[dataflow]

Thanks. Yes, I get the Fourier transform thing (and Bell's theorem etc.), but imagine asking Newton the consequences of finite-speed gravity. He could either imagine how to reconcile that with his theory and hypothesize what the outcome might be (e.g., he might say if the sun exploded then you'd find out 8 minutes later), or he could tell you it's intrinsically infinite and that your question is like asking "what the length of an oval" is. I find one of these answers more satisfactory than the other.

Now, in this particular case: I understand superdeterminism would mean the entire world could be deterministic and yet consistent with QM, correct? And I understand a reason why the world might be superdeterministic is that everything is already correlated/entangled together (say, from the big bang), thus making this in fact inherently a "measurement problem" in that we don't have any unentangled measurement particles available... right?

If you buy that so far, then here's where I'm trying to go with this: if QM's response to this is "well, if you did obtain such an unentangled particle, you could use it to reduce the uncertainty in your next measurement beyond your current limits", then it seems to me QM is in favor of the world being superdeterministic, and the uncertainty we face is more coincidental than fundamental. Whereas if QM's response was "well, even if you had such a particle, you couldn't use it to reduce the uncertainty in your next measurement", then it seems to me QM believes the measurement limit is more fundamental than coincidental. Given the situation seems like the former to me, is there any reason to bet against the world being superdeterministic? If anything, it seems to me that superdeterminism has the big bang going for it, no?

[jacquesm]

Don't bring a classical knife to a quantum mechanical gun fight!