Live data from Hacker News

Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

backreaction.blogspot.com

31–40 of 132 posts

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#31
post #28
post #2

From watching the video and reading one of the papers, I get the sense that the theory being described doesn't work in the usual way. For example, reading the paper it talks about "future inputs" determining what happens, which seems impossible if you need to have the entire state specified for each time slice without need to reference other time slices. Instead of having a specific state for time t, and being able t…

You might want to read about "block time" or "block universe". In this theory, everything is already pre-computed, like an uncompressed video file. So you can skip to whatever frame you want since there is no state. > It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-…

People who meditate often begin to slowly realize that ideas arise without concious thought. We imagine we are "thinking" but there really is no break in causality where we somehow choose how we want the future to unfold. Our brains are no more exempt from cause and effect than a marble rolling downhill is.

It is a mistake to confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself. We don't preceive everything, our senses are a filter that allows us to navigate but there's no more free will here than a plant turning to follow the sun. Fortunately, we don't experience reality this way. If we did, life would cease to be meaningful.

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#32
post #6

Uh, the OP frequently mentions "statistical independence", and I am uncomfortable with that: Independence is a property of a set of more than one random variable and is defined in probability , often used in statistics , but not defined in statistics . There is a polished, elegant, and thorough treatment of such independence, including of uncountably infinite sets of random variables, in J. Neveu, Mathematical Founda…

In the context of Bell’s Theorem, statistical independence is understood to mean that, if extant, hidden variables are not correlated with how measurements are being performed. Bell’s Theorem is only correct if this assumption holds. Hossenfelder is arguing that the assumption is incorrect: that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect precisely because there ARE hidden variables and that these ARE correlated with measurement set…

> Superdeterminism, arguably misnamed, simply argues that QM is deterministic

This is incorrect. QM is already deterministic. Where oh where do people get the idea that it is not?

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#33
post #5

I can’t agree more with the OP about free will and stuff. The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing. It’s like giving up.

> The main problem of superdeternimism though is that it both explains everything and nothing.

Not sure why you think that. You still have to explain precisely what is superdeterministic and what isn't, and elaborate how this works in a coherent way, and that process will end up telling you a lot. Is that really any different that accepting non-locality to explain spooky action at a distance?

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#34

Superdeterminism needs some kind of simplicity, for lack of a better word. To take her vaccine trial analogy further, imagine that you randomly assign a group of 100 people to a treatment and control cell (50-50). It could happen that all 50 people in the control cell just happened to be the 50 most a priori healthy people in the group. But it’s extremely unlikely. Following the analogy, superdeterminism says it happ…

> But the level of coincidence involved invokes such an absurdly complex series of coincidences, that your coin flip comes up heads on these particular people, that occam’s razor might as well spontaneously cease to exist.

Sure, but the experiments you have to run to see these absurd coincidence are also absurdly contrived, so is that really surprising?

It's worth noting that Sabine's take on superdeterminism is also a bit different than past takes that are rife with "conspiracy", so I suggest reading her papers.

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of Bell’s Theorem, statistical independence is understood to mean that, if extant, hidden variables are not correlated with how measurements are being performed. Bell’s Theorem is only correct if this assumption holds. Hossenfelder is arguing that the assumption is incorrect: that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect precisely because there ARE hidden variables and that these ARE correlated with measurement set…

> Superdeterminism, arguably misnamed, simply argues that QM is deterministic, where Bell and others have argued it is not. No, this is completely wrong. Super-determinism is more than determinism. Super-determinism is about conspiratorial coincidences – so the measurement settings you choose just happen to be the ones which will make it look like the world is quantum. Other quantum interpretations are also determini…

I think these consequences are only conspirational if time is an independent variable? What if everything, the entire universe’s past, present, and future ‘happened’ at the same time, as a self consistent solution of some kind of underlying equation or set of rules? Our brain, the seat of our perception of time, is part of the same universe that we’re trying to explain. Maybe time is an artifact of the self referential feedback loop that causes our consciousness.

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of Bell’s Theorem, statistical independence is understood to mean that, if extant, hidden variables are not correlated with how measurements are being performed. Bell’s Theorem is only correct if this assumption holds. Hossenfelder is arguing that the assumption is incorrect: that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect precisely because there ARE hidden variables and that these ARE correlated with measurement set…

> Superdeterminism, arguably misnamed, simply argues that QM is deterministic, where Bell and others have argued it is not. No, this is completely wrong. Super-determinism is more than determinism. Super-determinism is about conspiratorial coincidences – so the measurement settings you choose just happen to be the ones which will make it look like the world is quantum. Other quantum interpretations are also determini…

Many worlds is not deterministic in the sense that the experimenter cannot predict in which world they will end up.

Pilot wave theory is deterministic, but non-locality is retrocausal influence under GR.

I also don't think your take on superdeterminism is entirely correct. As Sabine says, "statistical independence" is the "no superdeterminism" assumption, and some superdeterministic theories can be conspiratorial, but that doesn't mean all such theories are conspiratorial. This is the mistake.

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert in this field, but aren't the existing assumptions around time being independent at the slice we want to take a major reason why QM and General Relativity can't be reconciled? If so, that would seem like a good reason to look at alternative ideas in this space.

I think that's more or less correct. GR suggests "time" isn't independent, we instead have 4-dimensional "spacetime". The idea that future inputs can influence past configurations can be perfectly sensible in this context. It's like a restricted form of consistent closed timelike curves. There was some development in this direction years ago: The Logic of Quantum Mechanics Derived from Classical General Relativity, h…

Why is GR required? Already in standard QFT (Minkowski metric; flat spacetime; special relativity) the propagator 'violates causality'. Although that phrasing is misleading; it doesn't mean there's any logical inconsistency.

'The future affects the past' you might say. Yes, well, all information about the future is derivable from information about the present. So actually those 'future influences' are determined by the present. In the same way, 'locality' is almost a moot concept, because the analyticity of fields implies that the value of fields at remote locations is determined entirely by the field locally.

Re: Does superdeterminism save quantum mechanics?

#40

This is the first time I've read some way of looking at quantum physics that actually make sense. I hope it is indeed correct and all those ~smart people who were putting their ridiculously complex theory of quantum physics at our throats end up being ridiculed.

You're exactly the target audience for her content :) .
Post reply on HN