SuperDeterminism Might be Real, But You Shouldn't Believe it! @SabineHossenfelder Rebuts!

Join my Patreon for $1:

REFERENCES

CHAPTERS
0:00 Is Randomness built into the Universe?
2:33 What is Determinism?
4:07 Download Opera
5:46 Is quantum mechanics really deterministic?
6:50 How Bohmian mechanics works
8:29 What did Bell's inquality prove?
9:19 Nonlocal vs local hidden variables
10:07 What is Superdeterminism vs determinism
12:20 Merits of Superdeterminism
14:23 Problems with Superdeterminism
17:16 Sabine's rebuttal
19:05 What's your input?

SUMMARY
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics assert that the apparent randomness in the universe is due to lack of information. But if we had full knowledge of all the information available, we could predict the future as well as know the past. One such deterministic model is Bohmian mechanics, or pilot wave theory. But another model is Superdeterminism. What is Superdeterminsim? What are its benefits and drawbacks? Is it real or a fantasy? I give you my opinion and Sabine Hossenfelder rebuts.

Determinism is the idea that all events are predictable, because they are triggered by events immediately preceding them. So if we knew all the states of all the components of the universe at any moment to infinite accuracy, we could predict everything that will ever happen for all of eternity. And this applies to the past.

But Quantum mechanics doesn't seem to work this way, as identical sets of initial conditions can result in different outcomes.
This is because the outcomes of measurements cannot be predicted in advance. We can only predict their probabilities.

But Quantum mechanics is not deterministic, nor non-deterministic. It’s the interpretation of quantum mechanics where the non-determinism comes from. The Copenhagen interpretation is a non-deterministic interpretation.

But alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic. For example the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics. In it, a particle’s position is predictable in advance, if we had access to hidden variable information.

In addition to being deterministic, a superdeterministic model postulates that the measurement setting, as well as the person doing the measuring, are correlated with the system being measured. In other words, the object being measured is not independent of the measurement set up.

This still violates Bell’s inequality and makes all the predictions of quantum mechanics. In a superdeterministic theory this statistical or measurement independence is not there. This allows superdeterminism to exploit a loophole in Bell’s theorem. So a superdeterministic theory can have local hidden variables, while still violating Bell’s inequality, and reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Like Bohmian mechanics, Superdeterminism postulates real particles with real properties. But unlike Bohmian mechanics, the hidden variables can be local. Superdeterminsm says that there are hidden variables in the particles, and the detector, and even the person making the measurements, that caused the particle to have the results that we found when we measured it. So there is a correlation between the particle’s measured properties and the measurement settings, and the surroundings.

So what are some of the problems with Superdeterminism? Many physicists object to it because they say it rules out free will. But I don't think so because we don’t control quantum interactions by our decisions.

Superdeterminism requires hidden variables to exist, but no one knows what those hidden variables are, nor where they can be found.
So we don’t know what to look for, where to look for it, nor how it works. Furthermore, there is no testable prediction that
Superdeterminism makes , that we could use to verify it, since it is not a theory, but a property of a potential theory.

Some toy models have been proposed, but they are not falsifiable. So even if we could conduct the tests, we could not be certain whether the results conclusively support superdeterminism or not.

Finaly, to me superdeterminism cannot even in principle be tested, because the correlations, if true, have always existed since the beginning of the universe, and will always exist, allowing for no variability. The only way to change this is if there were a way to change the initial conditions of the Big Bang, which is not possible.
#superdeterminism
Sabine Hossenfelders has some remarks about this in the video as well.

[SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks, Arvin, for this wonderful video!

[adhamr]

I am so lucky to be alive today when great physicists can teach on YouTube for free

[agpc]

Thank you for having an intellectual debate without professorial ego

[TheNameOfJesus]

We need to have a vote to replace the phrase "It's not rocket science!" with "It's not quantum physics!"

[marciodasb]

The idea of bringing in Sabine was AMAZING, honestly, such a great thing to have happened.

[gabrielbarrantes]

Reality splitting in many universes is more accepted than everything being deterministic?
They just need to believe they have free will...

[danielirwin]

Arvin and Sabine (along w Nick Lucid) are my favorites. Much respect to you, Arvin, for having a rebuttal in your own video. That sort of civility and debate is quite uncommon in today’s world. This is beyond the level of the students in my physics and chemistry classes but you often make great stuff for them too. You help make the world better.

[kenclubb]

17:03 There is no way to verify many worlds either, and it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exist, whereas SD only requires assuming that conservation laws are valid at all scales and we just cannot grasp all the virtual particle effects at such small scales.

[JaguarBST]

Perfect timing for a video before bed. Your soothing voice always calms my nerves.

[lemondemerveilleuxdechrist]

Finally a new video explaining the concept of SUPERDETERMINISM!
This new paradigm, even if it may be counterintuitive, seems to me more simple and realistic than the other interpretations because it does not postulate new exotic elements.
It also has the advantage of being completely in line with the Einsteinian eternalist block universe!

[kurtsmock]

To me, super determinism is the only thing that makes sense.
It makes the most sense because it maximizes what we don't know while also understanding it all makes sense.

There's far more of the universe we can't see than what we can in the universe and there's far more we don't know than what we know. But when we look at how the pieces demonstrably fit together, it all seems rather mechanistic. The wild card in my mind is emergence; things adding up to more than the sum of it's parts. But, generally I find super determinism to match the closest to how I understand reality.

[wideeyewanderer]

This is what I call science. The continuous conversation between people with different interpretations of the evidences at hand! Bravo for be so amazing sir

[robadkerson]

Two of the best science sources on the interwebs. It was destined to happen

[marcozec]

Thanks Arvin for your video!

It's difficult to find podcasts arguing for both sides, mostly you have only one bell ringing.. and you took it seriously to propperly explain your opposing view, its so refreshing..!

[laughingman]

Arvin just straight insults Dr.Sabine after her explanation 😂😭

[ottomol]

In this video, two minds that have my attention.... Thanks from Brazil

[WahookaTheGoblinKing]

Do we have a satisfactory definition of randomness? Without it we cannot even know if nondeterminism and determinism are valid distinctions.

[sunaglarecrim]

Many things seem random until you find the pattern that connects them. In due time we will come to the understanding that the universe is superdeterministic.

[Lucas.boninsegna]

Omg am i really gonna watch Arvin and Sabine? Wow wow 🎉❤

[mahershtat]

Well done, Mr. Irwin. A wonderful explanation that is easy to understand for non-physicists