I'm actually a bit shaken at the responses elsewhere and here and if they represent the scientific community at large, even more so. This is very much a scientific question and must not be shunned away to philosophy (not that science doesn’t have a natural philosophy).

Indeed all science is based on causality and determinism, but suddenly now, people here are trying to draw a line between determinism and 'superdeterminism'. What's the difference? Ok, at what point does determinism end and statistical independence begin? Why? How do you snip out the causal threads at any scale?

I suspect that a lot of people have invested a lot of time and career in interpretations of quantum theory, and cannot face the fact that determinism just simply avoids it. Is determinism or superdeterminism an interpretation of quantum mechanics or a substitute to it entirely?

Someone said that determinism is ok, but there is enough noise between it and the event to now make it statistically independent or truly probabilistic. Isn't noise just complexities of causality? How do you snip those tiny threads and say that an event has been born from nothing?

Yes. cigarettes causes lung cancer because the more impactful bundle(s) of causes towards lung cancer originated from inhaling tar by a group of people and others not.

Are we going to just ignore the truth about nature of reality that is staring at our face and seek comfort in avoiding it because it supposedly undermines science? I thought determinism implied this very stark truth from the very beginning, why suddenly all this gymnastics for quantum theory?

Agreed. Bohr was a huge fag.

>>16708647 (OP)
The opposition to superdeterminism is based on purely religious/philosophical dogma rather than scientific reasons.

I'm with the black man of science on this one.
I don't need to consider superdeterminism to measure why the hallway chirps

>>16708647 (OP)
Determinism and Free Will can coexist, and in my opinon they do both exist, in their respective realm.

Free Will exists as a result of consciousness and intelligence, which have their roots in a deterministic reality.
What I mean is that just because you have a logical machine, our brain, that functions more or less like a big biological computer, doesn't mean you can't create Free Will out of said machine.
Free Will exists but it has limits, and those limits are the constraints of our material reality.

The best metaphor I can give is to imagine people playing a Role Playing game like Dungeons and Dragons.
Players create their character and these characters exist within a fantasy world, that has it's own rules, physics, magic, and so on.
Within this game of Dungeons and Dragons, your character has Free Will. He can do whatever you/he wishes.
But at the same time, there's a limit to what the characters can do, and that limit is the inner logic of that Universe.
That's how I conceptualize Free Will in the real world.
You can make choices based on your own Free Will, but these choices are limited by a deterministic reality.

This metaphor works with any game, or art, or anything creative.
When you start playing a game, like chess or any other, you can make choices that are not predetermined.
When you paint a canvas, you have the Free Will through creativity to make anything you desire, regardless of the deterministic rules of science / the universe.

I hope this is not too confusing, mixing science and philosophy, but yeah, Free Will can exist within Determinism, because of conciousness, intelligence and creativity.

As for Super-Determinism, I think it's mostly a cope to counter the fact that quantum physics automatically disproves hardcore determinism, so they had to invent an unprovable theory to cope with that.
That's my 2 cents.

Forgot to add :
Superdeterminism is stupid in a scientific sense, because it's circular logic that can't be proven or disproven.

>Make Quantum Scientific Experiment
>It disproves Determinism
>"NOOOO ACKSHUALLY, THAT RESULT WAS PREDETERMINED WAY BEFORE ...
It's pure cope.
Circular logic.
Can't be proven.
Can't be disproven.
It's just trash.
There you go.
It's one of the most unscientific things to ever exist.

>>16708647 (OP)
there is no difference and anything thats not deterministic is not science

>>16708765
>i dont know how to prove it so it cant be proven
back you go kike

>>16708760
>I think it's mostly a cope to counter the fact that quantum physics automatically disproves hardcore determinism
Lolno it doesn't.

>>16708647 (OP)
At a classical level, the universe appears deterministic. Every interaction has a certain output so the "choices" your parents made ended up with your conception and upbringing which ultimately decides your "decision-making" that may lead to conceiving children of your own.

At the quantum lever, things appear non-deterministic in the sense that every particle interaction ends up following a bell curve and nobody's really sure what the ouput's gonna be. Even this doesn't necessarily make a case for "free-will' as you can't "will" a particle interaction to behave a certain way.

The question of free will gets into definition sperging, really. What even is the "you" that you reckon isn't "making decisions?" What even is "decision-making" to you? These questions must be answered if you want any meaningful discussion that doesn't devolve into a hippy joint-passing circle.

>>16708647 (OP)
Shit is non-deterministic or statistical so long as we haven't found the complete set of causalities that control shit yet.

>>16708765
>quantum experiment disproves determinism
It doesn't "disprove determinism" any more than not being able to predict a coin toss does. That you lack necessary knowledge and understanding to predict an outcome does not mean it isn't predetermined.

>>16709616
You're missing the point. According to Bell's theorem, there is no "hidden variable" solution to quantum mechanics.
If this holds true (it's been experimentally verified multiple times) then it's not like a coin toss. You could predict how a coin toss lands if you know all the variables. The exact behavior of quantum systems is fundamentally unknowable.

Superdeterminism is a catch-all for a series of attempts at getting around this. For example, perhaps the flow of causality may be "reversible" and cause can come before effect in some circumstances. This is the sort of speculation that anon was criticizing.

>>16709620
>>16709616
>cause can come before effect in some circumstances.
Cause can come *after* effect. My bad.

>>16709620
NTA. No, Bell's theorem doesn't prove that. And you don't prove things in science.

>>16709622
I'm not the anon he was responding to either.
I'm this guy:
>>16709235

>you don't prove things in science.
Both of those anons were obviously using "proof" in the colloquial sense.
Bell's theorem, if true, indicates the probabilistic nature of QM is not a result of us missing some piece of information, but a fundamental feature of QM.

As I and the first anon mentioned, superdeterminism is explicitly an effort to get around this apparent fact.

>>16709634
>Bell's theorem, if true,
Bell's theorem relies on lots of metaphysical assumptions, so if you want it to be true, those metaphysics also have to be true. The experimental tests of bell's theorem do nothing to test the metaphysical assumptions involved because they are untestable by their nature.

>>16709646
You could say this about literally anything. What metaphysical assumptions do you take issue with in the Bell tests? Because rejection of them would cause significant problems elsewhere that you might not expect unless you're one of the "we can't no nuffin" spergs.

>>16709654
For one, bell's theorem assumes that the hidden variable theory has to predict the results of measurements which are not and will not be performed.

>>16709654
>You could say this about literally anything.
If people want to make claims about metaphysics like "bell's theorem proves there is fundamental probability", then they should address the metaphysical issues involved

>>16709656
>hidden variable theory has to predict the results of measurements which are not and will not be performed
Well yes. If I understand what you're saying properly, that is a fundamental requirement of a hidden variable theory.

>>16709657
I never said proof. And the other anons were using the term colloquially.

I stated what would be true if Bell's theorem is true by definition. This is a deductive logical form of proof which is valid.
The question would be whether Bell's theorem is true. The most parsimonious explanation is that it is based on the observed evidence and assumptions which are shared between both proponents and opponents. Even the people who disagree with Bell's theorem agree with the assumptions made.

>>16709660
>that is a fundamental requirement of a hidden variable theory.
Not at all. If you actually think about it, asking hidden variable theories to predict the results of unperformed measurements is almost nonsensical.
>the other anons were using the term colloquially.
They should be called out because they are being careless.
>This is a deductive logical form of proof which is valid. The question would be whether Bell's theorem is true.
Yes, logical validity is a very low and easy bar to clear.
>based on the observed evidence
The observed evidence shows that the predictions of quantum mechanics are accurate. It says nothing about what hidden variable theories have to be like, so they can't validate the assumptions involved in bell's theorem.

>>16708760
I see both as correct, superdeterminism creates different realities inifinitely as each quantum fluctuation creates new realities, your choices are which reality you choose to live in. It's like the question "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it" to which the answer is "Yes" as in both can exist at once and the choice determines which reality you currently live in.

>>16709662
>Not at all. If you actually think about it, asking hidden variable theories to predict the results of unperformed measurements is almost nonsensical.
If a mmodel does not have predictive power over experiments that have not yet been performed, then the model is trash. This is fundamental to how the scientific process works.

>It says nothing about what hidden variable theories have to be like
Correct. The definition of a hidden variable theory decides what a hidden variable theory must be like.

This gets back to the whole point of the discussion which is superdeterminism. That is, by definition, a set of hidden variable models which attempt to skirt around the findings of the Bell tests.
They generally do question some of the shared assumptions made between Bell models and "classic" hidden variable models. But in doing so they essentially propose their own set of assumptions that contradict "common sense."
This doesn't make them wrong. But there is a higher bar to support them than just accepting the observations at face value which seem to indicate a non-local non-deterministic universe.

>>16709672
>If a mmodel does not have predictive power over experiments that have not yet been performed, then the model is trash.
Ok, so would you also say that relativity is trash because it can't predict the results of experiments which involve things moving faster than light?
>a non-local
Many physicists would disagree with this assessment and say that physics is local

>>16709674
>would you also say that relativity is trash because it can't predict the results of experiments which involve things moving faster than light?
It predicts that things cannot move faster than light, which agrees with what we observe.
Though we can extrapolate from it certain qualities of an object if it were to move at such a speed (that it's equivalent to moving backwards in time, for example).

>Many physicists would disagree with this assessment and say that physics is local
Yes, this is part of what superdeterminism is. You aren't saying anything.

>>16709676
>It predicts that things cannot move faster than light, which agrees with what we observe.
In the same way, a hidden variable theory could predict that it is nonsense to talk about unperformed measurements, especially of the kind needed for bell's theorem.
>es, this is part of what superdeterminism is. You aren't saying anything.
No, most physicists would probably say that the universe is local and non-deterministic. It has nothing to do with superdeterminism, which is very fringe.

>>16709681
>a hidden variable theory could predict that it is nonsense to talk about unperformed measurements
What do you even mean by this? Are you suggesting some model of reality in which the results of the experiment are only decided after the experiment is performed?

>most physicists would probably say that the universe is local and non-deterministic
Incorrect. Non-locality is fundamental to modern QM. It's core to all "standard" explanations for entanglement.

>>16709686
>Are you suggesting some model of reality in which the results of the experiment are only decided after the experiment is performed?
No, I am suggesting that there can exist hidden variable theories which determine not only the results of experiments but also what experiments are performed (in the bell tests, for example, the theory could predict the axes along which the spins are measured). In such a theory, it would be nonsense to talk about unperformed experiments. That's just one possibility among several others.
>Non-locality is fundamental to modern QM
Locality is fundamental to relativity and qft. You are probably using "locality" in the sense required for bell's theorem, which is not how it's usually used by physicists.

>>16709689
>I am suggesting that there can exist hidden variable theories which determine not only the results of experiments but also what experiments are performed (in the bell tests, for example, the theory could predict the axes along which the spins are measured). In such a theory, it would be nonsense to talk about unperformed experiments. That's just one possibility among several others.
I sincerely don't understand what you're trying to say here or how that qualifies as a local hidden variable theory.
What does it even mean to "determine what experiments are performed?" Like the theory would include within it what behaviors human engage in?

>>16709689
>Locality is fundamental to relativity
Which is a big part of the reason QM and GR are notoriously at odds with each other.
>and qft.
I'm gonna need some elaboration on this one. Quantum field theory does not require locality by any standard definition as far as I'm aware.

>You are probably using "locality" in the sense required for bell's theorem, which is not how it's usually used by physicists.
I'm using it in exactly the way it's universally understood by physicists: that events which occur outside of an object's local frame of reference, determined by the objects' light cones, do not occur for that object.

>>16708760
>I think it's mostly a cope to counter the fa
How does quantum physics disprove super-determinism? all that means is that there are systems in place to which we do not know the rules.

>>16709702
> Like the theory would include within it what behaviors human engage in?
Yes, ultimately it would have to include human behavior and any other factors which determine which experiment is actually going to be performed. Actually, quantum mechanics does already predict all these factors if they're sufficiently classical, so this shouldn't be too far-fetched.
>Quantum field theory does not require locality
I suppose I should have said "relavitisitic qft". In relativistic qft, the operators corresponding to the fields should commute at spacelike intervals, so you should have [math] \phi(x) \phi(y) = \phi(y) \phi(x) [/math] for all fields [math] \phi [/math] and points x, y which are spacelike separated from each other. This condition ensures that the requirements for the no-communication theorem are satisfied, so that the probabilities measured in an experiment is the same regardless of what is happening in a spacelike separated region. A related way in which locality is fundamental in qft is in the requirement that the scattering amplitudes for colliding particles should be lorentz invariant.

>>16709728
>ultimately it would have to include human behavior and any other factors which determine which experiment is actually going to be performed
Okay. Let's see if I understand you correctly:
Suppose we look top-down at the whole universe throughout the entirety of the timeline in which it exists as a single snapshot. You are arguing that, in this hypothetical framework you're proposing, it is meaningless to discuss interactions which have one of two qualities:
>they never happen within the timeline
We'll call this the "strong case"
>they are never explicitly recorded
We'll call that the weak case.

I'll attack the weak case first because it's straightforward: obviously our recording of an interaction does not influence whether the interaction happens. This is equivalent to saying that interactions we have not measured, but are currently happening, only occur the way they do because we will record them in the future. This violates both causality and locality.

For the strong case:
This is more of a philosophical point. You presume the level of determinism in which it is knowable whether an interaction will take place (note, I said "knowable" and nothing about whether it actually will be known). In doing so you can argue such interactions are impossible simply by virtue of the fact that it's impossible to deviate from the set timeline.
It's kinda like saying it's impossible for the next coin I flip to land on the opposite face that it will eventually land on. It's tautologically true but says nothing about the nature of what's happening when the coin is tossed.
If the nature of the interaction, if it did happen now, were dependent on how the interaction would occur when it does happen later: this is a violation of causality and locality in the same sense as the weak case.

Some superdeterministic models get around this by adjusting parameters on causal linkage. But what you're arguing here is still compatible with Bell's theorem if I understand it correctly.

>>16709728
>relavitisitic qft
This isn't really an alternative model to non-relativistic QFT. It's just the parts of the QFT model that allign with Relativity. Other parts of the same QFT are explicitly non-relativistic. This is akin to discussing Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry. They don't disagree with each other. There's just rules that one follows that the other doesn't.

>>16709735
>>they never happen within the timeline
>We'll call this the "strong case"
I think what I'm suggesting is closer to this case, but you don't need to restrict yourself to a single timeline -- if the theory had just one timeline, it wouldn't be possible to conclude anything about locality in the theory as you say. It's possible that the hidden variable theory allows multiple "timelines" which are all still restrictive enough for bell's theorem to not apply but rich enough to be able to talk of locality.

>>16708647 (OP)
I don't know which Marxist kike told you determinism is scientific, but it just isn't true.
The universe is fundamentally probabilistic. Free will exists. Objective realism has been disproven.

>>16709646
Bell's Theorem was created by one of the Marxists, named Bell, who wanted to prove determinism and realism because he wanted to prove his Jewish idol Einstein correct.
To do this he made two assumptions. Locality(no FTL info travel) and Reality (existence of a property value independent of observation)
The violation of Bell's Theorem means that at least one of these assumptions is wrong.
Modern physics hold locality to be true, since it's backed by the Theory of Relativity, therefore Reality must be wrong. This means that a fundamental particles do NOT have definite position, momentum, spin, etc until observed. They only have probability equations for those values. Once observed, it randomly generates a value using the probability equation.
Superdeterminism is a cope that says that ever since the beginning of the universe, something outside of it has conspired so that every time humans perform a Bell's Test, the timing of which is predetermined by the way, we get false results that lead us to believe that at least one of Reality and Locality is violated. The entire universe is a predetermined theater that progress logically except when anyone does a Bell's Test, at which point he is pre-determined to get false results.
It's extremely convoluted and dumb. At least the pilot-wave retards have the gall to throw away Relativity to preserve their precious objective reality.

I really think that many posters need to take a course on QM and really understand Bell's Tests before diving into philosophy.

>>16708647 (OP)
>Why? How do you snip out the causal threads at any scale?
There's no cause for a particle's exact location within this bulb other than God throwing a dice. The bulb itself evolves deterministically, yes, but once you observe it and really see where the actual particle is within the bulb, it's pretty plugging RAND(0,99) into the formula.
Video link below, it talks mostly about how the bulb evolves over time and how it's affected by observation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bzE1E5PMY

>>16709870
You're definitely some retarded religious fanatic. If you think objective reality doesn't exist because of quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is not objectively real either so you just contradicted yourself, being the clown that you are.

>>16709943
Why don't you learn QM, superposition and the Bell's Inequality before posting? I even defined what objective reality is, and why it's disproven in the very post that you quoted.
I'll even dumb it down further so even a retard like you can understand: in a roguelike game, the content of room isn't pre-generated, it only generates itself upload opening the door. Objective reality is the hypothesis that each room's content is pre-generated regardless of player action. This has been disproven.

>>16709967
No, your definition of objective reality is just retarded because you're an unthinking religious buffoon who can only parrot the standard propaganda that "muh local realism is dead" without thinking anything about what those words mean.
>i-if i define virginity as having sex, ur a virgin too!!
It's just embarrassing for you.

>>16708647 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qbyxg95ebw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>>16709998
Yep, one more legit religious fanatic lmao
>Justin Riddle explores the theory of quantum consciousness. Do you even exist? I think yes. Do your choices make a difference in the universe? I would say yes. Is there a deeper meaning to this whole life thing? I believe so!
Hahahaha

>>16709995
>No, your definition of objective reality is just retarded because you're an unthinking religious buffoon who can only parrot the standard propaganda that "muh local realism is dead" without thinking anything about what those words mean.
Go back to Africa

>>16708689
How* the hallway chirps. "Why" is an irrelevant non-question best left to philosophers.

>>16709995
So you admit that modern physics is "standard propaganda" to you, then why are you on this board? This is the science board, shouldn't you be posting on /x/ instead, or bluesky since you apparently hate religion as well?

>>16708650
Bohr was proven correct.

Half this thread proves that Sabine Hessenkiker and her pop science videos have been a disaster upon the masses. This is why pop science is bad, the masses need to stay uninformed, they're simply not intelligent enough to understand.

>>16709995
>No, your definition of objective reality is just retarded
It's not *my* definition, it is *the* definition.

>>16708647 (OP)
Without some source of randomness to break the initial symmetry, the universe could have never evolved. It would be a perfect unbroken field. Superdeterminism refutes itself.

>>16709686
>Incorrect. Non-locality is fundamental to modern QM. It's core to all "standard" explanations for entanglement.
That’s a common misunderstanding. Quantum mechanics is local and non-deterministic. Even though entangled particles show strong correlations and violate Bell inequalities, there's still no faster-than-light signaling.

>>16710044
It's either local non-reality, or non-local reality. In either case, QM is non-deterministic.

>>16710044
>there's still no faster-than-light signaling.
Is this cope?

>>16709620
>According to Bell's theorem, there is no "hidden variable" solution to quantum mechanics.
No it just means there are things that defy local relativity, however sparse and exotic. The alternative is making the claim that we've found the root of everything - that something comes from nothing. Seems a bit hubristic.

>>16710682
There's no "local relativity". There is relativity. It seems more far hubristic to throw away the theory of relativity in favor of determinism, which has zero theories backing it.
>>16710675
Post FTL signaling.

>>16708647 (OP)
Reality isn’t purely physical and rational and fundamentally dead. Those are all irrational assumptions you have because you think you are god and just want to have more power.

>>16710031
>>16710034
>>16710040
You are nothing but a zombie mob of self-described objective reality deniers. Nothing you say has any importance.

>>16708873
>>i dont know how to prove it so it cant be proven
>back you go kike
You don't seem to get it.
The entire premise of Superdeterminism is that everything is determined by prior conditions stretching back to the beginning of the universe, even supposedly random quantum events.

If an experiment appears to contradict superdeterminism, the theory can attribute the result to predetermined correlations, saying that the outcome of that experiment was destined to happen, because "reasons".
So by design, superdeterminism can never be disproven.
And to prove superdeterminism is the correct theory, you would have to prove that "free will doesn't exist" and that's also prety much impossible to do conclusively.

Superdeterminism sucks. I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, friendo, it just isn't a good theory.
It relies on too many assumptions and isn't verifiable.
In fact, it's just pure assumptions and no real substance at all.
Cope.

>>16710985
Congrats on being retarded.

>>16709228
>>16709616
See >>16710985
I was making a joke example of the cope of SuperDeterminism.

I wasn't trying to say "quantum physics disproves determinism".
I was trying to say IF.
IF there happened to ONE DAY be a quantum experiment that disproved superdeterminism, then the people who support superdeterminsm can simply say
>"well ackshually, the result was predetermined long before..."
I was trying to highlight the hypocrisy of people who defend this theory, on the basis it's unscientific.
No matter what "proof" exists disproving superdeterminism, it's still not enough, because of the bullshit magical nature of superdeterminism.

If true, superdeterminism would invalidate science itself, as nature could manipulate experiments to produce desired results, destroying falsifiability.
That's the nature of superdeterminism.
It's unscientific.
Cope.