Did anybody on here catch that physics forum on superdeterminism?

Neither determinism nor superdeterminism are supported by facts or even theory. At this stage they are religious beliefs more than anything else.

Thanks Oli but still like to know what it's all about if someone would care to explain it in language familiar to the Typical Blocked (me), and like to hear again from HP on his feelings bout it

Determinism is the idea that everything that happens must happen, and was predetermined to happen since the beginning of the universe. It sees the universe as one giant clockwork, with God as the clock master.

This idea used to be mainstream under classic physics, until quantum mechanics proposed a probabilistic view of the universe in which the world of sub-atomic particles is ruled by a set of rather counter-intuitive laws where particles are distributed through space through a probability map, so to speak, called the wave function. This new approach was necessary to explain the strange lives of sub-atomic particles, but many people find it hard to stomach.

'Superdeterminism' is a reaction to quantum mechanics. It posits that particles only seem to behave randomly, but are in fact 'superdetermined' by some unknown laws.

So far, each and every experiment has backed the quantum, probabilist version of this debate, however bizarre QM may seem.

Thanks Oli. So superdeterminism is like determinism but moreso

I'll look up that "wave function" thing. But just briefly can you explain how it belies determinism, thus saving me an afternoon scrolling Google

Because the function maps probabilities. It's about probabilities of a particle to be detected here or there in space.

If events in the sub-atomic world are random (probabilist), then the quantum randomness can spill over into 'our' world, so to speak.

For instance, most genetic mutations are due to natural radioactivity: a sub-atomic particle coming from a bloc of granite meets with a piece of DNA in a gamete and tampers with it. Therefore mutations are not predetermined, but they are the engine of evolution, hence evolution is not predetermined, etc.

Thank you Oli for explaining that. What has long bothered me, even if the future is unpredictable, how does that mean it's not predetermined

In my mind, predictable implies predetermined, but not vice versa. So if something can be predicted, then it must be predetermined, and if it is not predetermined, then it cannot be predicted.

But indeed, the future could be unpredictable by us but still predetermined by, say, God. It's a religious or metaphysical possibility, but it is not testable. Therefore it's beyond the realm of science.

Somewhat OT but but then why can't the prediction be undone

Agreed it isn't, and therein may lie the crux of the matter, that predetermination is more of a semantic than scientific issue

However the fact that the more carefully one controls the variables in a situation the more predictable its outcome is a seemingly reasonable basis for the idea of determinism

Yes, some sort of partial, probabilist determinism is possible but it's a far cry from what people usually mean by the term. Which is the total absence of randomness, the complete predetrmination of everything, from the atoms up to the history of the Roman empire and all. To real determinists, us talking today was written in the Big Book of Time from second 0.0001 of the big bang.

Sure Oli, intuitionally true determinism seems absurd, while the power of intuition is vastly underestimated

Still why haven't we heard from Hp with some background for his OP. I tried Googling a physics forum with no luck

My intuition tells me determinism can't be true.

I fear Darkman has retired as a one post wonder

Yes, I don't think we're alone in the assertion as I had attempted to convey most verbosely in posting #…..537

Agreed, Neo. Hp, where art thou

Hiding in the dark, man.

Neo, evidently so. Again however you've cast a euphoric beatitude upon our immediate morrows

May the farce be with us

The only reason a coinflip seems random is because you dont know how hard you flip the coin, how the air molecules are situated, what the surface the coin lands on is like etc. if you had a machine that flipped a coin with a precise force into a vacuum, you could have it flip heads again and again every time. If you think a coinflip represents true randomness you have got a long way to go sir.

Are you kidding me?

Seriously how can it not be obvious that if you were able to provide the same force to a coinflip again and again you could get heads heads heads or tails tails tails forever. The reason a coinflip by a human approaches randomness is because a slightly different force applied in the flip will result in many more or less turns of the coin which will then land either heads or tails