If Bell's Theorem is correct and Quantum Mechanics cannot rely upon 'local variables'. Bell suggests that a probable solution is the existence of a Super-determined order upon the construct of our Universe. Bell stated the following during a radio interview in the 1980s:

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be." (BBC Interview with Bell 1985)

Is there further evidence to confirm or reject a Super-determined Universal Construct, outside of John Bell's Theorem?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's unclear what you're asking. Bell's theorem implies there is no local and realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, but does not directly imply superdeterminism. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Dec 27 '17 at 12:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you suggesting that Bell's theorem might not be correct? What step in the proof do you find unconvincing? $\endgroup$ – WillO Dec 27 '17 at 14:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ WillO: I am suggesting that QM cannot and should not be permitted to continue with the assumption of local variables. If these are dispensed with, we might move forward with the more likely explanation that is offered by a Super-determined Universe, regardless of its unpalatable nature and or the fear it might strike into the heart of Physicist and Philosopher alike. I would like to hear of any substantial evidence to contradict the Super-determinist position. $\endgroup$ – Marcus de Brun Dec 28 '17 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ vzn Determinism is certainly not 'half thought out', it is one of the primary sources of Philosophical debate. I think the most interesting development in Physics this century is the reality that Philosophy and Physics are upon an very real and serious collision course. The impact will certainly result in a Big Bang and possibly the next great Scientific Paradigm shift. If you have time, maybe you might read my paper on the question and let me know what you think? $\endgroup$ – Marcus de Brun Dec 31 '17 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @lala Whats the reason for the harsh words 'trying to promote your paper'? I am using this forum like anyone else, and am trying to think about ideas that Bell's inequality points to. There is little to be gained by such an aggressive post. There are multiple sources for Bells statement. You can find them on the net, even wiki under superdeterminism. |Do you actually have a scientific or philosophical view on the matter or do you have other reasons for posting? Bell himself suggests that his theorem can be explained by Superdeterminism, hence the original question posted here. $\endgroup$ – Marcus de Brun Jan 6 '18 at 18:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.