Talk:Superdeterminism

message: In an The Illuminatus! Trilogy appendix, Robert Anton Wilson noted this;
SUPERDETERMINISM: The approach to quantum theory urged by Dr. Fritjof Capra in The Tao of Physics. This interpretation rejects "contrafactual definiteness"; that is, it assumes that any statements about what could have happened are meaningless. A consequence of this view is that all distinction between observer and observed, or self and universe, also becomes meaningless; I had no choice about writing this book, Dell Books had no choice about publishing it, and you had no choice about reading it, since there is only one thing happening and we are all seamlessly welded into it.
Marasmusine 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So an appendix to a novel is the only verifiable reference we currently have for this term. That helps explain "The concept has not received widespread attention among physicists." I will look some more ... but ... the term neologism comes to mind ... --Keesiewonder talk 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **I'm not trying to defend the article in particular, but I'm sure there will be more references out there somewhere. For a phrase that's been around since at least 1970, I don't think 'neologism' is entirely appropriate. On the other hand I have no appropriate source material to hand. Maybe the article should be scrapped for now, but I've flagged it for attention for physics experts in the meantime. Marasmusine 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **Did a quick internet search; not sure about the reliability of these sources; but Bell and Superdeterminism are mentioned here : and there are some further references at the bottom of this: , this  paper being the most relevent. Unfortunately they only mention superdeterminism in passing but at least it shows the original editor isn't making it up. Marasmusine 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, those look more promising. Thank you, and nice work! I would like to see the BBC reference migrate out of the article - until we can prove the blockquote comes from a true BBC interview - and these other materials migrate in. Keesiewonder talk 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Searching all of the BBC for the term "superdeterminism" yields one hit. Near the bottom of the page with the search results is the disclaimer "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites." the sole hit points to h2g2 which is described (here) as "an unconventional guide to life, the universe and everything, an encyclopaedic project where entries are written by people from all over the world." The BBC provides their own disclaimer at the bottom of this page stating "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." Furthermore, when you go to the h2g2 instance of superdeterminism, neither the name John nor the name Bell appears on the page. There's no BBC interview that I have found containing the term superdeterminism. Please provide verifiable resources to back up the content expressed and quoted in this article. --Keesiewonder talk 10:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, h2g2 isn't what I'd call a reliable source. But if such an interview had taken place, it may have been pre-WWW. Hopefully the original editor will come back with a reference. Marasmusine 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool, that's this article:  I'll add it to the list of references. Marasmusine 07:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well not quite every word, but ideally every statement, yes. We only report what has already been reported elsewhere, including explainations and metaphores. I've had a look at the full New Scientist article but Superdeterminism wasn't actually mentioned. But now I have access to their online articles I'll look for other references. Marasmusine 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Rats, I've searched the NS archive - lots of articles discussing determinism but no mention of superdeterminism :/ Marasmusine 15:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof needed of the John Bell and BBC connection 

message: Identify the person Ehheh in Wikipedia who uses this encyclopedia as a game of harrassement. Bends all rules to his means of attacking people. Finds out what ticks off certain people and then plays games for ad hominem amusement. Editors like him cause for Wikipedia to be never a good encyclopedia but a form of malignancy. Characters like him have now forced me to remove myself from Wikipedia altogether for it is a waste of my time when jerks like this play these games. And if I return, ever, I will need the full name of Ehheh 216.16.54.147 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint

message: This concept isn't notable enough by itself to merit a separate article.  I propose the article be trimmed down to just an explanation of what the loophole is, and added to Loopholes in Bell test experiments, where there is already a proposal on the talk page to add the information. Jim E. Black 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger into [[Loopholes in Bell test experiments]] 

message: "Bell acknowledged the loophole, but argued that it was improbable." This is quantum mechanics. XD 
Although I am a determinist, this particular attempt does not convince me: "There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be." I believe that the events of the universe travel in a line void of ramifications, with only one possible route (complicated by relativity), but for particles or the universe to "know", some sort of conscience is implied, perhaps supporting the argument for a passive but creator god. Of course, I'm atheist, so this doesn't work for me, either. Time to read De Broglie–Bohm theory. XD MichaelExe (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. It's not that the universe knows, it says the initial condition will give a result in accordance with the observation because there is a 1 to 1 correlation. The big problem is the sensitivity of the hidden variable.Klinfran (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I have read that De Broglie-Bohm's explanation can remain deterministic because it posits non-local hidden variables (action at a distance). A good case is made for that interpretation here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/. Still, I have also heard that De Broglie-Bohm has so far failed to be made to fit aspects of special relativity, so I am back to where I started: waiting for quantum physicists to start agreeing on something and hoping I'm right and it's deterministic. Tesseract2 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: I've removed the second paragraph of the John Bell blockquote because it appears to be a combination of a non-quote, and an out-of-context quote.
The first portion, "The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined." are the words (with some changes) of John Gribbin in the November 24, 1990 New Scientist article, "The man who proved Einstein was wrong".
The second portion, "For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." are the words of John Bell, but regard a different topic: The hypothetical choice of realism versus locality.  They come from his interview in The Ghost in the Atom (p. 48):
Interviewer: "Bell's inequality is, as I understand it, rooted in two assumptions: the first is what we might call objective reality -- the reality of the external world, independent of our observations; the second is locality, or non-separability, or no faster-than-light signalling.  Now, Aspect's experiment appears to indicate that one of these has to go.  Which of the two would you like to hang onto?"
John Bell's response: "Well, you see, I don't know.  For me it's not something where I have a solution to sell!  For me it's a dilemma.  I think it's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things..."
J-Wiki (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect quotes removed 

message: Here's a summary of issues above, that remain to be adressed:
* Is this topic notable? I think it is becauase 1) it is one of the escape routes from Bell's theorem. 2) it  could conceivably engender much debate.
* Is it correctly named? In philosophy, this seems to go under a different name. Is the name 'superdeterminism' in wide-spread use, or should this article be renamed? (or redirected to another article in philosopy, covering the same material?) I don't know.
* Lack of authoritative references. I'd like to see at least one reference to something authoritative, e.g. a stanford encyc. of philosophy article, or an arxiv post, or even a book chapter, that goes into greater detail.  Because right now, we have a genreal sketch of the idea, unreferenced, and some referenced quotes from TV shows and passing mentions.
*Lack of a theory.  The article on Bell's theorem intimates that there exist 'theories of superdeterminism'; whereas this article lists exactly zero of such theories, nor does it even imply that any such theories exist.  To me, a theory would be some list of axioms, and some collection of mathematical levers and knobs that articulate and lead to some sort of equational predictions.  If there aren't any such theories, lets come out and state this clearly!  If there are theories, lets list at least one! 
These are the issues that merit the 'expert attention' tag up top the aritcle. 
BTW, I think the above are all points of philiosphy, rather than physics. Viewing this article as a mathematical physicist, I see nothing particularly wrong with it. I don't see anything that a physicist per-se could add, improve or clarify.  I know of no axiomatic approach to QM that includes an 'axiom of superdeterminism' or something like that. BTW, Page and Wootters' ideas of "static" time may come close, but are never actually called superdeterminism. (BTW, we have no WP article on static time, despite it being 30 years old now, multi-authored, and recently experimentally tested.  Wootters bio does not mention it.)
Anyway, this is more of a meta-physics, meta-science topic. User:Linas (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "BTW, we have no WP article on static time, despite it being 30 years old now, multi-authored, and recently experimentally tested." Well, it's not really sourced, but there is a page for it to which this page now links in the "See also" section, and vice versa. Thank you, and you're welcome. 71.236.253.188 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues Summary 

message: This seems like a limited amount of content for such an interesting concept. 
This is at least connected to relevant science today, because Bell's Theorem is defacto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.98.70 (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Can this article be expanded?

message: This article is ultra-windbag-ism.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ultra-windbag-ism 

message: The so-called "Unambiguous Empirical Evidence" is a crankery in the opinion of User:Krenska, User:Tsirel, User:Max Schmidt, User:Chjoaygame and IP 138.48.19.157 (see this talk page), as well as User:Headbomb, User:TimothyRias and IP 2.31.27.153 (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superdeterminism, and in addition, User:Bkolaric1969, see User talk:Prephysics/Pre-physics. It is not a crankery in the opinion of User:Prephysics only. Well, also in the opinion of the nature (!!), according to User:Prephysics. :-) A consensus, or not yet? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more important than our opinions is policy. This is a rather exceptional claim and therefore requires exceptional sources. Since no such sources are provide other than that this is the WP:TRUTH. There is no basis for this section to stay in the article.TR 08:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This editor is inclined to exceptional claims. His "What Do We Replace Science And Religion With?" (from his site, not from his contributions to WP, for now) is probably the most exceptional of all claims that I ever saw. It is hard to imagine, what kind of source could be enough for such claim. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crankery or not 

message: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Superdeterminism 
Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute resolution requested

message: Crankery aside, after this AfD discussion I hope for a major change by (at least) User:Count Iblis and User:TimothyRias, mostly, in relation to works of 't Hooft. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we then need to think about how best to do that. 't Hooft has written quit a few articles about his models and also why they are not a priori ruled out by invoking superdeterminism. Then in response to criticism that superdeterminism cannot possibly save any genuine scientific theory (pretty much based n the same argument as presented in he introduction of our wiki article, basically that everything is assumed to be predetermined then that's an unfalsifiable assumption not open to scientific inquiry), 't Hooft explained how superdeterminism can be invoked without the science becoming pathological. These more general arguments in the papers are what we need, because we need to avoid including too much details about models that only one or two scientists are working on. The people who voted for deletion in the AFD  were concerned about a lack of secondary references, and this is indeed a borderline case where there aren't many different authors working on many different models, so we need to do an extra effort here to make sure what we write about superdeterminsm isn't "contaminated" by the details of how this concept is invoked in a particular case. Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! It is really important to know, "how superdeterminism can be invoked without the science becoming pathological" (quite nontrivial, even surprising). Please try. And indeed, his model(s) should be treated elsewhere (if at all). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  't Hooft's views 

message: I think I understand many physics article, but this one confuses me. I don't know that to make of it. This "superdetermism" is presented as some exotic idea and expressions like "arguably unlikely" are used. Is it not just those two assumptions: 1) Humans are not exempt from the laws of physics just because we would like it to be so, and 2) what happens is a consequence of the state of the universe and not because of chance. Or am I mistaken?
I can understand that physicists would discuss 2), and I know they do since a long time (see God does not play dice). But is is possible that 1) is really a serious issue for real physicists? Like "no, we cannot construct our theories in a way that they apply to ourselves as well"? Not doing the obvious for religious reasons, in order to have a "true free will", or some kind of "soul"?
(I certainly live in the illusion of having a free will, and that's good enough for me. I don't care so much if what I do is determined by the physical state of the universe or by random quantum mechanical processes; I don't have a "true" free will in any way and I fail to see the difference it would make for my life. As an analogy: Falling dice seem random enough, whether they fall truly randomly or whether it just seems so because of the chaotic nature of what happens when they fall.)
--167.0.112.239 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading more carefully the discussion above I found the quote by 't Hooft which seems to confirm that it's really just about "1)" and "2)". This also confirms my issues with this article. --167.0.112.239 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... but did you see the last paragraph before your new section "confusing article"? And yes, it would be good, to base this article mostly on recent ideas of 't Hooft. Regretfully, no one volunteers this (for now). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing article 

message: Forgive me if I have misunderstood the meaning of 'No Boundary' in the 'No Boundary Proposal' BUT if there is no Boundary, doesn't that mean there are no boundary conditions?  So exactly where are the initial conditions defined, for those initial conditions that determine the future evolution of the universe in this deterministic model?  I added a 'citation needed' tag at the relevant point which mentions that the correlations are defined 'at the big bang' (assuming that it is possible to talk of an 'at the big bang' as, possibly, there is no 'at the big bang' if (i) you believe in the instanton model, there is no boundary (I believe the instanton model is part of the no boundary proposal) AND (ii) Singularities might not exist at all, dependant upon your views of singularities.  
I could be missing the mark quite considerably in the above comments - especially as this is not the easiest area of knowledge to understand.  
ASavantDude (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: No Boundary Proposal and Lack of Boundary Conditions Upon which to specify Initial Conditions in the Universe

message: Since numerous loophole free results are in now and local realism/hidden variables has been definitely disproved, either a tag or actually doing the update is appropriate. A drastic step but justifiable step would just be deletion. At this point just looked at lede. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tests regarding Bell's theorem are irrelevant with respect to superdeterminism.  As the article states, superdeterminism evades Bell's theorem.J-Wiki (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. In response to another comment in side/back matter here, I saw an expression of outrage in the use of the term "Free Will" in a physics context. This too was my reaction until reading a blog piece on Scientific American with a title like "Coming to grips with implications of Quantum Mechanics" by one of the proponents of this (FW in physics) this last week. What they are saying is that mind is emergent in the universe in an analogous way as it does from a human brain and the main evidence for this being the relation of measurement to superposition and entanglement. The latter show the transpersonal mind in the same way that language and culture and other manifestations of it do the human mind. I am not fully buying this but I do now see it as no less cogent and perhaps more so, albeit in a very incomplete way, than other, mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. So the free will in question is the operation of this impersonal mind as seen when superposition and entanglement collapse in measurement. I would say this was midway between pilot wave and many worlds in terms of offending the sense of reason and the latter is not generally so received so I would expect more development of it (FW/kosmos as nous). 98.4.124.117 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Updating 

message: What I've learned from the lead:
# Superdeterminism is a loophole to yada yada.
# A hidden variable theory which is superdeterministic--which is still not defined--satisfies Bell's notions of local causality while still "violat[ing] the inequalities derived from Bell's theory."
# Superdeterminism is somehow "misleading" because superdeterministic models are "deterministic in some sense" (I'm shocked) but also postulate correlations of yada yada and so forth.
I'd rewrite this lead but since I actually came here to find out what superdeterminism is I'm probably not qualified to do so at this time. Rev Prez (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superdeterminism isn't directly or clearly defined in the lead 

message: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ,
Emphasis mine. The statement that superdeterminism is the same as determinism, as laid out in the lead, is wrong. I have removed the sentence. AndreasBM (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "superdeterminism" is not clearly misleading 

message: I am attempting to add a citation to Dr. Johan Hansson's article in Superdeterminism.  His article is published in Physics Essays.  The article can be found here:  FULLTEXT01.pdf (diva-portal.org)
According to Wikipedia, Physics Essays is a reliable source.  Physics Essays - Wikipedia
Tercer claims that Physics Essays is unreliable and also claims that the unreliable.js script marks it unreliable.  However, the unreliable.js script is inoperable on my page and Tercer did not give me any instructions on how to use the script.  In any event, does anyone have any objections to me adding Dr. Hansson's article to the Superdeterminism page? ScooterMcGruff (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's article on the journal does not say that it is a reliable source (it wouldn't, that would be a self-reference). You have misunderstood. You've been reverted by two people, so we obviously both object. You would need a secondary source to write about something like this - a primary source does not establish that it should have a mention here. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Physics Essays is a dubious source at best. Not all papers are utterly terrible, but there's something very suspicious about the reviewing process over there.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain unconvinced that there is a reviewing process over there. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply trying to add Dr. Hansson's paper to the Superdeterminism page.  Who here is willing to read this 3 page paper and explain to me what is wrong with the physics, if anything?  FULLTEXT01.pdf (diva-portal.org) ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not going to debate the content of the paper with you, we're not a discussion forum. MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot cite papers as unreliable as evidence of the unreliability of a journal, and then not read the paper at issue as relevant to the question of the reliability of the journal.  That's totally inconsistent. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's entirely consistent. Physics Essays publishes total garbage, therefore Physics Essays is unreliable, therefore we don't use Physics Essays as a source for Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your baseless opinion. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Will you read the Dr. Hansson's paper and discuss any errors in the physics you find? It's only 3 pages long. Here's the article:FULLTEXT01.pdf (diva-portal.org)  ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

text: No, again, we're not going to look for errors in the paper. That doesn't matter. We rely on the authority of the publisher, and this publisher has none. MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Another baseless opinion. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to think so, but that is what Wikipedia policy states (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR). If you want to edit here you will have to learn to work within our system. MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Does any expert on theoretical physics have the courage to read Dr. Hansson's three page paper and discuss any errors in the physics?  Anyone?  Here's the article:FULLTEXT01.pdf (diva-portal.org)  ScooterMcGruff (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Stop posting the same thing over and over. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

text: The OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Physics Essays a reliable source? 

message: I request clarification for the sentence: <<By postulating that systems being measured are correlated with the settings of the measurements apparatus, what Bell described as a "vital assumption"[4] of his theorem is violated. >> 
# Please fix the English! It is not understandable what is the statement.
# Is the referred Bell's expression relevant here? Am not en expert but the full sentence from the Bell's article: "The vital assumption [2] is that the result B for particle 2 does not depend on the setting a, of the magnet for particle 1, nor A on b." describes a Parameter Independence statement while superdeterminism is about assuming no Statistical Independence, i.e. hidden variables probability distribution CAN depend on the experimental settings. Can an expert in the field please refer to a very relevant Bell's article pointing out the key assumption that is denied by superdeterminism?
Ang1972 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence clarification 

message: The first sentence of the article almost suggests that superdeterminism is an existing theory,and does not make clear that it is only a loophole. Many laypersons refer to it as if it were an existing theory. That is harmful. 143.177.147.157 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've reverted the article to the state it was before these misleading edits were made. Tercer (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please state clearly that no superdeterministic theories have yet been formulated.