Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 209 posts

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#51

Post by sysbin »

knzhou wrote: post #38
perl4ever wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely not distinguishing between determinism and superdeterminism. The wikipedia page on superdeterminism starts out: "In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a hypothetical class of theories that evade Bell's theorem by virtue of being completely deterministic" Logically, something that is "completely deterministic" would have to be...deterministic, no? Does superdeterminism go to 11?

Superdeterminism is determinism, plus a radically different way of thinking about experimental results. To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see if yo…

Superdeterminism isn't a radically different way of thinking about experimental results as a determinist.

> To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see if you get a ratio close to 50/50. That's standard science.

Every person understanding determinism will assert if you can repeat the same conditions of a previous coin flip, you will get the same outcome of the previous coin flip (for the next flip) and until the conditions are altered to make it so. The "conditions" being all the "external forces" acting upon the coin as it flips and lands.

We all understand a coin flip is 50/50 for us, since we're not perfect machines at replication. We would need to be able to analysis how to flip a coin the same as a previous flip and manipulate the environment of the coin flip to the previous flip if required.

The foregoing understanding is beneficial for scientists when it comes to experimentation. I understand why people can assume "God/Nature did it" would be worrisome. I still think you're making a big leap with what you originally asserted.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#52

Post by username90 »

knzhou wrote: post #47
username90 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's on the level of answering "God did it" to every question. And saying that it is random with "God rolled a dice" isn't? The entire universe could have used a fixed random seed and our experiments and thoughts would have been exactly the same for all we know, determinism doesn't have the effects you talk about. We perform trials and do statistics when we don't know the exact workings of things, not because we be…

Again, it's not about randomness vs. determinism. Both are perfectly compatible with science, just as you said, and no scientist bats an eye at using either type of model. Superdeterminism is a big step beyond determinism that explicitly is like saying "because God did it".

I see superdeterminism as more like breaking the information limit, each particle is aware of the rest of the universe and can thus predict how things will be done everywhere. I don't believe that packing that much information in each particle makes sense, but it shows that superdeterminism doesn't require that a god manually determined the result of each event in the entire history of the universe.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#53

Post by knzhou »

sysbin wrote: post #51
knzhou wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superdeterminism is determinism, plus a radically different way of thinking about experimental results. To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see if yo…

Superdeterminism isn't a radically different way of thinking about experimental results as a determinist. > To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see i…

Again, what you said is textbook determinism that I and almost every scientist agrees with. Superdeterminism is much, much stranger than this (it's not just saying quantum mechanics is deterministic, which e.g. Many Worlds also does).

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#54

Post by knzhou »

millstone wrote: post #46
themgt wrote: post #8

I find this Quora answer convincingly reflects my thinking as to why Superdeterminism can't possibly be correct given Bell’s theorem[1] Skimming the actual paper[2] I'm not really seeing a convincing explanation, this in particular just strikes me as hard to believe / failing Occam's razor: The belief that such tests tell us something about (the implausibility of) Superdeterminism goes back, once again, to the idea t…

I would say it like so: pi has many transcendental neighbors, which are in no way related to pi. But e and pi, despite being numerically distant, are in one sense "close" - related - via Euler's formula. So there's a "local closeness" - the arithmetic difference of pi and its neighbor - but also a "relationship closeness" where pi and e are intimately linked. Perhaps quantum states obey the relationship closeness, no…

Yes, but in order to actually explain the results of existing experiments superdeterministically, this "implicate" order must be vast. It has to link the results of spin measurements, coin flips, radioactive decays halfway across the world, and the twinkling of the light from a long-dead star, all of which are sources of apparent randomness used together in experiments. All of this has to work in concert.

If that really is the right way to think about the world, then absolutely nothing of science can survive. There is no such thing as a controlled experiment.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#55

Post by zyxzevn »

Since we are looking at an alternative interpretation:

Max Planck's Loader Model - the simplest interpretation that is never looked at.

In the Loader Model atoms have a hidden and random energy state, and a detectable state. The energy of light is spread evenly as waves. And when the energy reaches a threshold the detectable state changes. Photons do not exist. What we see are just detectable jumps of the energy states.

I never heard of it, until I found an experimenter that claimed to find evidence for it. With higher levels of energy than normal light, he found that (more often) two or more atoms can reach a next state, when one quantum of energy is emitted. Other experimenters classify these double-quanta as "noise".

Occham's razor?

Because it is the simplest interpretation, I would like to see more research into this. Maybe there is something to it, or maybe it can reveal some hidden variables in the detectors.

See: www.threshodmodel.com

Note: the experimenter is not a very good communicator and it took me some time to understand what he was explaining.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#56

Post by chr1 »

username90 wrote: post #52
knzhou wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it's not about randomness vs. determinism. Both are perfectly compatible with science, just as you said, and no scientist bats an eye at using either type of model. Superdeterminism is a big step beyond determinism that explicitly is like saying "because God did it".

I see superdeterminism as more like breaking the information limit, each particle is aware of the rest of the universe and can thus predict how things will be done everywhere. I don't believe that packing that much information in each particle makes sense, but it shows that superdeterminism doesn't require that a god manually determined the result of each event in the entire history of the universe.

"each particle is aware of the rest of the universe" is non-locality which is the other way of explaining bells inequality.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#59

Post by ganzuul »

beamatronic wrote: post #57

It’s humbling to me that there are 7 billion people on this planet. Many of them are highly educated. And we are running up against problems we can’t understand. The fundamental nature of the universe.

I think the problem is anthropocentrism. It's much like the IMO preposterous and archaic idea that a deity has to resemble us.

People who study the fundamentals of quantum mechanics complain that philosophy is seen as useless. From my understanding this stems from how in detail the Copenhagen 'interpretation' took hold in particulary U.S. institutions; and it is entirely non-scientific. Copenhagen is an engineering discipline, and not a scientific theory. In natural philosophy we have to account for our position compared to the object we study. We are not separate from nature.

Philosophy has many ideas which help us deal with our physical reality and they need to be taken seriously.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#60

Post by kanzenryu2 »

selestify wrote: post #23
Simon_says wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realism is the axiom to give up, not locality. Just accept MWI as the current best guess and get on with your life.

There’s no evidence MWI is the best guess compared to other interpretations

You may find this interesting

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9cgBF6BQ2TRB3Hy4E/and-the-wi...

Post reply on HN