# Shouldn't local realism imply the superdeterminism?

I see that Bell has ruled out Einstein's local realism but not supredeterminism. I see that Bell has confessed that superdeterminism kills his inequality. You cannot apply Bell's inequality if superdeterminsims holds.

Meantime, Einstein's local realism should imply the (super)determinism. Einstein was struggling against the statistical nature of the Nature. This means that he was struggling for absolute determinism. But determinism implies that there is no free will. If everything that results the measurement result is predetermined (by "hidden variables"), as Einstein insisted, if free will is killed by local realism in every point of space, then there is no room for the free will in our universe and superdeterminism holds.

Shouldn't local realism imply superdeterminism in the way pieces of puzzle, put together, make up the complete solid picture?

• If Nature is indeed deterministic. I prefer the view that there are parallel words and that the past and future are also such parallel worlds and classical deterministic time evolution just gives you one parameter families of such parallel words. But at each moment you only exist in that moment, so I don't see the problem with QM suggesting that the set of parallel words is larger than what fits on a single time line. – Count Iblis Apr 5 '16 at 21:35
• If one assumes that you have no free will in the sense that you could have chosen which questions you ask - or which quantities you measure in the experiment - then it follows that you had no free will to write the particular question you wrote, either, and other users have no reason to try to help you because you are just a mechanical computer pressing the keys on a keyboard in a certain way. Also, if we have no free will, you shouldn't be bothered by the fact that I and others consider superdeterminism to be the ultimate pseudoscience - in your view, we don't have a choice, either. ;-) – Luboš Motl Apr 13 '16 at 14:47
• You might be able to describe using natural language a universe where everyone has a hidden psychological bias that makes them perform Bell experiments wrong without realizing it, but good luck constructing a field theory like that. – Display Name Jan 9 '19 at 14:39
• @LubošMotl, the problem is - if we don't have free will - we also don't have free will to refuse to help others in a particular situation. So it isn't so simple that “...other users have no reason to try to help you because you are ...”. Computers have no reason to help us, too, but they do it. – MarianD Jun 17 '19 at 6:50
• Sorry, it is simple because we obviously do have free will, at least I do. I am not interested in assertion by agents who claim to have no free will. If they don't have free will, I don't even consider them human, let alone worthy a discussion about physics. – Luboš Motl Jun 18 '19 at 12:27

Bell's inequality enumerates possible correlated combinations of outcomes.

Then it assumes that every correlated outcome is statistically equally likely. Which is not the case in reality. That is why, the "inequality" arises.

Anti correlation (which happens within an entangled pair), can be easily achieved with the help of local hidden plan.

It is the statistical correlation that is difficult to explain.

As if nature remembers the outcomes of previously measured directions, and prepares the next pair in accordance with QM predictions. Pretty easy task to do!

• Which question are you responding to? BTW, afaik, assumed that anticorrelation can be achieved with the help of local hidden plan (people prefer to speak about hidden variables) rather than statistical equiporbability but his inequality failed suggesting that hidden variables do not exist. – Valentin Tihomirov Apr 6 '16 at 6:15

You are making a logical error: Local realism implies determinism, but determinism does not imply local realism: determinism can be true while local realism is false, and that's what 'superdeterminism' means, in essence.

This is a common logical error: if you know that $$L \implies D$$ then what you can deduce is the contrapositive, which is that $$\neg D \implies \neg L$$, not that $$D \implies L$$.

• Happy to delete my answer after you point out where I got it wrong ... – Paul Young Jan 9 '19 at 15:11
• @PaulYoung: I don't think your answer is wrong: I was just trying to point out that (I think!) the original questioner is making a purely logical error, as well. – tfb Jan 10 '19 at 11:17

Local Realism does not imply superdeterminism.

Local Realism is narrowly defined in Bell's context, as follows: An observer has a detector and may use free will to adjust its settings. Those settings, combined with the arrival of hidden variable information at the detector result in a yes-or-no result from the detector. Detectors are local and unable to "instantly" communicate with each other - at best they can send information at the speed of light.

Experimentally, we observe correlations in detector results seen by pairs of such observers that cannot be explained by any theory of information in the hidden variable. This is the central result of the Bell inequality. Thus, there is a problem with the "free will detector setting and hidden variable" set up.

However, if the correlations we observed were a little bit different, and the Bell inequality was not violated, then we could have a hidden variable theory that worked, and yet the universe could still contain randomness and not be superdeterministic. For example, if all detectors always agreed "yes or no" - regardless of setting - but half the time was randomly yes and half the time was randomly no - the universe would not be superdeterministic, but local reality would be doing just fine.