Because quantum mechanics “lacks a physical description of the measurement process:

Abstract: Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks a physical description of the measurement process. This “measurement problem” indicates that quantum mechanics is at least an incomplete theory – good as far as it goes, but missing a piece – or, more radically, is in need of complete overhaul.

Here we describe an approach which may provide this sought-for completion or replacement: Superdeterminism. A superdeterministic theory is one which violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of hidden variables are independent of measurement settings). Intuition suggests that Statistical Independence is an essential ingredient of any theory of science (never mind physics), and for this reason Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of quantum foundations.

The purpose of this paper is to explain why the existing objections to Superdeterminism are based on experience with classical physics and linear systems, but that this experience misleads us. Superdeterminism is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent nonlocality of quantum physics. Most importantly, we will discuss how it may be possible to test this hypothesis in an (almost) model independent way.

– S. Hossenfelder, T. N. Palmer, Rethinking Superdeterminism, arxiv, December 13, 2019

The paper’s Conclusion:

We have argued here that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory and completing it, or replacing it with a more fundamental theory, will necessarily require us to accept violations of Statistical Independence, an assumption that is sometimes also, misleadingly, referred to as Free Choice. We have explained why objections to theories with this property, commonly known as superdeterministic, are ill-founded.

Since the middle of the past century, progress in the foundations of physics has been driven by going to shorter and shorter distances, or higher and higher energies, respectively. But the next step forward might be in an entirely different direction, it might come from finding a theory that does not require us to hand-draw a line between microscopic and macroscopic reality.

The Uncommon Descent News Virtual Coffee Room hopes a YouTube will follow.

Sabine Hossenfelder is the author of *Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray,*

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I found this part to be the most telling

We should not, therefore, interpret Statistical Independence as a statement about properties of the real world, but understand it as a mathematical assumption of the model with which we are dealing. This point was made, implicitly at least, by Bell himself [1]:

“I would insist here on the distinction between analyzing various physical theories, on the one hand, and philosophising about the unique real world on the other hand. In this matter of causality it is a great inconvenience that the real world is given to us once only. We cannot know what would have happened if something had been different. We cannot repeat an experiment changing just one variable; the hands of the clock will have moved, and the moons of Jupiter. Physical theories are more amenable in this respect. We can calculate the consequences of changing free elements in a theory, be they only initial conditions, and so can explore the causal structure of the theory. I insist that [Bell’s Theorem] is primarily an analysis of certain kinds of theory.” (emphasis original)

Superdeterminism is illogical, in my opinion. Nature is necessarily probabilistic because there is no time dimension and, therefore, it cannot calculate the exact duration of interactions. This is a big problem because exact durations are essential to conservation laws. Nature solves this problem by tolerating temporary violations and using probability to time durations. Over time, the conservation laws are obeyed. The impossibility to calculate time is the reason that subatomic particles decay randomly but decay probabilities remains fixed. The probabilities are predetermined and fixed.

PS. I’ll post another comment to explain why a time dimension is impossible if anyone is interested. 😀

as to this claim from the article:

Ironically, Hossenfelder herself discards the perfectly valid scientific hypothesis that we do have free will because it conflicts with her own philosophical presupposition of methodological naturalism.

Moreover, Hossenfelder claims free will does not exist, (i.e. it is an illusion, we only think that we are making free will choices as to whether we will set the detector settings to this or to that setting), and yet she lays out an argument in which she fully expects us to freely choose her argument that we do not have free will as being more rationally coherent than the argument that we actually do have free will.

As should be needless to say, Hossenfelder is making a logically self-refuting argument. As Martin Cothran points out, “The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”

In short, Hossenfelder has just committed epistemological suicide.

More ironic still, Hossenfelder uses the illustration of Penrose’s impossible triangle to try to argue against free will, (and therefore against the reality of the immaterial mind itself), and to argue for Superdeterminism.

Yet Penrose’s impossible triangle itself, (a Platonic object with no ‘natural’ analog in the space-time of this universe), clearly illustrates that the perspective, and free will, of the observer are essential in rotating the ‘unnatural’ geometric object to a correct position so that it appears as a triangle to us, (i.e. appears as a triangle to the qualia of our immaterial mind, i.e. to our inaccessible inner experience of ‘what it is like’), instead of just appearing as 3 sides of a cube to us.

Likewise she assumes that we have the free will necessary to search out and eventually choose some mathematical model, out of a veritable infinity of mathematical models, that will eventually prove that we really didn’t have the free will necessary to search out and discover that ‘superdeterministic’ mathematical model in the first place, but that the mathematical model somehow searched out and discovered itself and let us in on its own discovery of itself after the fact.

As is obvious, and as Ellis himself pointed out, and to put it mildly, this just does not make any sense. “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense.”

And then of course there is the whole issue of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem which proves that there simply never will be a single overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’:

In fact, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to show that there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that cannot be proved by any finite system of axioms:

Bruce Gordon succinctly brings the implications of all this into clarity in the following article:

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for the materialist, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is not just some abstract mathematical limit that prevents there from ever being a purely mathematical theory of everything, but Gödel’s theorem has now been extended to physics itself:

In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

In short, it is now proven that physicists will never find a mathematical model that links the macroscopic world of general relativity with the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics.

Thus in conclusion, besides Hossenfelder’s argument being inherently weak, lacking empirical evidence, not to mention missing a mathematical model, Hossenfelder’s argument is also logically self refuting and is, most importantly, directly contradicted by advances in our understanding of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem which have linked it directly to the incompleteness that we witness in physics between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Supplemental note:

DAMN IT BA77 it takes me 5mins to scroll to the bottom now 😉

Now I’m gonna throw my lack of two cents into this arena because I have nothing but questions

I’ve been curious about super determinism now because of these posts I started looking it up (it was pre determined)

I am no expert in this area so any help would be greatly appreciated

But this is what I could find or “determine” ha!

From what I can tell there’s no testable hypothesis for this and it’s not really testable because the outcome has already been pre-determined by the Big Bang, and if this is true I calls into question all scientific outcomes (I think John bell mentioned this)

this seems to be the main objection to this hypothesis

But are there any test really supporting this hypothesis, is it possible to even test this logically?

it looks like quantum weirdness it is in fact correct

But super determinism straight assumes it’s already predetermined which I’m not seeing the difference between it and normal determinism

But other than philosophical objections why in the world is Sabine supporting this, And from what I’m seeing this is also a philosophical assumption

I also can’t help the parallel between super determinism and some of the philosophy of the minds for the consciousness is an allusion and the hard problem of the consciousness is being avoided versus being addressed

This theory seems to be attempting to avoid the free choice loophole. Which doesn’t follow and furthermore the argument she presents that we hold on to our idea of free will which is worth stopping us from excepting super determinism is the exact same argument which is levied against super determinism from what I have read.

So I might be confused and any help on this would be greatly appreciated

AaronS1978

Are you also suggesting a “read more” button for long comments? 😉

AaronS

I don’t fully understand the difference either but it appears that ordinary determinism accepts that some aspects of the universe are subject to randomness. Usually, from what I’ve seen, materialists use this as the source of the illusion of free will. So, our choices come from the random elements and therefore are still materialistic and “determined” but not predictable.

Superdeterminism, however, I think does not accept any randomness. Everything is strictly determined by physics which is just quantum mechanics.

Now your big question – why would she prefer this option when trying to defend a “better” free will illusion?

I don’t know except maybe since the result is exactly the same (you don’t have free will – it’s an illusion) that superdeterminism is more sciency and perhaps it’s easier for her to defend?

As mentioned, it would be impossible to validate or falsify either, and there shouldn’t be any reason to do it, since we’re supposedly determined by material forces anyway.

But it goes around and around in circles, since we’re pre-determined to argue about what kind of determinism is controlling us. But if someone merely said that the entire scientific process is a waste of time, then it would be difficult to argue against it since the proposal and counterarguments are also part of the superdetermined quantum effect.

It’s all part of the atheistic-nihilistic scam. Everything is an illusion. There is no truth. Nothing matters. When we die there is nothing. We are just chemicals – no different, better, worse or possessing any greater value. Human life is nothing. Achievements, purposes, goals – are determined by mindless forces, and end as molecules and energy.