Problems of superdeterminism

## The number of particles isn't constant in particle interactions

Superdeterminism becomes either untenable or a more problematic theory than the other ones.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

a. no proposed mechanism for the initial bias, b. it harms the physical foundations with unexplanatory biases, c. a simple initial bias isn't enough when many particles collide in tandem and field properties are cumulatively calculated (thus c1. hidden variables have to multiply be reintroduced or c2. fundamental particles aren't ideal and are able to hold too many data)

## (Superdeterminism makes things harder; not easier.)

1. The first instructions were given by the Big Bang itself, but the marble-like Big-Banged part of the observable universe isn't the whole Universe; thus the Universe isn't a closed system. If we can claim that the whole universe IS a causally coherent system, then we have to redefine what a Hubble volume [subluminally expanding spacetime sphere] is: in that case objects which travel superluminally in relation to each other, can influence each other (if not superdeterminism is wrong because we have no observational termination wall of the universe).

One may say that this is the result of non-local probabilistic entanglement; that (any) entanglement affects only the ontological definition = common wavefunction of different particle, and it doesn't affect useful telecommunication data. But superdeterminism affects everything, because accumulative quantum correlations change the configuration of matter and energy in the universe.

Superdeterminism doesn't provide an explanation of the mechanism of its hidden variables. It supposedly makes things easier after the Big Bang [it doesn't explain the initial bias]. Superdeterminism doesn't actually make things easier after the Big Bang, because some paths become complicated AFTER the Big Bang; the hidden variables would have: 1. either to be reintroduced many times or 2. fundamental particles aren't generic and ideal but are able to hold too many instructions about future decays, and mixed decays when many particles collide and the local energy of the fields is measured as a whole [in that case superdeterminism becomes way more complex than Everettism].

....

2. There are gaps in the proposed superdeterministic mechanism. The basic theory of the superdeterministic mechanism of correlations formation isn't defined at all. Alternative solutions that didn't happen seem equally plausible. One way to correct that is by the "pruned Everettian paths". In that case many alternative solutions are possible (imagine the universe being a quantum maze), but some paths are impossible/ are pruned if they are very energy costly compared to shorter paths (but if they are slightly possible they help shape the overall wavefunctional pathways; are some pruning rules we still don't know?).

3. Superdeterminism causes problems to the physical foundations. It cannot explain its initial bias (if you're analytical enough, you'll see it cannot explain either some secondary/after the Big Bang biases, because in complex collisions the overall energy of the fields is calculated (it is required: 1. either the reintroduction of new hidden variables, 2. or the initial plan of all particle evolution: which is totally wrong because alternative solutions are matgematically correct = and these different wavefunctional paths lead to different configurations of matter and energy [simple superdeterminism is necessarily wrong being antimathematical [supernatural].

On the other hand using superdeterministic mathematical descriptions with the addition of the production (via noise generation/for example a Bloch noise sphere, etc.) of probabilistic alternatives, leads to the same results as common Everettism.

```
**Superdeterminism says nothing about the formation of the hidden variables, and causes problems to the axiomatics of the foundations of physics. Everettian constructors (see: constructor theory) able to produce a universe are fully explainable, but they create alternative realities = Everettian multiverse.**

```

Using superdeterminism with noise generators at all "hidden variables instruction points" can lead to the same (or a very close) multiverse as ours (the result is Everettism with the mathematical formulas of superdeterminism). Doing that isn't useless. For example dark matter is an open question. One suggestion is in some orders of magnitude, some paths are rejected for being too energy costly; the remaining ones are boosted and we observe extra gravity, thus secondarily even smaller orders of magnitude (than for example galaxy clusters) are affected; but that's a speculation with too many missing parts (path pruning threshold and path pruning rules; for example paths might not be pruned, but they might bend in closer formations which lead to the same result).

## Major flaw of superdeterminism: the correlation breaking mechanism

Correlations are NOT CAUSED during the measurement, thus CORRELATION BREAKING doesn't work the same way as in many-worlds interpretation. Of course we can "correct" that with even more hidden variables, but that creates a monster theory, with no explanation of the hidden variables; only made by hand to be correct (it doesn't lead to a foundational underlying of physics, but on "some initial conditions" which are configured in a very specific manner uncausally excluding alternative universe-strains.