What do the physicists think?
If Sabine can come up with a clear and explicit theory that explains QM and gets around Bell’s theorem by violating the no conspiracy assumption, rather than the locality assumption, more power to her. As she acknowledges, the current problem with saying that superdeterminism is a possible resolution to the problems of QM is that no one actually knows what that looks like - what exactly are the correlations that block the measurement apparatus in a Bell type experiment from being independent, and how they come about. (That, and the problem that superdeterminism poses for the experimental method, which I think she dismisses too easily.)
This is in contrast to the locality assumption - we have a pretty clear idea of what it looks like for that to be violated, courtesy of pilot wave theory. (And as far as that goes, I think she gives locality a higher status than it merits if she’d rather cling to it and abandon the no conspiracy assumption.) I would be very curious to see what a superdeterministic theory looked like to be able to compare it to pilot wave theory. Same with a retrocausal theory; and I wonder if superdeterminism will end up looking like retrocausality from a different perspective.
1 Like