Many developed countries have increasing national debt and seem to be heading for a debt crisis. If there has to be a Great Reset to clear the debt, is it reasonable for private individuals to also increase their debt liability, which will also be written off?
搜索
national debt crisis Great Reset private debt liability 17 个结果
Find authoritative sources on Great Reset debt sovereign write-offs and moral hazard
The user is asking a nuanced question about debt strategy. Let me break down what they're really asking:
- Many developed countries have increasing national debt and seem to be heading for a debt crisis.
- If there has to be a "Great Reset" to clear the debt (presumably some kind of debt jubilee or widespread write-off), would it be reasonable for private individuals to also increase their debt liability since it would also be written off?
This is essentially asking about the logic of moral hazard and strategic behavior regarding debt. The user is wondering if, under a scenario where sovereign debt gets written down, individuals should also take on more debt expecting it to be forgiven.
Let me search for relevant information about:
- The "Great Reset" concept as it relates to debt
- Historical precedents for debt jubilees or write-offs
- Whether private debt typically gets included in sovereign debt restructurings
- The concept of moral hazard in debt crises
- Expert opinions on individual debt strategy during national debt crises
I need to find authoritative sources that discuss:
- The "Great Reset" terminology - is this a formal economic concept?
- Historical cases where sovereign debt was written off and what happened to private debt
- Expert analysis on whether individuals should strategically take on debt before a crisis
- The relationship between sovereign debt crises and private debt
Let me structure a search query to get at these topics.
Search queries I should use:
- "Great Reset" debt write-off private individuals
- sovereign debt crisis private debt liability
- debt jubilee private sector inclusion
- moral hazard debt crisis individual strategy
- historical debt restructuring private vs public debt
Let me execute a search to get more specific information on these aspects.
搜索
debt jubilee private sector inclusion historical precedent 21 个结果
Rejecting Private Debt Forgiveness as a Reasonable Great Reset Strategy
This is a complex question about debt strategy that touches on moral hazard, the "Great Reset" concept, and whether individuals should strategically increase debt expecting it to be written off. Let me analyze the available sources and provide a structured answer.
From the search results, I can see several relevant themes:
- The "Great Reset" concept: This appears to be a contemporary term (possibly from the World Economic Forum) referring to a major economic restructuring, but the sources don't provide clear details about private debt write-offs being part of such a reset.
Key insights for answering the user's question:
- No automatic linkage: There is NO historical or contemporary precedent where sovereign debt write-offs automatically include private individual debt in a generalized way. The ancient jubilees actually targeted private debts, not public ones.
- Moral hazard problem: The core issue is moral hazard - if individuals believe their debts will be written off en masse, this creates perverse incentives to borrow recklessly. This is the same problem that affects sovereign borrowers.
- Different treatment: Private and sovereign debts are structurally different. Sovereign debt involves international treaties, central banks, and complex restructuring mechanisms. Private debt involves contracts between individuals and private lenders under national legal frameworks.
- Practical considerations: Even if there were a mass debt jubilee, lenders would not sit idly by. They would either:
- Cease lending entirely (credit freeze)
- Charge exorbitant interest rates to compensate for expected write-offs
- Require collateral and guarantees that make write-offs difficult
- Lobby governments to exclude private debts from any reset
The answer should be: No, it is NOT reasonable for individuals to increase debt expecting it to be written off in a "Great Reset." This would be:
- Based on a flawed assumption that private debt would be included
- Creates extreme moral hazard
- Would be self-defeating as lenders would adjust their behavior
- Could leave individuals worse off if no reset occurs (most likely scenario)
- Violates basic principles of contract law and would face massive political resistance
I should structure this clearly:
- Address the premise about a "Great Reset"
- Explain historical precedent (jubilees) and what they actually did
- Discuss moral hazard and why this logic is flawed
- Explain practical reasons why this wouldn't work
- Provide a conclusion about individual strategy
The sources are mostly from 2025 except for some older academic papers on moral hazard and debt jubilees. The academic sources on moral hazard are still relevant despite being older.
No, it is not reasonable for private individuals to increase their debt liability expecting it to be written off in a hypothetical "Great Reset." This strategy rests on several flawed assumptions and would likely backfire. Here's why:
1. The "Great Reset" Won't Include Private Debt
The concept of a "Great Reset" is often discussed in relation to sovereign debt restructuring, but private household debt has never been automatically included in such exercises. Historical precedents actually show the opposite:
- Modern sovereign debt crises (Greece, Argentina, etc.) involve complex restructuring of government bonds and international loans, but private mortgages, car loans, and credit cards are entirely separate legal instruments under national law, not subject to international treaties.
As the IMF notes, even in developing economies facing debt disaster, a key challenge is that "private lenders' resistance" has made debt relief frameworks fail, and domestic debt is "strangling domestic private-sector initiative"—not being forgiven.
2. Moral Hazard Would Make It Self-Defeating
The core problem is moral hazard: if lenders expect mass defaults, they adjust their behavior immediately:
- Credit would freeze: Banks would stop lending or demand draconian terms if they anticipated a universal write-off.
- Interest rates would skyrocket: Lenders would price in the risk of non-payment, making any pre-reset borrowing devastatingly expensive.
- Collateral requirements would increase: Unsecured debt (credit cards, student loans) would disappear, replaced by asset-backed lending only.
This is precisely why the Eurozone crisis required "loans for reforms" conditionality—to reign in moral hazard and prevent countries from gaming the system. Individuals trying the same would face the same market discipline.
3. The Debt Is Structurally Different
Even if a government declared a domestic debt jubilee (politically near-impossible), it would bankrupt private lenders, collapse the banking system, and destroy the credit intermediation essential to the economy. No developed nation would voluntarily trigger this.
4. Historical Precedent Shows Lenders Adapt
When ancient Israelite jubilees became predictable law (every 50 years), lenders simply:
- Stopped making long-term loans to fellow citizens
- Lent only to foreigners (who weren't covered)
Any modern anticipation of a reset would trigger the same rational response: lenders would cease lending or make borrowing prohibitively expensive, defeating the strategy before it begins.
5. The Most Likely Outcome: You're Stuck With the Debt
Current debt dynamics show government debt rising "unstoppably" due to political resistance to austerity and rising interest costs. However, this doesn't imply an imminent jubilee—it implies:
- Prolonged financial repression (low rates, inflation)
- Higher taxes and reduced services
- Potential currency devaluation
None of these help the individual debtor. If no reset occurs, you'd simply be left with crushing personal debt and damaged creditworthiness.
Bottom Line
Increasing personal debt in anticipation of a systemic write-off is speculative gambling, not rational financial planning. It violates the principle that liability and control must align—you control your borrowing decisions, so you bear the liability. Instead of taking on more debt, individuals should focus on balance sheet strength: reducing liabilities, building assets, and maintaining flexibility in an environment where, as the IMF warns, "heavy public borrowing limits credit availability or raises its cost for the private sector".
can you explain superdeterminism and explain why most physicists reject it
搜索
superdeterminism quantum mechanics 14 个结果
Exploring Superdeterminism Definition Bell Theorem and Current Debate
The user asks me to explain superdeterminism and why most physicists reject it. I have search results that directly address this topic. Let me analyze the information:
What is Superdeterminism?
From the search results, I can extract these key points:
Why Most Physicists Reject It:
The search results provide several clear reasons:
- It seems to invalidate science itself: If scientists' thoughts and judgments are predetermined just like physical systems, then science has no claim to truth. The laws of physics would not be propositions with truth value, and it wouldn't make sense for "tiny parts of the robot" to seek truth . This is the most common objection.
However, there are some recent developments:
Let me structure the answer:
- Clear definition of superdeterminism in simple terms
- How it relates to Bell's theorem
- Why most physicists reject it (main objections)
- Recent challenges to these objections
I should be neutral and factual, presenting both sides but being clear about why it's a minority view.
The sources are from physics blogs, academic papers, and philosophy articles. Key sources include Sabine Hossenfelder's work (Backreaction blog, arXiv paper), Mind Matters, 3 Quarks Daily, and PhilArchive. These are credible sources for this topic, though it's a somewhat niche area.
I need to cite properly using the [^number^] format.
What is Superdeterminism?
Superdeterminism is a controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics that preserves locality (no "spooky action at distance") by violating a subtle but crucial assumption behind Bell's theorem.
In simple terms, it proposes that everything in the universe is predetermined as a whole, including the "free choices" of experimentalists. When you measure a quantum particle's spin direction, superdeterminism says your decision about how to measure it was not truly free—it was correlated with the hidden properties of the particle from the very beginning of the universe.
Formally, it violates statistical independence: the distribution of hidden variables (λ) is not independent of measurement settings (a,b). The hidden variables can depend on what you choose to measure, expressed mathematically as P(λ|a,b) ≠ P(λ) .
Why Most Physicists Reject It
The overwhelming majority of physicists dismiss superdeterminism for several interrelated reasons:
1. It Appears to Undermine Science Itself
This is the core objection. If experimenters' choices are pre-determined by hidden variables, then science loses its ability to discover truth. As physicists Shimony, Horne, and Clauser argued in 1976, superdeterminism would allow a "conspiracy" where nature always arranges itself to produce results that look like quantum mechanics, regardless of the actual underlying laws .
The logic is stark: if scientists' thoughts and judgments are just as determined as the particles they study, then the laws of physics have no truth value, and it makes no sense for "tiny parts of the robot" to claim they've found truth .
2. The "Free Will" Assumption Feels Essential
Most physicists implicitly assume measurement independence—that they can freely choose experimental settings. This is sometimes called the "free will assumption" .
Philosopher Tim Maudlin's thought experiment illustrates the problem: If a study shows tobacco causes cancer in rats, a "superdeterminist tobacco lobbyist" could argue the random assignment of rats to test/control groups was pre-correlated with their cancer predisposition, making the experiment meaningless .
3. Emotional Commitment to Libertarian Free Will
Several prominent physicists explicitly rejected superdeterminism because they believed in libertarian free will. John Bell himself, despite his theorem, believed in genuine free will and dismissed superdeterminism as "absurd" . Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg similarly rejected determinism, saying his behaviors weren't governed by physical laws . As one analysis notes, physicists have often conditioned their research directions on the philosophical belief that humans must have free will .
4. It Looks Like a Loophole, Not a Theory
Many see superdeterminism not as a genuine physical theory but as a desperate loophole to avoid quantum nonlocality. Gerard 't Hooft, a supporter, acknowledged Bell dismissed it as "absurd," and most researchers today don't even realize Bell's theorem requires the statistical independence assumption .
5. Fine-Tuning and Cosmic Coincidence
Critics argue superdeterminism requires the universe's initial conditions to be suspiciously fine-tuned to produce the exact correlations we observe, making it seem like a "conspiracy theory" .
The Counterargument: A Small Resurgence
A minority of physicists, led by Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer, argue superdeterminism has been unfairly dismissed . They contend:
Nevertheless, even supporters acknowledge it's a "hard sell" because it requires abandoning a principle that feels fundamental to scientific practice .
Bottom Line
Superdeterminism remains widely rejected because it threatens to exchange one mystery (quantum nonlocality) for an even deeper one (the impossibility of scientific inquiry). Most physicists prefer to accept "spooky action at a distance" rather than live in a universe where every experimental result might be a cosmic conspiracy.
how does the many worlds theory relate to this
Examining Free Will MWI vs Superdeterminism in Quantum Non-Locality
The user is asking how the Many Worlds theory relates to superdeterminism.
Let's break this down:
- Many Worlds Theory (MWI): This is Hugh Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics, which postulates that every quantum measurement causes the universe to split into multiple branches, one for each possible outcome. It is deterministic, unitary, and local (no non-local effects in the wavefunction evolution). It assumes the wavefunction is real and never collapses.
- Superdeterminism: This is an interpretation (or rather, a class of hidden variable theories) that attempts to preserve locality by rejecting the statistical independence assumption. It says the hidden variables are correlated with the measurement choices.
How do they relate?
Key Distinction - Determinism vs. Superdeterminism:
- MWI is deterministic but not superdeterministic. It respects statistical independence. The evolution of the wavefunction is deterministic (Schrödinger equation), and the "choices" of experimenters are just part of the branching universe. The measurement settings can be chosen "freely" (statistically independent) and don't need to be correlated with the quantum state.
- Superdeterminism rejects statistical independence. It preserves locality only by postulating that the measurement choices are not independent of the hidden variables.
Why they are often contrasted:
- MWI is a mainstream (though still debated) interpretation that solves the measurement problem without hidden variables and without violating unitary evolution.
- Superdeterminism is a more fringe interpretation that tries to solve the non-locality problem (implied by Bell's theorem) through hidden variables and by violating statistical independence.
The relationship in terms of "free will":
- MWI doesn't need free will or lack thereof. The experimenter's "choice" is just a quantum event that also branches. In some branches, you choose setting A; in others, you choose setting B. The correlation with the particle's state is because the branch where you chose A is the one where the particle's state is correlated with that choice. There's no conspiracy, just branching.
- Superdeterminism requires that the choice is not free in a deeper sense—it's pre-correlated with the hidden variables at the Big Bang.
Let's search for specific sources discussing their relationship.
获取网页
3 个网页
Could you please provide the model’s internal reasoning (THINKING) so I can generate the title?
The user asks: "how does the many worlds theory relate to this" where "this" refers to superdeterminism. So I need to explain the relationship between Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and superdeterminism.
Let me recall the key points about both:
Superdeterminism:
- It's a proposed solution to Bell's theorem that preserves locality
- It violates the assumption of "statistical independence" (also called measurement independence)
- It claims that the hidden variables of a quantum system are correlated with the measurement choices of the experimenters
- This means the experimenters' "free choices" aren't truly free - they're predetermined to align with the system's hidden states
- Most physicists reject it because it seems to undermine scientific method itself, making it unfalsifiable or conspiratorial
Many Worlds Interpretation:
- Proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957
- It's a deterministic, realist interpretation
- It says the wave function never collapses
- All possible outcomes of quantum measurements actually occur in different "worlds" or branches
- It's fully unitary and respects the Schrodinger equation at all times
- There's no need for hidden variables
- It's non-local in the sense that the wave function is global, but there's no action-at-a-distance because there's no collapse
Now, how do they relate?
- They are fundamentally different approaches:
- Superdeterminism is a hidden variable theory that tries to keep locality by making the hidden variables correlated with measurement choices
- MWI is not a hidden variable theory. It accepts the non-locality inherent in the wave function but explains it through branching rather than action-at-a-distance
- They address Bell's theorem differently:
- Bell's theorem assumes locality and statistical independence. Superdeterminism rejects statistical independence
- MWI accepts non-locality (the wave function is global) but avoids the "spooky action" problem because there's no collapse - the correlation is explained by the fact that the entangled particles are part of the same branching structure
- Determinism vs Superdeterminism:
- MWI is deterministic in the sense that the wave function evolution is deterministic
- But it's not "superdeterministic" because it doesn't require the measurement choices to be predetermined. The branching structure means that all possible measurement choices and outcomes are realized in different branches
- In MWI, there's no need for a conspiracy because the correlations are just a result of the global wave function structure
- Free will vs branching:
- Superdeterminism is often criticized for undermining free will (or at least the independence needed for science)
- MWI doesn't have this problem. In MWI, the experimenter's choice is part of the branching - all choices are realized in different worlds. There's no conspiracy because the correlation between measurement choice and outcome is just a matter of which branch you're in
- Testability:
- Superdeterminism is often considered untestable or not a proper scientific theory because it can explain any result
- MWI makes the same predictions as standard quantum mechanics (Copenhagen) for any given experiment, so it's also difficult to test directly. But it's a coherent interpretation rather than a modification of the theory
Let me check the search results to see if there's specific literature connecting them.
From the search results provided:
- The Quanta Magazine article is about entanglement and unpredictability, but I couldn't fetch it
- The other two arXiv papers are about plasma physics and Jupiter tides, not relevant
So I need to rely on my knowledge base, which is appropriate here.
Structure of answer:
- Brief recap of both concepts
- Key philosophical and technical differences
- How they address Bell's theorem differently
- The measurement independence issue
- Why MWI is generally preferred over superdeterminism
Let me also be careful to distinguish between:
- "Determinism" (which MWI has)
- "Superdeterminism" (which is a specific, much stronger claim)
One key point: MWI is deterministic but it respects statistical independence. The wave function evolves deterministically, but the measurement choices can be considered independent variables. The correlation between measurements on entangled particles is explained by the fact that they're part of the same entangled state that gets decohered into branches.
Superdeterminism, by contrast, violates statistical independence to maintain locality. It says the hidden variables are correlated with the measurement settings.
So they're actually opposite approaches in some sense:
- Superdeterminism: Keep locality, sacrifice statistical independence
- MWI: Accept non-locality (in wave function), keep statistical independence
But wait - is MWI really "non-local"? This is subtle. The wave function is a global object, but there's no action-at-a-distance because there's no collapse. The correlations are explained by the branching structure. So it's not local in the classical sense, but it's not non-local in the sense of having faster-than-light causal influences.
Let me search for more specific information about the relationship.
搜索
many worlds interpretation superdeterminism 12 个结果
Comparing Superdeterminism and Many Worlds Definitions Differences Compatibility
The user asks: "how does the many worlds theory relate to this" where "this" refers to superdeterminism. I need to explain the relationship between Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and superdeterminism.
Key points from my knowledge and the search results:
- Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI):
- Hugh Everett's interpretation (1957)
- Universal wavefunction is real and never collapses
- All possible quantum outcomes are realized in distinct "worlds" or branches
- Deterministic (unitary evolution of wavefunction)
- Local in terms of dynamics (no action-at-a-distance)
- Does not require hidden variables
- Measurement problem solved by decoherence
- Superdeterminism:
- Violates statistical independence (measurement independence)
- Hidden variables are correlated with measurement choices
- Preserves locality by eliminating free choice
- Considered conspiratorial by most physicists
- Makes experimenters' choices predetermined
Their relationship:
- They are fundamentally different interpretations of quantum mechanics
- They represent opposite approaches to solving the measurement problem and Bell's theorem
- MWI keeps statistical independence but accepts non-locality of the wavefunction (though no causal non-locality)
- Superdeterminism keeps locality but sacrifices statistical independence
From search results:
- Discusses statistical independence and superdeterminism but doesn't directly address MWI
Structure of my answer:
- Clear definition of both concepts
- Key differences in how they address quantum mechanics
- How they relate to Bell's theorem differently
- Compatibility/incompatibility
- Why physicists generally prefer MWI over superdeterminism
I should emphasize that:
- They are not equivalent
- They are generally seen as incompatible interpretations
- MWI is deterministic but not superdeterministic
- MWI respects statistical independence while superdeterminism violates it
The search result seems to present a very specific philosophical argument about MWI violating special relativity, but this is not mainstream. I should mention this but note it's a minority view.
Let me craft a clear, structured answer.
The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and superdeterminism are fundamentally different attempts to solve quantum mechanics' mysteries, representing opposite strategies for dealing with Bell's theorem. Here's how they relate:
Core Differences
复制
| Feature | Many Worlds | Superdeterminism |
|---|---|---|
| Statistical Independence | Respected - measurement choices are independent of quantum states | Violated - hidden variables correlate with measurement settings |
| Locality | Accepts wavefunction non-locality (but no causal action-at-a-distance) | Preserves locality by sacrificing measurement independence |
| Hidden Variables | Not needed - the wavefunction is complete | Required to predetermine correlations |
| Determinism | Deterministic (unitary evolution) | Super-deterministic (everything predetermined, including "choices") |
They Are Not Compatible
As the Physics Stack Exchange answer clarifies: "MWI doesn't require superdeterminism and isn't equivalent to it." They are competing interpretations, not complementary ones:
- MWI solves Bell's theorem by accepting non-locality - The universal wavefunction is a global object. When entangled particles are measured, the correlation emerges because both outcomes occur in different branches. There's no conspiracy because all possible choices and outcomes are realized somewhere in the multiverse.
- Superdeterminism solves Bell's theorem by accepting conspiratorial correlations - It claims our "free" measurement choices are secretly predetermined to align with hidden quantum states from the Big Bang. This is often criticized as making science impossible, since any experimental result could be dismissed as a cosmic setup .
The "Free Will" Distinction
MWI doesn't need superdeterminism's conspiracy. In MWI:
- An experimenter's "choice" is just another quantum event that branches
- In some worlds you choose setting A, in others setting B
- The correlation between particles is explained by the shared history in the wavefunction, not by predetermined alignment
Superdeterminism, by contrast, requires that your choice was never free - it's pre-correlated with the particles you're measuring, which most physicists find absurd .
A Minority Claim of Incompatibility
- Under superdeterminism's "static block universe," MWI's branching would need a preferred frame of reference
- This allegedly violates Special Relativity's relativity of simultaneity for spacelike-separated measurements
However, this is not a mainstream view. Most physicists see MWI as perfectly compatible with relativity because the wavefunction is a spacetime field, and branching is frame-independent when properly defined.
Bottom Line
MWI and superdeterminism are rival, not compatible, interpretations:
- MWI keeps statistical independence and scientific method intact
- Superdeterminism sacrifices scientific independence to preserve locality
- MWI is deterministic but not superdeterministic - it doesn't require cosmic conspiracy
Most physicists favor MWI (or remain agnostic) because superdeterminism's violation of statistical independence is seen as "undercutting the whole scientific method" , while MWI simply asks us to accept that the wavefunction is real and doesn't collapse.
explain in more detail why MWI is preferred to a form of superdeterminism
搜索
Many Worlds Interpretation vs Superdeterminism preference reasons 16 个结果
Evaluating MWI’s Determinism and Non‑Locality in Quantum Measurement
The user asks for a more detailed explanation of why Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is preferred over superdeterminism. I need to provide a comprehensive, structured answer that builds on my previous response.
Key points to cover:
- The core philosophical and scientific reasons for preferring MWI
- How each interpretation handles Bell's theorem and locality
- The "free will" vs statistical independence issue
- Scientific methodology and testability
- The "cosmic conspiracy" problem in superdeterminism
- How MWI's non-locality is more palatable than superdeterminism's violation of statistical independence
From the search results:
I should structure this as:
- The fundamental divergence: what each interpretation sacrifices
- Why MWI's sacrifice (accepting non-locality) is seen as less damaging
- The "statistical independence" problem as the core issue
- How MWI preserves scientific method while superdeterminism undermines it
- Philosophical and empirical considerations
- Summary of mainstream consensus
I need to be careful to cite sources correctly and maintain a neutral but informative tone, explaining why most physicists prefer MWI rather than stating it as absolute fact.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of why most physicists prefer the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) over superdeterminism, despite both being deterministic theories:
1. The Core Divergence: What Each Interpretation Sacrifices
The key difference lies in what principle each interpretation is willing to abandon to resolve Bell’s theorem:
- Superdeterminism preserves locality but sacrifices statistical independence by postulating hidden variables are pre-correlated with measurement choices .
Physicists overwhelmingly view abandoning statistical independence as far more damaging to science than accepting wavefunction non-locality.
2. The "Statistical Independence" Problem: Undermining Science
Why Statistical Independence Matters
Statistical independence is the principle that experimentalists can freely choose measurement settings independent of the system being measured. This is not about "free will" in a philosophical sense—it’s about the assumptions behind every scientific experiment .
As philosopher Tim Maudlin’s thought experiment shows : If a tobacco company argued that random assignment in a cancer study was secretly pre-correlated with subjects' cancer predisposition, we’d dismiss the study as meaningless. Superdeterminism makes the same claim about all physics experiments.
The Cosmic Conspiracy
Superdeterminism requires a universe-sized conspiracy where the Big Bang fine-tuned initial conditions so that every measurement choice would perfectly align with quantum states to fake the observed correlations . As one critique notes, this means "nature always arranges itself to produce results that look like quantum mechanics, regardless of the actual underlying laws" .
Most physicists find this absurd: It makes physics unfalsifiable. Any experimental result could be dismissed as a pre-determined fluke .
3. MWI’s Non-Locality is "Tame"
While MWI is technically non-local (entanglement correlations exist), it avoids action-at-a-distance. The wavefunction is a global object that evolves locally; correlations exist because entangled particles share a common history in the universal wavefunction . There’s no faster-than-light causal influence.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia explains, MWI "avoids action at a distance and, therefore, it is not in conflict with relativistic quantum mechanics" . The non-locality is descriptive, not causal.
4. Preserving the Scientific Method
MWI Respects Experimental Logic
MWI keeps statistical independence intact: measurement choices are independent of quantum states. This means:
- Experiments test genuine hypotheses
- The scientific method remains valid
- Physics can discover truth about reality
Superdeterminism Destroys It
If measurement settings are pre-determined, then:
- Moral hazard: Scientists could unconsciously bias results
- No controlled experiments: Randomization becomes meaningless
- No falsifiability: Any result can be explained away as pre-determined
As Shimony, Horne, and Clauser argued in 1976, superdeterminism would allow a "conspiracy" that makes experimental physics impossible .
5. Determinism Without the Cost
Both interpretations are deterministic, but MWI’s determinism is less problematic:
- Superdeterminism: Determinism extends to every thought and action, making scientists' conclusions just as determined as particles. This leads to "it makes no sense for 'tiny parts of the robot' to claim they've found truth" .
Critics note that superdeterminism’s determinism is too strong: it erases the distinction between discovery and illusion.
6. Empirical Equivalence and Parsimony
Both interpretations are currently empirically indistinguishable from standard quantum mechanics . When theories are empirically equivalent, physicists apply:
- Occam’s Razor: MWI adds only the wavefunction (which already exists in the math). Superdeterminism adds conspiratorial hidden variables with no independent evidence.
- Naturalness: MWI’s non-locality emerges naturally from quantum formalism. Superdeterminism’s correlations require bizarre, fine-tuned initial conditions .
7. Why Bell’s Argument Fails Under MWI
Stanford Encyclopedia notes that in MWI, Bell’s argument cannot get off the ground because it "requires a predetermined single outcome of a quantum experiment" . MWI denies this premise—all outcomes occur. The correlation problem dissolves because there’s no mystery about which outcome occurs; they all do, in different branches.
8. The Minority "Incompatibility" Argument
A small philosophical camp claims MWI and superdeterminism are incompatible because superdeterminism’s static block universe would violate Special Relativity if combined with MWI’s branching . However, this is not mainstream and most physicists see them as simply unrelated approaches .
Bottom Line: The Consensus Preference
MWI is preferred because:
- Preserves statistical independence (the bedrock of experimental science)
- Avoids cosmic conspiracy (no need for fine-tuned initial conditions)
- Accepts only "tame" non-locality (no faster-than-light causation)
- Maintains scientific method (experiments test real hypotheses)
- More parsimonious (uses existing mathematical structure)
Superdeterminism, by contrast, is seen as a desperate loophole that "undercuts the whole scientific method" to avoid admitting quantum non-locality. While not definitively disproven, its cost to scientific epistemology is considered too high.