“There is the so-called idea of ‘superdeterminism’. Recall Schrödinger’s class of identically prepared students. We are told they can all answer any of a set of questions correctly, but each can only answer one, and then forgets the answers to the rest. It’s an odd idea, but we can still test it: we ask the questions at random, and find that we always get the right answer. Of course it is possible that each student only knows the answer to one question, which always happens to be the very one we ask! But that would require a massive coincidence, on a scale that would undercut the whole scientific method. Or else we are being manipulated: somehow we are led to ask a given question only of the rare student who knows the answer. So we switch our method of choice, handing it over to a random number generator, or the throw of dice, or to be determined by the amount of rainfall in Paraguay. But maybe all of these have been somehow rigged too! Of course, such a purely abstract proposal cannot be refuted, but besides being insane, it too would undercut scientific method. All scientific interpretations of our observations presuppose that they have not have been manipulated in such a way.”
“I am absolutely convinced that one will eventually arrive at a theory in which the objects connected by laws are not probabilities, but conceived facts, as one took for granted only a short time ago. ...”
Superdeterminism
“If we did not have free will, we could never decide to test a scientific theory. We could live in a world where objects tend to fly up in the air but be programmed to look only when they are in the pr...”
Superdeterminism
“...One of the three commonsense assumptions (in Bell's theorem) will need to be abandoned. Which leads to the question: Which one? ... proponents of other interpretations might just claim that a viola...”
Superdeterminism