Always stirring the pot (and always worth the listen), Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, writes,
I find superdeterminism interesting because the most obvious class of hidden variables are the degrees of freedom of the detector. And the detector isn’t statistically independent of itself, so any such theory necessarily violates statistical independence. It is also, in a trivial sense, non-linear just because if the detector depends on a superposition of prepared states that’s not the same as superposing two measurements. Since any solution of the measurement problem requires a non-linear time evolution, that seems a good opportunity to make progress.
Now, a lot of people discard superdeterminism simply because they prefer to believe in free will, which is where I think the biggest resistance to superdeterminism comes from. Bad enough that belief isn’t a scientific reason, but worse that this is misunderstanding just what is going on. It’s not like superdeterminism somehow prevents an experimentalist from turning a knob. Rather, it’s that the detectors’ states aren’t independent of the system one tries to measure. There just isn’t any state the experimentalist could twiddle their knob to which would prevent a correlation.
Where do these correlations ultimately come from? Well, they come from where everything ultimately comes from, that is from the initial state of the universe. And that’s where most people walk off
Sabine Hossenfelder, “The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism” at BackRe(Action)
This is for the physics nerds among us. But for now, for the rest of us, from the Information Philosopher:
Superdeterminism would deny the important “free choice” of the experimenter (originally suggested by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg) and later explored by John Conway and Simon Kochen. Conway and Kochen claim that the experimenters’ free choice requires that atoms must have free will, something they call their Free Will Theorem.
Following John Bell, Nicholas Gisin and Antoine Suarez argue that something might be coming from “outside space and time” to correlate results in their own experimental tests of Bell’s Theorem.
In his 1996 book, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, Huw Price proposes an Archimedean point “outside space and time” as a solution to the problem of nonlocality in the Bell experiments in the form of an “advanced action.”
Rather than a “superdeterministic” common cause coming from “outside space and time” (as proposed by Bell, Gisin, Suarez, and others), Price argues that there might be a cause coming backwards in time from some interaction in the future.
Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have also promoted this idea of “backward causation,” sending information backward in time in the EPR experiments. More.
Dizzying. But we shall see.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Don’t Expect Too Much From New Proposals To Detect Dark Matter