[nimish]

Super determinism is a perfectly valid interpretation of quantum mechanics no less valid than Copenhagen.

It's a bigger shame most students aren't taught that Copenhagen is not the only interpretation consistent with experiment and are often thought it as absolute truth.

Let's not get into the compatibility with free will philosophical issues, because that'd need physics to recognize metaphysics once more.

[woopsn]

What set the ideas of physicists like Bohr, Born, Heisenberg and Pauli apart is that they led to the creation of quantum mechanics. The criticisms Schrödinger made in his time are worth a lot of attention as well, but nothing really since that era has come from the mere interpretation of physics. Whereas they fundamentally changed the course of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. as sciences. The Copenhagen interpretation remains mainstream for the same reason that it had to come "first" (imo), which is simply that it is the most practicable.

[nimish]

I have nothing against Copenhagen per se (I prefer Rovelli's RQM which is a minor extension of it), it's that until we have evidence otherwise there's quite a space of consistent metaphysics that are equally valid.

That freedom is what needs to be emphasized because a lot of paradoxes in one interpretation are not in another because they basically boil down to your choice of metaphysical assumptions about the universe.

None of them alter the calculations or observables (so far) which is why saying one is more practical than the other is missing the point.

[cycomanic]

Yes as is a flying spagetti monster. For a more detailed criticism of SHs superdeterminism I refer to:

https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-fantasy-behind-sabine...

[nimish]

> After all, how can what a particle is depend on what is measured about it? Shouldn’t measurement simply reveal what the particle already was, just as it does in the case of a table? How can the particle change what it is merely because the detector is set up in a different way?

I believe this criticism implicitly assumes realism, which is another metaphysical assumption that is not trivial in the light of Bell-style results. It's circular in that way, like a lot of surface critique of superdeterminism (which I don't particularly like and don't subscribe to).

Confusing metaphysics and physics is a real issue here.