Superdeterminism may be the most important scientific theory so far
this century.
Or maybe superdeterminism is complete bunkum and balderdash. I will
never know. Much as I loathe saying "I stopped reading after..."
(which always sounds like an immature rage-quit), I could not get past
the tedious story about a spat with a critic.
Please state your position/data, I am not bothered that some other
random internet user is wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding:
- Bell's inequality (one version of it) states: for all independent A, B, W, P(A & B) <= P(A & W) + P(B & ~W). Since W can allegedly either be true or false, Bell's inequality holds: P(A & W) + P(B & W) = P(A) or P(B) (if W is true or false), and both P(A) >= P(A & B) and P(B) >= P(A & B) (since A & B = true requires A = true and B = true)
- However, Bell's inequality does not hold in quantum theory. There is a way to get seemingly-independent A, B, and W (from measuring entangled electrons' spin), where P(A & B) > P(A & W) + P(B & ~W). This suggests either:
- W is not either true or false, it can exist in some in-between state, meaning we can't simplify P(A & W) + P(B & ~W) into P(A) or P(B). This sounds a lot like quantum superposition.
- Or, even though P(A & W) + P(B & W) might simplify into P(A) or P(B), since we don't actually know, P(A) >= P(A & B) or P(B) >= P(A & B) does not prove that P(A & W) + P(B & ~W) >= P(A & B). This sounds a lot like the electron slit experiment.
- Or, the condition "A, B, W is independent" is impossible because there are no such thing as independent variables. This basically throws Bell's inequality out: if W influences A and B and A and B influence each other, and you can't prove how they influence each other, you can't prove that P(A & B) = P(A & W) + P(B & ~W) (for example, maybe in one particular scenario which experiments can never isolate, P(A & B) is almost as likely as P(A), but P(A & W) is much less likely than P(A) and P(B & ~W) is much less likely than P(B)). This is superdeterminism
> First of all, the reason I am interested in superdeterminism has nothing whatsoever to do with physicalism or realism (I don’t know what these words mean to begin with). It’s simply that the collapse postulate in quantum mechanics isn’t compatible with general relativity because it isn’t local. [...] So: Why am I interested in superdeterminism? Because general relativity is local.
Either it is or it isn't. You can't tell without an experimental determination.
If you haven't done such an experiment, you don't know. You are always allowed to announce you don't want to know, or don't care one way or the other. But if somebody else figures out how to run the experiment, and does it, then they know and you don't; you have abandoned science. Again, that's always allowed, and almost everybody has. But then somebody else is pushing science forward, and you are just kvetching from the sidelines.
There are a category of people out there that glom onto a certain subject and though they lack the background and training to fully understand the subject, they piece together enough topical information to sound insightful and knowledgeable. It is dangerous to get into discussions with such individuals as they can effortlessly pivot to meta-physical mumbo jumbo or at the very least, obfuscate the subject matter to where one simply gives up the discussion. They can usually be exposed by asking them to break down the subject matter into first principles or to give a mathematical description of the underlying phenomena.
9 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] threadOr maybe superdeterminism is complete bunkum and balderdash. I will never know. Much as I loathe saying "I stopped reading after..." (which always sounds like an immature rage-quit), I could not get past the tedious story about a spat with a critic.
Please state your position/data, I am not bothered that some other random internet user is wrong.
- Bell's inequality (one version of it) states: for all independent A, B, W, P(A & B) <= P(A & W) + P(B & ~W). Since W can allegedly either be true or false, Bell's inequality holds: P(A & W) + P(B & W) = P(A) or P(B) (if W is true or false), and both P(A) >= P(A & B) and P(B) >= P(A & B) (since A & B = true requires A = true and B = true)
- However, Bell's inequality does not hold in quantum theory. There is a way to get seemingly-independent A, B, and W (from measuring entangled electrons' spin), where P(A & B) > P(A & W) + P(B & ~W). This suggests either:
- W is not either true or false, it can exist in some in-between state, meaning we can't simplify P(A & W) + P(B & ~W) into P(A) or P(B). This sounds a lot like quantum superposition.
- Or, even though P(A & W) + P(B & W) might simplify into P(A) or P(B), since we don't actually know, P(A) >= P(A & B) or P(B) >= P(A & B) does not prove that P(A & W) + P(B & ~W) >= P(A & B). This sounds a lot like the electron slit experiment.
- Or, the condition "A, B, W is independent" is impossible because there are no such thing as independent variables. This basically throws Bell's inequality out: if W influences A and B and A and B influence each other, and you can't prove how they influence each other, you can't prove that P(A & B) = P(A & W) + P(B & ~W) (for example, maybe in one particular scenario which experiments can never isolate, P(A & B) is almost as likely as P(A), but P(A & W) is much less likely than P(A) and P(B & ~W) is much less likely than P(B)). This is superdeterminism
> First of all, the reason I am interested in superdeterminism has nothing whatsoever to do with physicalism or realism (I don’t know what these words mean to begin with). It’s simply that the collapse postulate in quantum mechanics isn’t compatible with general relativity because it isn’t local. [...] So: Why am I interested in superdeterminism? Because general relativity is local.
If you haven't done such an experiment, you don't know. You are always allowed to announce you don't want to know, or don't care one way or the other. But if somebody else figures out how to run the experiment, and does it, then they know and you don't; you have abandoned science. Again, that's always allowed, and almost everybody has. But then somebody else is pushing science forward, and you are just kvetching from the sidelines.