|
First, as a religious person: no, contrary to what you seem to be saying, dismissing superdeterminism isn't "religion". Second, dismissing superdeterminism is not, as you seem to say, "contrary to observed reality". The belief that one is capable of forming ideas that bear any resemblance to reality, is justified on account of, in order for one's beliefs or lack-thereof to have any use, it would have to be true. Things like the no-speed-up theorem (which I admit I'm not super familiar with), and other things of that sort, lead me to expect that, while I don't have a full argument for this, that it isn't possible for computational complexity reasons, for the early universe to be such that it, in effect, encodes predictions of what future measurements people will make, in a way that makes signals determining what measurement directions get used, correlated in the way that superdeterminism requires. |
We know that the universe was once highly correlated, due to its size, and we know that such correlations form super-macro structures, from galaxies to filaments. We further know that knots in the wave equation are a non-local phenomena, such as with anyons. The minimal assumption is that any particle we encounter is part of such a non-local phenomenon.
To assume that we can isolated regions of reality uncorrelated to those two phenomena is to assume an ideological belief, unsupported by evidence.
That you didn’t discuss my actual objection to dismiss it with generalities is very telling.