Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take • Hacker News Board

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#11

Post by corporate_shi11 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

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…

Bell's theorem gives us a clear path forward in understanding the universe. Local realism must be discarded.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#12

Post by gliese1337 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:19 AM UTC

I find it strange that they claim that QM lacks any explanation for measurement.

There are explanations for measurement. Not everyone agrees with any single one of them, but they definitely exist. Superdeterminism is one, but it's not the only one. It is really only the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM that has a measurement problem.

Personally, I am on board with the "measurement is just entanglement" solution (it seems intuitively obvious to me, but then I'm sure superdeterminism seems intuitively obvious to those who believe in it as well), which makes superdeterminism unnecessary.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#13

Post by mberning » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:19 AM UTC

“Should we discover that quantum theory is not fundamentally random”

This would be a terrifying revelation on a personal and existential level.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#14

Post by vanderZwan » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:41 AM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #5

ajkjk wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble seeing what any of that has to do with determinism.

Cranks to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, super determined with you... Even the comments on the blog post seem exceedingly cranky. I can imagine it's very hard to work in such an area, with such a noisy peanut gallery.

If you click through to the lecture she links by Tim Palmer[0]it becomes clear that he's got to deal with this on an even worse level, because he works on both this topic and on the physics of climate change. The comments there are just painful to read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-IHJbzRVVU

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#15

Post by sysbin » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:42 AM UTC

mberning wrote: post #13

“Should we discover that quantum theory is not fundamentally random” This would be a terrifying revelation on a personal and existential level.

How so, can you expand on what would be terrifying on a personal and existential level for you?

I've encountered a few people that will cite quantum theory when it comes to discussions about questioning if one has free will. I cannot even imagine how quantum theory gives a us true free will and without one's will just being the outcome of the system we reside in.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#16

Post by knzhou » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:44 AM UTC

gliese1337 wrote: post #12

I find it strange that they claim that QM lacks any explanation for measurement. There are explanations for measurement. Not everyone agrees with any single one of them, but they definitely exist. Superdeterminism is one, but it's not the only one. It is really only the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM that has a measurement problem. Personally, I am on board with the "measurement is just entanglement" solution (it se…

While I lean the same way, the measurement problem is definitely harder than you say. If it's just entanglement with an external system, you still have to answer how that superposition ends up with you personally observing only one result.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#17

Post by knzhou » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:45 AM UTC

mberning wrote: post #13

“Should we discover that quantum theory is not fundamentally random” This would be a terrifying revelation on a personal and existential level.

Terrifying revelations comes for cheap these days. Plenty of people say that the opposite of that is terrifying as well. I figure if I'm going to be terrified either way, I might as well not be!

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#18

Post by Simon_says » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:49 AM UTC

corporate_shi11 wrote: post #11

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…

Bell's theorem gives us a clear path forward in understanding the universe. Local realism must be discarded.

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

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#19

Post by sysbin » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #7

I've always been mystified at why people take superdeterminism as a good explanation for anything, when it actually acts as a stopsign for thought. For example, suppose I am betting with you on the outcomes of a coin toss. You call heads, the coin comes up tails, you give me some money. You call tails, the coin comes up heads, you give me some more money. This repeats a number of times. The common sense response is t…

Your example given with the conclusion to follow doesn't make sense. I'm a hard determinist, I've known others like myself and nobody leaps to the thought, "the initial conditions of the universe means this is all meaningless" and we do try to observe every possibility such as the game being rigged. I don't necessarily think superdeterminism can explain literally anything or that if it did explain something there would be no gain of insight. That just seems like you're postulating.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#20

Post by ReadEvalPost » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #7

I've always been mystified at why people take superdeterminism as a good explanation for anything, when it actually acts as a stopsign for thought. For example, suppose I am betting with you on the outcomes of a coin toss. You call heads, the coin comes up tails, you give me some money. You call tails, the coin comes up heads, you give me some more money. This repeats a number of times. The common sense response is t…

I don't really understand what your coin flip metaphor is supposed to mean in the context of the paper. That Superdeterminism could be used in an entirely facile way doesn't really suggest anything about the theory itself.

When choosing Superdeterminism as an ontology it suggests different paths for doing research, paths that are unexplored and potentially full of insight. That's what is exciting about it to me.