Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

This is a video I have promised you almost two years ago: How does superdeterminism make sense of quantum mechanics? It's taken me a long time to finish this because I have tried to understand why people dislike the idea that everything is predetermined so much. I hope that in this video I have addressed the biggest misconceptions. I genuinely think that discarding superdeterminism unthinkingly is the major reason that research in the foundations of physics is stuck.

If you want to know more about superdeterminism, these two papers (and references therein) may give you a good starting point:

0:00 Intro
0:24 What is superdeterminism?
2:28 What's with free will?
8:13 How does superdeterminism work?
13:51 Why would it destroy science?
15:43 What is it good for?
19:25 Sponsor message

#science #physics #quantum

[garyha]

Getting through a video on superdeterminism determines you're super determined

[remusgogu]

Can’t believe that smart people are still debating free will. But most likely they have no choice

[ludoviajante]

I love this channel so much, you have a talent for describing complex things in a simple and concise way.

[klauswich]

I love your statement: "Now you all know that I think free will is logical incoherent nonsense" I could'nt agree more. I also love the statement: ""And in any case, throwing out determinism just because you don't like its consequences is really bad science". However, I might fall into the category of men having a strong opinion about things they know very little about 😉

[Makebuildmodify]

In the double slit experiment isn't "measurement" another word for "interact"? When I hear someone say, "when we measure the particle it collapses the wave function." it sounds mysterious, but when I hear, "when we interact with the particle it collapses the wave function." it sound ridiculous that anything else would occur.

[Kong]

Just a clarification: I think that the compatibilists and the "No free will" group do not use the same definition of the free will. This is why for the former free will can be compatible with determinism. Perhaps many disagreements about the existence of free will come from the fact that people mean something different when they talk about free will.

[zandder]

Thank you so much for the clarification @15:15, the "detection" statement that is used in so many pop sceince books drives me crazy and took me a while to understand what they are actually referring to is INTERACTION. I REALLY wish people would stop using the detection term as it tends to make laymen (like me) think the whole damn thing is based on human detection. It is not, it is anything INTERACTING with the particle.

[AndarilhoMarco]

Why physicists keep dragging psychological concepts they don't really understand into physics? lol Determinism doesn't exclude free will and vice versa.

[mtgradwell]

I've been saying for decades that EVERY observation in QM can be explained deterministically. I was shot down every time, primarily because of Bell. Now, finally, a few decades late, somebody has noticed that Bell's theorem doesn't say what everybody insisted it said. And so now we have superdeterminism, which is just plain old determinism, but with a 'super' added presumably to help someone somewhere save some face. I don't mind, in fact if people were to attach a 'super' to everything I've been saying for the last few decades and not just in the field of quantum mechanics that would be fine by me.

'What a quantum particle does depends on what you measure" - of course it does. Quantum measurements are generally of tiny quantities which are only just barely detectable. The 'detectors' generally have internal states vastly more energetic than the things being 'detected'. Assuming they don't affect the particle being measured is like using a sledgehammer to measure eggs and concluding thereby that all eggs are flat at all times.

[davidcarmer]

I have to say that I've been loving the sense of humor you inject into these videos. Thank you.

[jauharialafi]

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a physicist like you, Sabine. It’s such a shock for me to find out that so many scientists dare to claim one thing and deny another just because they don’t like it or understand it. That’s so un-scientific.

[asanulsterman]

I like the way this lady explains so that I almost feel like I almost understand

[lucidhominid]

Wow, it's amazing to hear an actual physicist talk seriously about the kind of ideas that seemed intuitive to me back in college learning about the double slit experiments but was told to were obviously wrong and stupid. I kind of feel inspired to go back and finish.

[discogodfather]

Super determinism, the revenge of Bell's Theorem.

[IslandHermit]

Thank you for pointing out that "observation" means interacting with the particle/wave/system. Far too often that gets left out of explanations, which then feeds beliefs that the universe requires consciousness to function.

[UserName________]

Sabine is awesome. We are grateful for your existence and explorations :)

[matthewparker]

I must believe in free will, as it was predetermined that I would.

[georgesulea]

Thank You; I'm a layman, and thanks to your skill, I actually understood this. You are a great teacher.

[ofsinope]

Sneaking free will into the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics always seemed like a stretch to me. It's really a "god of the gaps" type argument. I don't choose the spins of electrons in my brain. Whether the process is random or predetermined, I'm not really in control.

[jsfriedberg]

Thank you, Sabine. You've finally clarified the difference between the reality of an outcome, and our ability to predict the outcome.