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
Atheists have a history of appealing to ‘loopholes’ to avoid the ‘spooky’ experimental results from quantum mechanics.
Although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole, (and arguably the most important loophole), that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And “superdeterminism” is just another ‘loophole’, (i.e. read another desperate attempt), by Atheistic naturalists to avoid what the ‘spooky’ experimental results of Quantum Mechanics are telling us.
The following article states that superdeterminism is a “truly exotic hypotheses. Any theory seeking to explain our result by exploiting this loophole would require to originate before the emission event and to influence setting choices derived from spontaneous emission.’
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
But Sabine Hossenfelder apparently does not like the experimental results that Zeilinger obtained because the results falsify her belief in local realism, (read atheistic naturalism). In fact, in her article she states that “I’ll be happy if the result solves the measurement problem and is still local the same way that quantum field theories are local”
I’m sure that Sabine Hossenfelder probably thinks she is being very scientific in rejecting these consistent ‘spooky’ experimental results from quantum mechanics that have falsified local realism, and latching onto the ‘truly exotic hypotheses’ of superdeterminism, but according to leading philosophers of science, Lakatos and Kuhn, the refusal to accept the experimental results of science and to ‘fabricate theories’ to ‘explain away’ those experimental results is a sure sign that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of dealing with a real science. (the pseudoscience, in this case, being her belief in local realism).
In an article entitled “Science and Pseudoscience” Imre Lakatos stated that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
And another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term ‘paradigm shift’, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”
Besides unscientifically rejecting the consistent ‘spooky’ experimental results from quantum mechanics that have falsified her belief in local realism, (and opting for the ‘truly exotic hypothesis’ of superdeterminism), Hossenfelder’s rejection of the reality of her own free will is also a logically self-refuting position for her to take.
As George Ellis pointed out, if someone doesn’t have free will “then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say.”
One final note, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
In the following video Isabel Piczek states,,, The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.
The following article, (which is behind a paywall), states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’
Kevin Moran, who is an optical engineer who worked on the mysterious ‘3-Dimensional’ nature of the Shroud image, states that,, ,,, “The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image.,,, It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,, This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector.”
In the following paper, the researchers found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
And to further drive this point home, the following study ‘concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud.’
Moreover, the overturning of the Copernican principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics adds considerable weight to my claim that Jesus’s resurrection from the dead provides the correct solution for the quote unquote ‘theory of everything’
Verse and videos:
Look, both the universe-as-a-simulation approach and the “mental universe” approach are fitting our observations of both quantum phenomena and biological phenomena just fine. Yet, some people seem to be hell-bent on trying to invent new “materialistic” explanations for QM effects. Why not just go where all the evidence leads you, and then start digging there?
of related note:
“a lot of people discard superdeterminism simply because they prefer to believe in free will”
Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this sentence?
BA77
Oh God, I would start believing in you if this were only true.
DAMN YOU GOD! Stop teasing me like this. 🙂
Brother Brian, I ran interference for you once with admin, I shall not do it again.
BA77
If by interference you mean threatening to have me banned, I really don’t need your help. 🙂
If you really have such a lack of ability to laugh at yourself, I have pity for you. Everybody else understood that it was just a joke.
ScuzzaMan
July 30, 2019 at 12:57 pm
“a lot of people discard superdeterminism simply because they prefer to believe in free will”
Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this sentence?
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm………..yes.
My brain record scratched when I read that exact sentence by the way
Brother Brian:
Too busy laughing at you and all the other a/mats.