[archibaldJ]

I will have to disagree with that.

Firstly I don't think anyone has actually formalised superdeterminism in a way that the principle of explosion can be logically introduced to formally undermine superdeterminism. What you are doing here is akin to stretching the conceptual relevance of Godel's incompleteness theorems and trying to use it to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Basically I don't see how it makes sense to say that superdeterminism contains a principle of explosion. Perhaps my interpretation of superdeterminism is very different from yours. Or maybe I simply don't see the picture as you do. If that is the case please enlighten me.

Secondly I think you are missing the point of superdeterminism here.

There is something very computational (and perhaps Taoistic) about superdeterminism. Apparently under this framework the whole notion of "explaining things" is nullified and becomes meaningless. It occurs to me that our everyday notion of "explaining things" exists at a lower abstraction level and thus loses relevance in the face of superdeterminism. I believe if you really want to undermine superdeterminism as a theory (or as a philosophy), the more relevant question here to ask is: is there anything useful/meaningful about reality (or the universe) that can be inferred assuming superdeterminism? And then of course if you are a scientist you would then ask: are they experimentally verifiable?

[teilo]

> I believe if you really want to undermine superdeterminism as a theory (or as a philosophy), the more relevant question here to ask is: is there anything useful/meaningful about reality (or the universe) that can be inferred assuming superdeterminism? And then of course if you are a scientist you would then ask: are they experimentally verifiable?

To even ask the question you must deny your own premise. If indeed superdeterminism is true, then any experimental verification is nullified by definition: the results of any and all experimentation is itself superdetermined regardless of any scientific framework.

[archibaldJ]

The last part was supposed to be taken with a grain of irony in the spirit of Anton Zeilinger:

"We always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature."

I guess that is the problem most people have with superdeterminism. Intellectuals in this day of age are too scientifically trained to have any romanticisation for reality under frameworks like synchronicity (even though it was popularised by Pauli before it lost mainstream appeal after actual fundings went into unfruitful statistical research in the 80s) or (in the newtonian time) alchemy and the love for God. This is why superdeterminism is so unpopular.

I just really like superdeterminism because I think it is cute and I believe in the Tao.

[selestify]

What does superdeterminism have to do with the Tao?

[archibaldJ]

There was something formless and perfect

before the universe was born.

It is serene. Empty.

Solitary. Unchanging.

Infinite. Eternally present.

It is the mother of the universe.

For lack of a better name,

I call it the Tao. It flows through all things,

inside and outside, and returns

to the origin of all things. The Tao is great.

The universe is great.

Earth is great.

Man is great.

These are the four great powers. Man follows the earth.

Earth follows the universe.

The universe follows the Tao.

The Tao follows only itself.

[selestify]

That's beautiful.