[gus_massa]

In Superdeterminism each time a particle has to collapse, instead of rolling a dice it looks into a secret table of hidden variables that was calculated at the beginning of the universe. The table was calculated carefully so the apparent random choices follow all the laws of quantum mechanics, and the results are equivalent to what you would expect if any of the other interpretations where correct.

To calculate this secret table you must simulate all the interactions and path in the universe until it ends, because you must know which particles will be entangled, which result will have the "random" generator in the experiments, ...

So the universe is only a movie that follows the random choices made at the beginning of the universe. But the choices are not arbitrary, they have the correct values so when the events really happen they follow the laws of physics. For example, the random choices at the beginning of the universe make it look that you can't transmit information faster than light.

Physics study the laws of the real universe, but we can redefine Physics as the study of the laws that study the random number generator. Both real-Physics and initial-rng-Physics follow special relativity. Bot agree about QM. Both agree about the Bell inequality.

So with Superdeterminism we solve the problem of QM in the real word, because everything we is already determined. Now the problem is how the RNG at the beginning of the universe work to simulate QM and all the other effects. Let's call the study of the RNG Physics. Now the problem is as hard as before Superdeterminism.

[chr1]

What you describe is not superdeterminism, but a replay of a non local theory. The important part happens in the first run when you calculate the table.

What superdeterminism says, is that there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe, but simply because of the way the rule works experimenters far away end up always choosing the experiments that yield correct results.

Superdeterminism is unpopular because the existence of such evaluation rule seems very unlikely.

[gus_massa]

From the article:

> Where do these correlations ultimately come from? Well, they come from where everything ultimately comes from, that is from the initial state of the universe. And that’s where most people walk off: They think that you need to precisely choose the initial conditions of the universe to arrange quanta in Anton Zeilinger’s brain just so that he’ll end up turning a knob left rather than right. Besides sounding entirely nuts, it’s also a useless idea, because how the hell would you ever calculate anything with it? And if it’s unfalsifiable but useless, then indeed it isn’t science. So, frowning at superdeterminism is not entirely unjustified.

[chr1]

Yes, despite the title, the articles has better arguments against superdeterminism than for it.

[gus_massa]

> there exists local and deterministic evaluation rule that will compute consecutive states of the universe

If this is the correct meaning of superdeterminism, then it doesn't make sense. Saying that there are some unknown rules that explain something is not a scientific theory.

You can solve the quantum gravity problem saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that. You can solve the renormalization problem saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that. You can solve everything saying that there are some unknown rules that explain that.

[chr1]

It is not that simple. Bell inequalities show that there cannot exist a local evaluation rule that could explain experiments with entangled particles where two people pick filters independently.

Superdeterminism is saying that strictly speaking we do not have a proof that two people (whose past light cones intersect) can pick the filters independently, so Bell inequalities still would allow local rules, that in addition to describing particles, somehow also restrict the choices that experimentators can make.

So superdeterminism is not a scientific theory, but a hypothesis that there exists a scientific theory that would fit in the small crack left open by Bell inequalities.

No one knows how to construct such a theory, and most people think it cannot be constructed.