Hacker News Reader

> It's on the level of answering "God did it" to every question.

And saying that it is random with "God rolled a dice" isn't? The entire universe could have used a fixed random seed and our experiments and thoughts would have been exactly the same for all we know, determinism doesn't have the effects you talk about. We perform trials and do statistics when we don't know the exact workings of things, not because we believe that the thing is inherently random.

Again, it's not about randomness vs. determinism. Both are perfectly compatible with science, just as you said, and no scientist bats an eye at using either type of model. Superdeterminism is a big step beyond determinism that explicitly is like saying "because God did it".

I see superdeterminism as more like breaking the information limit, each particle is aware of the rest of the universe and can thus predict how things will be done everywhere. I don't believe that packing that much information in each particle makes sense, but it shows that superdeterminism doesn't require that a god manually determined the result of each event in the entire history of the universe.

"each particle is aware of the rest of the universe" is non-locality which is the other way of explaining bells inequality.

No, it's called "history". At least that's what the poster means I think.

Superdeterminism isn't a radically different way of thinking about experimental results as a determinist.

> To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see if you get a ratio close to 50/50. That's standard science.

Every person understanding determinism will assert if you can repeat the same conditions of a previous coin flip, you will get the same outcome of the previous coin flip (for the next flip) and until the conditions are altered to make it so. The "conditions" being all the "external forces" acting upon the coin as it flips and lands.

We all understand a coin flip is 50/50 for us, since we're not perfect machines at replication. We would need to be able to analysis how to flip a coin the same as a previous flip and manipulate the environment of the coin flip to the previous flip if required.

The foregoing understanding is beneficial for scientists when it comes to experimentation. I understand why people can assume "God/Nature did it" would be worrisome. I still think you're making a big leap with what you originally asserted.

Again, what you said is textbook determinism that I and almost every scientist agrees with. Superdeterminism is much, much stranger than this (it's not just saying quantum mechanics is deterministic, which e.g. Many Worlds also does).

It just seems orthogonal to me. Some people experience superdeterminism viscerally and then they take a pill and the feeling goes away. It's not scientific or unscientific, it's more of an attitude. Also, given the regular appearance of such a feeling in disturbed minds, it seems like a basic feature of human cognition, like say, the capacity to taste salt or something.

That still sounds like plain old determinism to me.