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

61–70 of 209 posts

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#61

Post by trevyn »

knzhou wrote: post #41
millstone wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked paper addresses this objection in a fun way: perhaps the tobacco company lawyers argue in court that "smoking doesn't cause cancer; every experiment was super-determined to assign those pre-disposed to cancer into the smoking group!" The paper replies with the following argument: in super-determinism, statistical independence is an emergent property which holds at macro scales, so classical experiments do…

> The paper replies with the following argument: in super-determinism, statistical independence is an emergent property which holds at macro scales, so classical experiments do enjoy statistical independence. In your hypothesis - yeah, the game is rigged! > But superdeterminism comes into play at the quantum scale where we know things are already kind of fucked, which is why we're talking about this at all. But exper…

Perhaps all forms of randomness are pseudorandomness of various quality levels, which turns out to be good enough?

It would be the end of the current interpretation of what science means, but the process and results of science could carry on as they always have.

There is also the glimmer of post-science, in which we might be able to find a process/method that is more effective/efficient than the scientific in some domains.

And you’re right — there will certainly be wailing and gnashing of teeth. :-)

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#62

Post by TeMPOraL »

corporate_shi11 wrote: post #31
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.

MWI is fashionable today, tomorrow it will be something else. Such is the case with unfalsifiable semi-mystical interpretations.

> Such is the case with unfalsifiable semi-mystical interpretations.

Like Copenhagen?

AFAIK, both explanations have been around for roughly the same while now, and neither seems to be going out of fashion any time soon.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#63

Post by dchichkov »

A nice and compelling argument in that paper: "The classical Liouville equation is linear in the probability density due to conservation of probability. But this linearity says nothing whatsoever about whether the dynamics of the underlying system from which the probability density derives is also linear. Hence, for example, chaotic dynamical systems, despite their nonlinear dynamics, obey the same linear equation for probability density. To us, this close formal similarity between the two equations strongly suggests that quantum physics, too, is only the linear probabilistic description of an underlying nonlinear deterministic system."

But, similarities in equations surely can be misleading ;)

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#64

Post by ganzuul »

ncmncm wrote: post #9

I just finished reading her book, today. Rock on, Sabine! Anything that makes believers in Free Will or Consciousness unhappy makes me happy.

I'm super curious about people who make this claim. Are you not conscious? The idea that there are people walking around who look and act like everybody else but behind the eyes there is nothing is terrifying and exhilarating to me. I'm open to the idea that when you observe yourself there is nothing looking back at you, but that doesn't generalize the necessarily subjective experience.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#65

Post by outlace »

mberning wrote: post #25
sysbin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am OK with the thought that the the universe sprang into existence, and through some form of randomness or chance, things played out on this planet that allowed for life and for me to exist on it. Now go back to step one and assume that, even on an atomic level, there is no chance, no randomness. Given all of the preconditions, we get this outcome every single time. Then I have to reconsider why is there even the i…

How would random motion of atoms give you any more free choice than deterministic motion of atoms?

Personally, fundamental randomness is more disturbing to me because it implies a-causality, i.e. that at the smallest scales things happen for no reason at all and would be unexplainable in principle.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#66

Post by semi-extrinsic »

AgentME wrote: post #44
selestify wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's simpler (as in fewer rules; not that it results in a "simpler" smaller world) than a lot of other interpretations: it doesn't need to specify an explicit concept of wave collapse.

Instead it does have to specify the explicit concept of how these many worlds fork off from each other. MWI is a lot more mind-boggling if you truly think about it.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#67

Post by trevyn »

perl4ever wrote: post #33
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'm not sure if everything being deterministic is an abhorrent, invalid option, but I also don't see why reality has to be local. I mean, the limitation of light speed is something that exists to make a consistent theory, not something that somehow has value in itself...? My problem is probably not just a lack of math, but a lack of taste.

Agreed. I think it becomes clearer when you start to look at the human dynamics of group belief systems, and the process of changing those beliefs and consequent turmoil.

The fact is, we don’t have enough evidence yet to decide one way or the other, but there is a commonly accepted interpretation that is quite strongly cemented in the minds of practicing physicists, which works well for their purposes. When challenged by a fringe group, they will naturally defend their beliefs in ways that are both scientific and human-reactionary.

Being scientists, they will be open to changing beliefs given enough evidence, but being human, they will instinctively defend their existing beliefs, even if poorly supported, until sufficient evidence arrives.

I suppose the perfect Bayesian physicist would hold a superposition of beliefs, and use this set to decide on the most promising allocation of research resources. Of course, having incomplete information, there is always the chance of a hidden dynamic that, to uncover, requires chance investigation of an unlikely theory. :-)

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#68

Post by ganzuul »

knzhou wrote: post #54
millstone wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rea…

Naively, superconductivity could serve as a partially closed system for experiments in this theory.

Re: Superdeterminism: The path we didn’t take

#70

Post by trevyn »

kanzenryu2 wrote: post #60
selestify wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Wait, is MWI compatible with superdeterminism? That is, the sequence above seems to show that MWI is an effective way to calculate, but does not actually rule out superdeterminism underneath it — just like ordinary quantum mechanics is an effective way to calculate in certain domains of applicability but cannot effectively claim to be the “underlying reality”.
Post reply on HN