> 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.
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.