Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

What Hacker News said

Recommends quocanh · 2021-12 · on “Ask HN: Are quantum-ready co’s peddling snake oil?”

Wow. I actually just saw [a video from Sabine Hossenfelder]( [this video] ) about exactly this. Long story short, we don't know if quantum nonlocality is real. Bell's Theoreom doesn't prove nonlocality. It proves that locality is impossible with statistical independence, that is, the measurement itself affects the quantum system. We can preserve locality if we also accept superdeterminism, which Sabine succinctly puts as, "what the quantum particle does depends on what measurement will take place." We can accept nonlocality and statistical independence or locality and dependence. The former is taken for granted by Bell and many (most?) physicists today but only because the latter "feels" more spo

Recommends trixie_ · 2022-01 · on “Why Quantum Mechanics?”

Randomly found a link to this video on super determinism from his blog and found it super interesting. 100% agree, what is 'free will' anyways? A concept with no scientific definition. Why is it even used to explain anything in quantum mechanics? [this video]

Cites astrange · 2022-03 · on “It’s time to admit quantum theory has reached a dead end”

Explanation 0: QM, unlike classical physics, says quantum effects are truly random and unpredictable and we can only know their probability distribution. (Or something like that.) Explanation 1: The universe is not random and doesn't have cause and effect. All scientific experiments appear to work because the whole universe is actually a movie playing out where each new frame has been edited to produce the results we see, but for some reason the author decided to never violate QM. Explanation 2: Unlike what QM predicts (true randomness) there's a finite amount of randomness added at the beginning of the universe, enough that our experiments appear to follow QM, but eventually if we looked ha

Cites ncmncm · 2022-07 · on “Einstein-Bohr debate settled once and for all”

The EPR experiments are ground truth. How we interpret them is our responsibility. Always omitted from the list of interpretations are those abandoning will-o-th-wisp "free will". [this video]

Cites runarberg · 2023-04 · on “The Contradictions of Sam Altman, AI Crusader”

I question your assumption that in history “things don't happen in history because of (truly) random behaviors converging on some emergent effect.” Firstly there is currently a debate among quantum physics as to the true randomness of what we observe[1][2]. Turns out we don’t actually need true randomness in our models, they just need to appear as if they are random, in other words, the chaotic nature of the system is more important than true randomness. Secondly, society is an emergent effect of individuals behaving in a chaotic manner. So is zeitgeist. To study history without looking at societal changes over time, and without accounting for zeitgeist, is bound to yield a pretty limited in

Cites raindeer2 · 2024-05 · on “Brain Uses Quantum Effects, New Study Finds [video]”

It cannot, even if ppl think that this is what Bell's theorem says. But the determinism must be quite strange: [this video]

Cites rjprins · 2024-09 · on “Quantum researchers cause controlled 'wobble' in the nucleus of a single atom”

Some say that it has not been fully proved there are no hidden variables. [this video] (Sabine Hossenfelder on Superdeterminism)

Critical fsh · 2022-10 · on “Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncertainty”

I am not aware of any superdeterministic theory that can explain the violation of Bell's inequality. They only argue that a violation of Bell's inequality is not impossible in a superdeterministic local hidden variable theory (but no such theory has been formulated). I suspect this is why Hossenfelder just knocks down a few strawmen in her video on superdeterminism [1], instead of addressing the elephant in the room (experimental violations of Bell's inequality). [1] [this video]