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

The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#31

Post by SomeOldThrow »

MiroF wrote: post #8
whatshisface wrote: post #4

"The Facts" basically say that among the statements, "Your experiment design isn't predestined by the universe to make it accidentally seem like quantum mechanics is true," "the state of the universe today is all you need to know to predict the state of the universe tomorrow," and "an experiment only has one outcome," there is at least one lie. If the first one is a lie that's superdeterminism, the second one the Cop…

This comment started out good but then stumbled in to some odd critique of philosophy as being incapable of dealing with unknowable things when indeed that seems to be perfectly within the purview of philosophy. Humes Problem of Induction, for instance, is exactly an example of philosophical practice grappling with these unanswerables.

> Humes Problem of Induction, for instance, is exactly an example of philosophical practice grappling with these unanswerables.

Hume's problem of induction is arguably the last substantial thought on the subject, right up through Popper's bridge problem.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#32

Post by masteranza »

samirillian wrote: post #10
whatshisface wrote: post #4

"The Facts" basically say that among the statements, "Your experiment design isn't predestined by the universe to make it accidentally seem like quantum mechanics is true," "the state of the universe today is all you need to know to predict the state of the universe tomorrow," and "an experiment only has one outcome," there is at least one lie. If the first one is a lie that's superdeterminism, the second one the Cop…

Where does Pilot Wave theory fall?

“Pilot wave” it’s not a valid theory at all. First, the wave-function is not an observable. Secondly, reproducing interference is no big success - classical physics does that all the time.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#33

Post by masteranza »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

"The Facts" basically say that among the statements, "Your experiment design isn't predestined by the universe to make it accidentally seem like quantum mechanics is true," "the state of the universe today is all you need to know to predict the state of the universe tomorrow," and "an experiment only has one outcome," there is at least one lie. If the first one is a lie that's superdeterminism, the second one the Cop…

Many worlds interpretation is not a valid interpretation at all. We know how objects decohere and there’s never really any collapse to begin with.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#34

Post by namanyayg »

klodolph wrote: post #24
namanyayg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other terms would you use? "Falsifiable" is more accurate that "untestable"?

"More accurate" is a good way to phrase it. "More accurate" also describes GR when you compare it to Newtonian mechanics. Strictly speaking, Newtonian mechanics is false and has been falsified if you subscribe to the Popperian view. However, if Newtonion mechanics is false, is it useless? No. As it turns out, there are a few problems with the epistemology of falsifiability. The main ones I can think of are: 1. Duhem-…

Amazing, I appreciate the depth you went in and will be reading more on these topics. Thank you.

Any resource you could recommend for Bayesian system of belief? I understand Bayesian probability/math but I haven't explored it as a philosophy.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#35

Post by klodolph »

namanyayg wrote: post #34
klodolph wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"More accurate" is a good way to phrase it. "More accurate" also describes GR when you compare it to Newtonian mechanics. Strictly speaking, Newtonian mechanics is false and has been falsified if you subscribe to the Popperian view. However, if Newtonion mechanics is false, is it useless? No. As it turns out, there are a few problems with the epistemology of falsifiability. The main ones I can think of are: 1. Duhem-…

Amazing, I appreciate the depth you went in and will be reading more on these topics. Thank you. Any resource you could recommend for Bayesian system of belief? I understand Bayesian probability/math but I haven't explored it as a philosophy.

I don't have resources for Bayesian systems of belief. I do like Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge by Deborah Mayo, but the book is a bit intimidating. I admit I haven’t finished reading it, either.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#36

Post by IX-103 »

klodolph wrote: post #17
samirillian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does Pilot Wave theory fall?

My understanding is that it is possible to conduct an experiment which would invalidate pilot wave theory or confirm it, to the extent that theories are invalidated or confirmed--we just haven't figured out how to conduct the experiment. The article mentions that Bell's inequality was in a similar position in the past.

Why does pilot wave theory violate locality -- does it assume that the pilot waves travel faster than light? And if so, is it necessary for the pilot waves to travel faster than light or can they be limited to the speed of light and preserve locality?

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#37

Post by selestify »

archibaldJ wrote: post #29
teilo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe if you really want to undermine superdeterminism as a theory (or as a philosophy), the more relevant question here to ask is: is there anything useful/meaningful about reality (or the universe) that can be inferred assuming superdeterminism? And then of course if you are a scientist you would then ask: are they experimentally verifiable? To even ask the question you must deny your own premise. If indeed s…

The last part was supposed to be taken with a grain of irony in the spirit of Anton Zeilinger: "We always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our ques…

What does superdeterminism have to do with the Tao?

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#38

Post by IX-103 »

I'm not fond of superdeterminism since it's not that useful for making predictions. Any purely deterministic model has implications for free will, so that doesn't seem to be a legitimate criticism.

Actually I would like to know more about provable violations if Bell's theorem as I am somewhat attached to local determinism and haven't seen an experiment that I would consider convincing. I mean the theories behind the experiments are sound, but I'm not sure they're actually measuring what they think they are measuring due to limitations in the experiment setup -- in order to prove a violation of locality your system cannot be in a cyclostationary equilibrium.

In such an equilibrium the system state effectively becomes a standing wave so you risk measuring an effect that was actually a result of a previous cycle and mistakenly interpret it as being a result of the current cycle -- implying a violation in locality because the "cause" was outside of the light cone of the effect. Note that this is analogous to confusing the group and phase velocities of a radio wave (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-phase-v...).

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#39

Post by pdonis »

IX-103 wrote: post #38

I'm not fond of superdeterminism since it's not that useful for making predictions. Any purely deterministic model has implications for free will, so that doesn't seem to be a legitimate criticism. Actually I would like to know more about provable violations if Bell's theorem as I am somewhat attached to local determinism and haven't seen an experiment that I would consider convincing. I mean the theories behind the…

> In such an equilibrium the system state effectively becomes a standing wave so you risk measuring an effect that was actually a result of a previous cycle and mistakenly interpret it as being a result of the current cycle

I don't know where you're getting this from, but it doesn't describe quantum systems on which Bell inequality violations have been experimentally confirmed (such as photon pairs from parametric down conversion).

The only "loophole" that has not been completely closed at this point is that we don't have 100% efficient detectors, but we have detectors that are well over 90% efficient so the claim that somehow all the stuff that will "fix" the Bell inequality violations is hiding in the small percentage of photons not being detected isn't very compelling.

Re: The Forgotten Solution: Superdeterminism

#40

Post by pdonis »

IX-103 wrote: post #36
klodolph wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that it is possible to conduct an experiment which would invalidate pilot wave theory or confirm it, to the extent that theories are invalidated or confirmed--we just haven't figured out how to conduct the experiment. The article mentions that Bell's inequality was in a similar position in the past.

Why does pilot wave theory violate locality -- does it assume that the pilot waves travel faster than light? And if so, is it necessary for the pilot waves to travel faster than light or can they be limited to the speed of light and preserve locality?

> Why does pilot wave theory violate locality -- does it assume that the pilot waves travel faster than light?

Yes. The pilot wave at any given point can be affected instantaneously by changes anywhere else in the universe.

Post reply on HN