a proof that superdeterminism is false, any more than the EPR paradox is proof that hidden variables must exist, or the twin paradox is proof that relativity is impossible, or Schrodinger's cat is proof that wavefunction collapse does not apply to macroscale objects.

Bell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics must be superdeterministic. But you can have a nonlocal deterministic theory like Bohmian mechanics, and that need not be superdeterministic. But you're right that Bell's theorem does not disprove superdeterminism.

Everyone in this thread should acknowledge that there is, at this point in time, no scientific reason to reject superdeterminism.

Science does not accept all theories until they are rejected by experiments. In science we do not accept claims unless we have good experimental reason to do so. Currently we have a nondeterministic theory, quantum mechanics, which is extremely accurate in its predictions. Thus the burden of proof is on the determinist to demonstrate his thesis, not on the scientific community to disprove it.

 

[IttyBittyBit]

Bell's theorem implies that any local deterministic theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics...

Yes that's why I said models our own Universe.

Science does not accept all theories until they are rejected by experiments.

Actually, science does not accept anything. Theories are never proven; only rejected based on evidence.

(Some might go further and even dispute that, saying that the best we can do is assign likelihoods to theories.)

Thus the burden of proof is on the determinist to demonstrate his thesis, not on the scientific community to disprove it.

This viewpoint is often thrown around and represents a confusion between proving the existence of something (which is the subject of logic and mathematics, not science - though logic and mathematics are tools that are often used in science), and evaluating the likeliness of a hypothesis (which is the subject of science).

Quite contrary to your statement, in science all theories (all falsifiable theories, that is) are given equal consideration until evidence comes along that disproves any number of them. This evidence might be direct or indirect. Science resembles a courtroom more than anything.

That being said, I repeat that superdeterminism by itself is not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable. However, there are strong indications that it might be possible to construct a valid theory of the Universe that is superdeterministic in nature.

 

[kith]

If you want to explain Bell test results outside QM, you need to explain the mechanism or otherwise give me something to bite my teeth into.

You really have a biting reflex, when it comes to Bell's theorem, don't you? ;-) Just to be clear: I don't question its validity. We are simply talking about different aspects of the discussion. Amongst others, the following two arguments against superdeterminism occurred during the discussion.

First, that there is no local realistic superdeterministic (LRSD) model (yet). This is what you are talking about.

Second, people object to LRSD theories in general, because they have to be conspirational. That is they have to look nonlocal to (predeterminded) experimenters, in spite of their real laws beeing local. By choosing the wording "conspiracy", it is suggested that such theories are absurd or very unlikely to be true.

My point was to question this view by noting, that all non-conspirational LRSD theories would be incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the anthropic principle could be used to explain the unlikely "conspiracy" (see my last posts).

So my bottom line is: the "conspiracy" part alone is not an argument against LRSD theories, if one acknowledges the anthropic principle (as many people do in cosmology). This is indepent of the construction of actual superdeterministic theories, which of course has to be done in order to discuss superdeterminism in a more scientific way.

And as to your comments about initial conditions: I repeat that this does NOT produce an answer for Bell test results.

This part of your posts I still don't get. Do you agree with Demystifier's definition of superdeterminism as determinism+special initial conditions in post #9? And do you agree with Bell himself that his theorem relies on the assumption that the experimenters can choose the observables they measure? Given the deterministic laws, what else can determine the outcome of Bell tests if not the special initial conditions?

 

[lugita15]

Yes that's why I said models our own Universe.

What I was quibbling with was your assertion that any deterministic theory must be superdeterministic. But all Bell says is any LOCAL deterministic theory must be superdeterministic.

Actually, science does not accept anything. Theories are never proven; only rejected based on evidence.

(Some might go further and even dispute that, saying that the best we can do is assign likelihoods to theories.)



This viewpoint is often thrown around and represents a confusion between proving the existence of something (which is the subject of logic and mathematics, not science - though logic and mathematics are tools that are often used in science), and evaluating the likeliness of a hypothesis (which is the subject of science).

Quite contrary to your statement, in science all theories (all falsifiable theories, that is) are given equal consideration until evidence comes along that disproves any number of them. This evidence might be direct or indirect. Science resembles a courtroom more than anything.

OK, I guess we just have a difference of opinion about the philosophy of science.

 

[lugita15]

My point was to question this view by noting, that all non-conspirational LRSD theories would be incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the anthropic principle could be used to explain the unlikely "conspiracy" (see my last posts).

Let's get some terminology straight. By definition, a superdeterministic theory is a deterministic theory which is conspiratorial. So "non-conspiratorial LRSD" doesn't make any sense. I think what you mean to say is "all local deterministic theories which are not superdeterministic are would be incompatible wiht quantum mechanics".

 

[kith]

Let's get some terminology straight. By definition, a superdeterministic theory is a deterministic theory which is conspiratorial. So "non-conspiratorial LRSD" doesn't make any sense. I think what you mean to say is "all local deterministic theories which are not superdeterministic are would be incompatible wiht quantum mechanics".

Yes, you can also put it like that.

Personally, I prefer a broader definition which includes the classical case. There has already been much philosophical debate before quantum mechanics and Bell's position (as expressed in the BBC quote) is hard to distinguish from Laplacian determinism.

 

[IttyBittyBit]

OK, I guess we just have a difference of opinion about the philosophy of science.

Then you have a difference of opinion with what is usually taken to be the definition of science.

Take a good long read of this page: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b14

This is just basic stuff really.

(In particular, on that page see 'MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas' and 'MISCONCEPTION: The job of a scientist is to find support for his or her hypotheses'. In regard to: 'MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas' that is what I was referring to by stating that some would say that the best we can do is assign likelihoods to hypotheses.)

 

[DrChinese]

... Bell's position (as expressed in the BBC quote) is hard to distinguish from Laplacian determinism.

And just to be clear, Laplacian determinism is NOTHING like superdeterminism.

 

[DrChinese]

1. You really have a biting reflex, when it comes to Bell's theorem, don't you? ;-)

2. First, that there is no local realistic superdeterministic (LRSD) model (yet). This is what you are talking about.

3.Do you agree with Demystifier's definition of superdeterminism as determinism+special initial conditions in post #9? And do you agree with Bell himself that his theorem relies on the assumption that the experimenters can choose the observables they measure? Given the deterministic laws, what else can determine the outcome of Bell tests if not the special initial conditions?

1. You got me.

2. Yes, I agree.

3. No, and I am not necessarily disagreeing with Demystifier on this. Superdeterminism requires both specific initial conditions AND new laws of physics. This is necessary for the kind of cheating that Demystifier mentions. The reason is that there are no known initial conditions that can lead to Bell test results. As I have said many times, there just isn't enough information carried locally to support this. So there must be something additional, and it must be of a type of physics not currently contemplated.

Just stating that initial conditions does it is not sufficient by a long shot. (You may as well assert that the true speed of light is 1 kph too, but initial conditions cause every test made to yield c as the answer.)

 

[kith]

And just to be clear, Laplacian determinism is NOTHING like superdeterminism.

On a conceptual level, Laplacian determinism (LD) and conspirational superdeterminism (CSD) are not very different.

The philosophical question which steered the debate about determinism is the question of free will. If the laws are deterministic, does the experimenter still have the freedom to choose initial conditions in an experiment or are they predetermined by the past? I find it only reasonable to have an umbrella term for theories, which have deterministic laws and deny this freedom. Since these theories are "more" deterministic than theories which leave the question open, the wording "super"-deterministic seems adequate. Bell's BBC quote suggests that this is what led him to coin the wording.

So in this sense, both LD and CSD are superdeterministic. And another theory which needs to fit under the umbrella is Bohmian mechanics. So instead of calling these theories "Laplacian determinism", "superdeterminism" and "Bohmian mechanics without free choice of initial conditions" and not having an umbrella term, I think it is more logical (and also in the spirit of Bell) to call the umbrella "superdeterminism" and refer to local realistic hidden variable theories by something like "conspirational superdeterminism".

The main difference between LD and CSD is of course, that CSD is only a hypothetical theory and no one knows how its laws would look like. With your second post, I mostly agree. The question is whether one wants to discuss general philosophical implications or hard science. Since there is no CSD theory available, the second one is quite futile.

 

[lugita15]

The philosophical question which steered the debate about determinism is the question of free will. If the laws are deterministic, does the experimenter still have the freedom to choose initial conditions in an experiment or are they predetermined by the past? I find it only reasonable to have an umbrella term for theories, which have deterministic laws and deny this freedom. Since these theories are "more" deterministic than theories which leave the question open, the wording "super"-deterministic seems adequate. Bell's BBC quote suggests that this is what led him to coin the wording.

What you call by the term "superdeterminism" is what everybody else just calls determinism. If you think the experimenter has free will, then obviously you're not a determinist. As I think you already know, what you call "conspiratorial superdeterminism" everyone else just calls superdeterminism. It's important for everyone to use the same terms; otherwise you have situations like ThomasT thinking there is no difference between determinism and superdeterminism as they are conventionally used.

 

[lugita15]

The reason is that there are no known initial conditions that can lead to Bell test results. As I have said many times, there just isn't enough information carried locally to support this. So there must be something additional, and it must be of a type of physics not currently contemplated.

I think this assertion's a bit too strong. You can obviously have a conspiracy where all the particles in the universe carry literally all information about all other particles in the universe, and use this information to do exactly what they need to do to make Bell's inequality appear violated, and never use this information except when dealing with quantum entanglement. That's why it's called ad hoc.