Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Superdeterminism

Superdeterminism is an interpretation of that proposes a fully deterministic governed by hidden variables, where the choices of settings are correlated with the states of the systems being measured, thereby violating the assumption of statistical independence in . This approach allows for local hidden variable theories to reproduce the statistical predictions of without invoking non-locality or influences. The underlying loophole was considered by physicist John Bell in his theorem, and the term superdeterminism was coined by him in the to describe a deterministic interpretation that violates statistical independence, positing that all events, including experimental choices, are predetermined from the initial conditions of the , rendering quantum randomness illusory. In the context of , which demonstrates that local hidden variable theories cannot account for quantum correlations unless they allow non-local influences, superdeterminism circumvents this by rejecting the premise that experimenters' choices are independent of the hidden variables influencing the particles. This makes it a deterministic, psi-epistemic view where the represents an average over underlying definite states rather than a fundamental description of reality. Proponents argue that it resolves longstanding puzzles in , such as the and entanglement, by providing a deeper, causal layer beneath quantum probabilities. Key advocates include Nobel laureate , who has developed models incorporating superdeterminism, and physicist , who has proposed testable predictions to distinguish it from standard . Despite its potential to unify with , superdeterminism faces significant criticism for implying a form of cosmic , where correlations appear finely tuned across vast distances and times, potentially undermining the essential for scientific experimentation. It also raises philosophical concerns about , suggesting that human decisions in experiments are not truly free but predetermined, aligning with a strict causal chain from the . Recent efforts, such as those by Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer, aim to construct explicit superdeterministic models that could be empirically tested, potentially elevating it from a speculative loophole to a viable theory. As of 2025, however, no experiments have distinguished superdeterminism from standard .

Foundations in Quantum Mechanics

Bell's Theorem and Its Assumptions

Bell's theorem demonstrates that no local hidden variable theory can fully reproduce the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics for systems of entangled particles. It establishes a fundamental incompatibility between quantum mechanics and certain classical intuitions about physical reality, particularly when applied to spatially separated measurements on entangled states. The theorem emerged in response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, proposed in 1935, which questioned the completeness of by arguing that entangled particles imply "spooky " or the need for hidden variables to restore determinism and locality. In his seminal 1964 paper, John S. Bell formalized this debate by deriving inequalities that any must satisfy, showing that violates these bounds in specific scenarios involving spin measurements on entangled particle pairs. A prominent formulation of Bell's theorem is the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, developed in , which provides a testable bound for correlations in bipartite systems. For two parties, , measuring observables A, A' and B, B' respectively on their shares of an entangled state, the CHSH expression is defined as S = \langle AB \rangle + \langle AB' \rangle + \langle A' B \rangle - \langle A' B' \rangle, where \langle \cdot \rangle denotes the expectation value of the product of outcomes. Local hidden variable theories predict |S| \leq 2, whereas allows violations up to the Tsirelson bound of $2\sqrt{2} \approx 2.828 for optimal measurement angles, such as those separated by 22.5 degrees in the . The theorem relies on three key assumptions: , locality, and statistical independence (also termed measurement independence or ). Realism posits that physical properties of a system possess definite values prior to and independent of . Locality requires that the outcome of a measurement on one particle cannot instantaneously the outcome on a distant particle, respecting the no-signaling principle consistent with . Statistical independence assumes that the experimenter's choice of measurement settings is uncorrelated with the underlying hidden variables describing the particle states, ensuring in experimental design. Violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of these assumptions must be abandoned to reconcile with quantum predictions. The derivation begins with the setup of two entangled particles, say in a spin singlet state, sent to distant detectors. Assuming local variables \lambda determine outcomes deterministically, the measurement result for Alice's setting a is A(a, \lambda) = \pm 1, and similarly B(b, \lambda) = \pm 1 for Bob's setting b. The joint correlation is then \langle AB \rangle = \int A(a, \lambda) B(b, \lambda) \rho(\lambda) \, d\lambda, where \rho(\lambda) is the hidden variable distribution. For the CHSH form, consider the expectation S = \int [A(a, \lambda)(B(b, \lambda) + B(b', \lambda)) + A(a', \lambda)(B(b, \lambda) - B(b', \lambda))] \rho(\lambda) \, d\lambda. Since |B(b, \lambda) + B(b', \lambda)| \leq 2 and |B(b, \lambda) - B(b', \lambda)| \leq 2 for deterministic outcomes, the |S| \leq 2 follows by the . violates this by predicting correlations that exceed the bound, necessitating rejection of local realism under the assumptions.

Local Hidden Variable Theories

Local hidden variable theories propose the existence of unobserved parameters, often denoted as hidden variables λ, that fully determine the outcomes of quantum measurements while adhering to the principles of locality and . These theories seek to provide a deterministic underpinning to , countering the inherent indeterminism of the by positing that quantum probabilities arise from our ignorance of these λ, much like classical . Locality in this context requires that the outcome at one location depends only on local settings and λ, without instantaneous influence from distant events. A prominent example of a hidden variable approach is Bohmian mechanics, introduced by in 1952, which interprets deterministically through particle trajectories guided by a pilot wave; however, this theory is non-local, as the guiding wave function allows influences to propagate across entangled systems. In contrast, strictly local hidden variable theories, which enforce no such non-local signaling, attempt to model outcomes solely through local interactions but consistently fail to reproduce quantum predictions in entangled scenarios, as evidenced by violations in Bell tests. Mathematically, these theories describe the outcome A(a, \lambda) for setting a on one subsystem as a solely of a and the shared hidden variable \lambda, with a similar form B(b, \lambda) for the distant setting b; locality demands that A remains independent of b, and vice versa, ensuring no causal connection between separated . The fundamental limitations of local hidden variable theories stem from , which proves that any such theory must violate specific statistical inequalities derived from if it aims to match experimental correlations in entangled systems. Furthermore, the Kochen-Specker theorem establishes that non-contextual hidden variable assignments—where values are pre-assigned independently of measurement context—are incompatible with for systems with three or more dimensions.

Definition and Principles

Core Concept of Superdeterminism

Superdeterminism posits that the operates as a fully in which all events, including the choices made by experimenters in quantum s, are predetermined by the initial conditions of the , thereby establishing correlations between variables and settings that violate the statistical independence assumption central to . This allows for a to reproduce quantum correlations without invoking non-locality, as the apparent "" in choices is not but inherently linked to the underlying deterministic evolution from the 's outset. In essence, superdeterminism treats the entire as a single, interconnected causal chain where no event, no matter how seemingly free or distant, escapes predetermination. The key principle of superdeterminism lies in the natural emergence of correlations between the hidden variables λ, which govern particle behaviors, and the settings a and b chosen by experimenters, without requiring any contrived "" among distant systems. These correlations arise because both λ and the settings are fixed by the same initial conditions, enabling to hold while matching quantum predictions; for instance, the ρ(λ|a,b) differs from the independent ρ(λ), allowing outcomes to align with observed Bell inequality violations through deterministic local mechanisms. This approach sidesteps the need for superluminal influences by embedding all relevant factors within a globally consistent deterministic structure. Unlike standard classical , which typically assumes independent free choices at the macroscopic level and does not address quantum-scale correlations, superdeterminism extends to the quantum specifically to close the "freedom-of-choice" in , ensuring that experimenter decisions are not exempt from the causal chain. It thus provides a mechanism for local hidden variables to persist in a quantum context by correlating all elements from the universe's initial state, rather than relying on probabilistic or non-local elements. A conceptual example illustrates this as the functioning like a vast, pre-scripted where what appears as a random selection of measurement angles by physicists—such as choosing polarizer orientations in a —is actually predetermined by cosmic initial conditions, ensuring that the hidden variables of entangled particles align perfectly with those choices to produce the observed quantum statistics. In this view, the entire experimental setup, from particle preparation to detector calibration, evolves deterministically from the , rendering "free will" in measurements illusory and the correlations non-miraculous.

Mathematical Formulation

In superdeterministic models of quantum mechanics, the formal structure modifies standard local hidden variable theories by incorporating correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings, ensuring that the theory remains local while reproducing quantum predictions that violate Bell inequalities. Consider two parties, Alice and Bob, performing measurements on entangled particles with outcomes A(a, \lambda) and B(b, \lambda), where a and b are the measurement settings, and \lambda represents the hidden variables. The joint probability distribution is given by P(a, b, \lambda) = \rho(\lambda | a, b) P(a) P(b), where \rho(\lambda | a, b) is the conditional density of \lambda given the settings, allowing for superdeterministic correlations that trace back to initial conditions of the universe. This setup ensures that the marginal distribution over \lambda depends on the choices of a and b, violating the statistical independence assumption of Bell's theorem. The key expectation value for the correlation between outcomes is then expressed as \langle AB \rangle = \int d\lambda \, \rho(\lambda | a, b) A(a, \lambda) B(b, \lambda), where \rho(\lambda | a, b) \neq \rho(\lambda) in general, as the hidden variables are correlated with the settings through deterministic initial conditions. In contrast, standard hidden variable models assume \rho(\lambda | a, b) = \rho(\lambda), leading to the CHSH inequality |\langle AB \rangle_{a,b} + \langle AB \rangle_{a,b'} + \langle AB \rangle_{a',b} - \langle AB \rangle_{a',b'}| \leq 2. Superdeterminism evades this bound by permitting \rho(\lambda | a, b) to adjust the effective distribution of \lambda, such that the integral matches quantum correlations (up to $2\sqrt{2}) without requiring nonlocal influences. To illustrate, consider a deterministic example where outcomes are strictly fixed by \lambda, which encodes about both particle states and settings a, b. Define A(a, \lambda) = \pm 1 and B(b, \lambda) = \pm 1 as functions that incorporate the settings into the hidden variable specification, so \lambda = (\lambda_0, a, b) with \lambda_0 independent. The joint probability becomes P(A, B | a, b) = \int d\lambda_0 \, \rho(\lambda_0) \delta(A - A(a, \lambda_0, a, b)) \delta(B - B(b, \lambda_0, a, b)), effectively selecting subsets of \lambda_0 correlated with a, b to yield quantum-like statistics. This adjustment allows the model to satisfy quantum predictions locally, as the "conspiracy" in \rho(\lambda | a, b) compensates for the lack of . An advanced realization appears in Gerard 't Hooft's interpretation, where the universe evolves deterministically via local rules on a discrete lattice, with quantum behavior emerging from incomplete knowledge of initial hidden variables. The evolution is governed by a U acting on the configuration space of hidden variables \psi and \lambda, such that outcomes are determined by U(\psi, \lambda) \to (A, B), where \psi represents the apparent . Specifically, for a simple 1+1-dimensional bosonic model, the deterministic update rule is Q(x, t + 1) = f(Q(x-1, t), Q(x, t), Q(x+1, t)), with f a local function ensuring , and the expectation values arise from averaging over unknown initial \lambda. This framework maintains superdeterminism by correlating all variables from the , reproducing without nondeterminism or nonlocality.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Ideas

The concept of superdeterminism emerged from foundational debates in concerning the completeness of the theory and the possibility of underlying deterministic mechanisms. In 1935, , , and published a seminal questioning whether provided a complete description of physical reality, using the to argue for the existence of hidden variables that would restore and locality. This work highlighted apparent "spooky " in entangled systems, prompting explorations of local hidden variable theories as alternatives to the probabilistic nature of . John Stewart Bell's 1964 theorem further intensified these discussions by demonstrating that no could reproduce all predictions of without violating either locality or the statistical independence of measurement settings— the latter assumption implicitly relying on the experimenter's free choice of settings, akin to a form of . Bell's analysis thus implicitly opened the door to superdeterminism as a theoretical escape route, where correlations between hidden variables and measurement choices are predetermined from the universe's initial conditions, eliminating the need for non-locality. In a 1985 BBC , Bell explicitly acknowledged this possibility, describing superdeterminism as a way to avoid inferences of superluminal influences or spooky action, but involving "absolute determinism" and a "conspiracy" in the universe's history; he dismissed it as unappealing, stating, "It is silly to regard [it] as a ." Prior to Bell's work, deterministic interpretations like the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory, developed in the 1950s, influenced broader considerations of variables by positing a deterministic evolution of particle trajectories guided by the quantum , though it required non-locality rather than superdeterministic correlations. Superdeterminism as a distinct gained limited traction in the , with early formal explorations appearing in the late ; notably, Carl H. Brans's 1988 paper argued that does not rule out fully causal variable models if settings are correlated with the variables in a predetermined manner, thereby preserving locality and without free choice assumptions. These ideas remained marginal until later decades, reflecting the era's preference for interpretations preserving experimental freedom.

Modern Proponents and Debates

In the , Nobel laureate emerged as a prominent advocate for superdeterminism through his development of models of , proposing that the universe operates as a deterministic computational system where apparent quantum randomness arises from underlying hidden variables correlated across . These models, detailed in his 2016 monograph, aim to reconcile quantum phenomena with locality and determinism by eliminating the need for free choices in measurement settings, thus preserving Einstein's vision of a complete physical theory. Sabine Hossenfelder has been a leading contemporary proponent since the early 2020s, integrating superdeterminism into broader discussions of in her 2022 book , where she argues it offers a viable alternative to non-local interpretations by challenging the assumption of measurement independence. In a 2025 preprint, Hossenfelder further explores superdeterministic implications for , suggesting that gravitational effects could induce local wavefunction collapse in a deterministic framework, potentially unifying with without invoking randomness. The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded to , , and for entanglement experiments confirming violations in loophole-free settings, reignited debates on superdeterminism as a potential resolution to the resulting tensions with local realism. These experiments, while supporting quantum predictions, left superdeterminism as an untested , prompting renewed scrutiny of whether correlated hidden variables could mimic non-locality without violating . From 2023 to 2025, Hossenfelder has actively critiqued the prevailing "shut up and calculate" in through videos and , advocating superdeterminism as a philosophically coherent approach that demands testable predictions rather than accepting interpretive ambiguity. In a 2025 podcast episode, she emphasized that superdeterminism avoids "magical" non-locality while aligning with empirical data, urging physicists to confront its implications for scientific methodology. Recent theoretical advancements include 2024–2025 papers proposing tests of superdeterministic models in loophole-free Bell experiments, such as analyses of experimenter bias and statistical independence that could distinguish superdeterministic correlations from standard quantum outcomes. For instance, a 2024 study examines how superdeterminism might manifest in modified Bell tests, suggesting experimental designs to probe hidden variable conspiracies without assuming . These efforts have fueled controversy within the community, with debates at 2025 conferences highlighting tensions between superdeterminism's deterministic elegance and concerns over its testability and implications for .

Implications and Interpretations

For Quantum Mechanics and Physics

Superdeterminism offers a framework for reconciling with locality by permitting local hidden variable theories to reproduce quantum predictions without invoking non-local influences in entanglement scenarios. In standard interpretations of , the assumption of measurement independence—often termed statistical independence or freedom-of-choice—is required to derive inequalities that quantum mechanics violates. Superdeterminism relaxes this assumption, positing that the choices of measurement settings are correlated with the hidden variables governing the particles' states from the outset, thereby allowing local deterministic models to match quantum correlations without signaling. This approach maintains relativistic locality while evading the theorem's constraints on local realism. In broader physics, superdeterminism has implications for unifying with , particularly through deterministic models of . Gerard 't Hooft's cellular automaton interpretation posits as emerging from an underlying classical, deterministic , where superdeterminism ensures that apparent probabilistic outcomes arise from initial conditions without true randomness. In 't Hooft's model, the automaton's discrete evolution provides a local, deterministic substrate for gravitational phenomena, potentially bridging and without non-local or indeterministic elements. Recent 2025 theoretical work, such as analyses of statistical independence in superdeterministic theories, further explores the space of possible models consistent with quantum predictions. Experimentally, superdeterminism predicts the same no-signaling outcomes as but necessitates closing the freedom-of-choice loophole to rigorously test local hidden variables, as correlated settings could mimic violations. Recent efforts have employed distant cosmic sources, such as light from billions of years ago, to generate measurement choices, aiming to sever potential correlations traceable to common causes near the . Efforts continue to use such cosmic sources in delayed-choice setups to probe these correlations. Prior experiments have confirmed Bell violations under stringent conditions but leave superdeterminism viable if initial cosmic conditions enforce the required dependencies. These tests highlight the challenge of falsifying superdeterminism, as it demands verifying across vast separations. In 2025, discussions of Bell responses, including superdeterminism, have evaluated cosmic photon-based approaches. Theoretically, superdeterminism restores predictability at the fundamental level, contrasting with the inherent probabilism of standard and offering a pathway to a fully deterministic . By eliminating ontological , it aligns quantum phenomena with classical , potentially simplifying unification efforts in physics while preserving empirical equivalence to quantum predictions. This advantage positions superdeterminism as a for foundational theories where predictability underpins laws like .

Philosophical Consequences

Superdeterminism implies that the choices of experimenters in quantum measurements, including settings determined by generators, are predetermined and correlated with the states of the measured particles from the universe's initial conditions. This correlation, often likened to a "cosmic ," lacks any elements and arises naturally from a fully deterministic framework, challenging libertarian conceptions of where choices are uncaused and independent. However, it aligns with compatibilist philosophies, which define as the capacity to act in accordance with one's motivations, even if those motivations are causally determined; proponents like maintain that superdeterminism preserves this sense of agency without requiring indeterministic processes. Regarding scientific , superdeterminism questions the foundational of statistical in experiments, suggesting that apparent in selections—such as those from quantum generators—is illusory and part of the broader deterministic web. This has sparked debates on the theory's , as superdeterministic models reproduce the same empirical predictions as standard , rendering direct falsification challenging without violating the theory's core premises. On a broader ontological level, superdeterminism supports , or the block universe view, in which past, present, and future events coexist as a fixed four-dimensional structure, eliminating the flow of time and reinforcing total predetermination. This perspective avoids —where future events influence the past—by positing all correlations as forward-determined from initial states; philosophical analyses in 2025, including discussions of entangled realities and , highlight how superdeterminism maintains causal consistency without backward influences. Ethically, superdeterminism poses no inherent conflict with moral responsibility, as Hossenfelder argues that determinism does not undermine accountability; individuals remain responsible for their actions based on their determined intentions and character, preserving societal notions of praise and blame without invoking free will as an uncaused liberty.

Examples and Applications

Thought Experiments

Superdeterminism offers a resolution to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox by positing that the states of entangled particles and the choices of measurement settings at distant locations are not independent but share a common causal origin tracing back to the initial conditions of the universe, such as the Big Bang, thereby preserving locality without invoking non-local influences. In this framework, the apparent "spooky action at a distance" highlighted in the original 1935 EPR thought experiment—where measuring the position or momentum of one particle seemingly instantaneously determines the state of its distant partner—is explained as a pre-established correlation rather than a real-time interaction, avoiding the need for hidden variables that respond to measurements. This approach aligns with Bell's theorem by violating the assumption of statistical independence between the hidden variables and the experimenters' choices, ensuring that quantum predictions are reproduced without non-locality. A variant of Wigner's friend illustrates challenges in handling observer-dependent outcomes in quantum measurement. In the classic setup, Wigner considers his friend measuring a particle in superposition inside a lab, placing the friend and particle in a joint superposition from Wigner's external perspective until he intervenes; this raises paradoxes regarding the consistency of quantum states across observers. Superdeterminism suggests that correlations from initial cosmic conditions could align choices with hidden states, potentially addressing observer-induced inconsistencies in a deterministic framework. Consider a hypothetical governed by superdeterminism where experimenters use flips to randomly select measurement settings in a ; all such "random" outcomes, including the coins' results, are predetermined by the universe's initial conditions, ensuring that the selected settings correlate with the entangled particles' hidden states to produce outcomes compliant with quantum statistics, such as the violation of Bell inequalities, while upholding locality. This example underscores how superdeterminism treats apparent in experimental choices as illusory, with the entire sequence—from cosmic origins to landings—forming a single causal chain that conspires to match observed correlations without beyond the initial setup.

Experimental and Theoretical Illustrations

One prominent theoretical model of superdeterminism is Gerard 't Hooft's interpretation, developed in the 2020s, in which the universe consists of discrete bits that evolve deterministically through local rules, generating quantum-like behavior from underlying classical processes. In this framework, correlations between measurement settings and particle outcomes arise naturally from the global state of the , eliminating the need for nonlocality. A specific illustration involves an Ising spin chain, where the dynamics emerge from permutations of spin states (up or down), treated as ontological variables; small perturbations in the parameters lead to quantum spin behavior in the continuum limit, with the chain's evolution ensuring that initial conditions correlate all relevant variables across space-time. An experimental illustration of superdeterministic mechanisms appears in the interpretation of loophole-free Bell tests, such as the 2015 experiment by Hensen et al., which violated the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality using entangled spins in diamond separated by 1.3 km, with measurement settings chosen via ultrafast random number generators to close detection and locality loopholes. Under superdeterminism, the observed violation does not imply nonlocality but instead reflects hidden correlations between the hidden variables governing the spins and the "random" settings, which could stem from physical sources like cosmic rays used for randomness generation; these sources share a common causal past with the entangled pair, rendering the choices non-independent. A more recent illustration is the 2020 proposal by and Tim Palmer (with ongoing discussions into 2025), advocating the use of astronomical sources—such as light from distant s—for generating measurement settings in Bell tests to probe the independence assumption more stringently. In this setup, the light, arriving after billions of years, determines the settings, yet superdeterminism predicts no deviations from quantum correlations, as the initial conditions of the entangle the emissions, the entangled particles, and the detectors in a way that preserves statistical consistency without anomalies. In applications to Bohmian mechanics, superdeterminism modifies the standard framework by making particle trajectories depend on measurement settings through an extended guiding equation that incorporates the global configuration, including the choice variables, thereby enforcing deterministic locality; the velocity field now reflects correlations from the initial state, allowing the theory to reproduce quantum statistics without invoking action-at-a-distance.

Criticisms and Challenges

Scientific Objections

One major scientific objection to superdeterminism is its lack of , as it reproduces the same empirical predictions as standard while positing hidden correlations that can be retrofitted to explain any experimental outcome, rendering it effectively unfalsifiable. This issue stems from the absence of unique observables that could distinguish superdeterministic models from other interpretations; although proposals like the Cosmic , which uses photons from distant quasars to set measurement choices and thereby challenge superdeterministic correlations, have been implemented, they primarily aim to close s rather than identify superdeterminism-specific signatures. Recent analyses as of 2025 continue to highlight that no such distinguishing tests have been conclusively demonstrated, positioning superdeterminism as pre-scientific due to its reliance on untestable conspiratorial assumptions without empirical support. However, 2025 developments include experiments using artwork-generated to probe the superdeterminism and proposals for new inequalities testing , though these have not yet yielded definitive results distinguishing superdeterminism. A related concern is the problem, where superdeterministic theories require extraordinarily precise correlations in initial conditions—potentially tracing back to the —across causally disconnected regions to ensure that measurement settings align perfectly with variables, without any proposed physical to generate such alignments naturally. This is viewed as unnatural and , as it demands an improbable in the universe's evolution to mimic quantum statistics in experiments, violating principles of explanatory simplicity in physics. For instance, causal models attempting to explain Bell inequality violations via superdeterminism must incorporate such tuning to avoid direct detection of dependencies, which undermines their viability as fundamental theories. Superdeterminism also conflicts with core scientific practices by undermining the validity of controlled experiments, particularly the reliance on to ensure statistical independence between variables and outcomes. In standard methodology, isolates effects by assuming that measurement choices are uncorrelated with states, but superdeterminism posits universal correlations that invalidate this, effectively rendering all experiments predetermined and non-informative about underlying reality. This violation extends to fields beyond , such as clinical trials, where it would imply that patient assignments and treatments are conspiring with results, eroding the foundation of empirical .

Philosophical Critiques

One prominent philosophical objection to superdeterminism is the charge of conspiratorialism, which posits that the theory requires an implausible coordination between hidden variables and human choices in experimental settings. John Bell articulated this critique in a 1985 , describing superdeterminism as necessitating "absolute in the universe, the complete absence of ," where not only particles but also experimenters' decisions are predetermined in a manner that mimics a cosmic to produce quantum correlations without nonlocality. This view suggests that the universe is rigged such that measurement choices are correlated with distant particle states from the outset, undermining the apparent independence of scientific inquiry. Superdeterminism is further critiqued for its incompatibility with libertarian conceptions of , as it extends to encompass the experimenters' selections, implying that what appears as free choice is actually fixed by initial conditions in with the measured system. Unlike classical , which allows for the possibility of uncoordinated human agency, superdeterminism demands fine-tuned correlations that critics argue erode the foundation of autonomous decision-making. This tension has fueled recent debates, including 2025 discussions involving philosophers like , who contend that such a framework restricts the effective freedom required for rational deliberation and scientific experimentation. A related methodological arises from superdeterminism's violation of the statistical independence assumption central to scientific , where experimenters are presumed to select variables freely and independently of the system's . If choices are predetermined and correlated, this collapses the distinction between controlled inputs and outcomes, potentially rendering scientific inference unreliable and evoking solipsism-like concerns that the observed is contrived to match predetermined actions rather than revealing objective truths. Finally, the rejection of superdeterminism is often attributed to cultural and anthropocentric biases that elevate human agency and the intuition of above deterministic cosmic structures. As noted in Sabine Hossenfelder's analyses around 2023, these biases reflect a preference for preserving the perceived centrality of human freedom in interpreting physical laws, even when alternative deterministic frameworks like superdeterminism offer consistent explanations without invoking nonlocality.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Superdeterminism: A Guide for the Perplexed - arXiv
    Oct 6, 2020 · definition of these terms, see [1]. A superdeterministic model has a deeper, underlying level, from which quantum mechanics derives on the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  2. [2]
    Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? | Scientific American
    Mar 10, 2022 · Superdeterminism is a radical hidden-variables theory proposed by physicist John Bell. He is renowned for a 1964 theorem, now named after him, ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Superdeterminism: a Reappraisal - PhilArchive
    Superdeterminism is one of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, one that takes the world to be deterministic and postulates the existence of ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN PARADOX*
    THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be
    MAY 15, 1935. PHYSICAL REVIEW. VOLUME 47. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? A. EINSTEIN, B. PODOLSKY AND N. ROSEN, ...
  6. [6]
    Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories
    Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories. John F. Clauser*. Michael A. Horne · Abner Shimony · Richard A. Holt.
  7. [7]
    A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ...
    In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested.
  8. [8]
    A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ...
    We find that in principle, these "hidden" variables determine the precise results of each individual measurement process. In practice, however, in measurements ...
  9. [9]
    The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics - jstor
    Kochen & E. Specker, Logical structures arising in quantum theory, The Theory of. Models, 1963 Symposium at Berkeley, pp. 177-189.
  10. [10]
    None
    ### Summary of Superdeterminism from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.11262
  11. [11]
    Probability theory as a physical theory points to superdeterminism
    Nov 27, 2018 · Specifically, I argue that superdeterminism offers a solution for 1) Kolmogorov's problem of probabilistic dependence; 2) the interpretation of ...
  12. [12]
    The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - arXiv
    May 7, 2014 · This book is an overview of older material, but also contains many new observations and calculations. Quantum mechanics is looked upon as a tool, not as a ...
  13. [13]
    Bell's theorem does not eliminate fully causal hidden variables
    Author information. Authors and Affiliations. Physics ... Cite this article. Brans, C.H. Bell's theorem does not eliminate fully causal hidden variables.
  14. [14]
    Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 - NobelPrize.org
    Oct 4, 2022 · John Clauser developed John Bell's ideas, leading to a practical experiment. When he took the measurements, they supported quantum mechanics by ...Missing: superdeterminism | Show results with:superdeterminism<|separator|>
  15. [15]
    Pioneering Quantum Physicists Win Nobel Prize in Physics
    Oct 4, 2022 · Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger have won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for groundbreaking experiments with entangled particles.
  16. [16]
    The Theory Physicists Won't Accept: Superdeterminism - YouTube
    Jul 21, 2025 · Go to channel · Sabine Hossenfelder Defends Eric Weinstein In The Most Ridiculous Way Possible. Bad Boy of Science•17K views · 1:56:07 · Go to ...
  17. [17]
    Superdeterminism: Why Are Physicists Scared of It? - Alex O'Connor
    Jul 19, 2025 · As Sabine Hossenfelder argues in this episode, believing in “superdeterminism” (the name for this solution to Bell's Theorem), does lead us to ...
  18. [18]
    The Method of Everything vs. Experimenter Bias of Loophole-Free ...
    The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded for the loophole-free experiments that tested physicist John S. Bell's inequality theorem.
  19. [19]
    [2410.05296] The Last Loophole in Bell's Theorem? A prima facie ...
    Oct 3, 2024 · Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled The Last Loophole in Bell's Theorem? A prima facie problem with superdeterminism, by Kent A.Missing: 2025 free
  20. [20]
    Do we have free will? Quantum experiments may soon reveal the ...
    May 28, 2025 · There could also be repercussions for some of the more extreme interpretations of quantum theory. These include “superdeterminism”, which ...
  21. [21]
    Bell's Theorem, Quantum Probabilities, and Superdeterminism - arXiv
    Jun 14, 2020 · In this short survey article, I discuss Bell's theorem and some strategies that attempt to avoid the conclusion of non-locality.
  22. [22]
    Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or Does It Kill ...
    Dec 18, 2021 · Superdeterminism is a way to make sense of quantum mechanics. But some physicists and philosophers have argued that if one were to allow it, it would destroy ...
  23. [23]
    [2509.23047] From statistical dependence to the space of possible ...
    Sep 27, 2025 · Regarding philosophical implications, we argue that superdeterminism is incompatible with free will according to some prominent compatibilist ...
  24. [24]
    Rethinking Superdeterminism - Frontiers
    Superdeterminism is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics.Missing: Carlton | Show results with:Carlton
  25. [25]
    [PDF] THE PHILOSOPHY OF SUPERDETERMINISM ON CAMUS BY
    Under the philosophy of superdeterminism, our static block universe without cause and effect (and probabilistic causation) in physics is predetermined, set ...
  26. [26]
    (PDF) Disentangling the Quantum World - ResearchGate
    Oct 16, 2025 · avoids them, we can explain how it differs from superdeterminism. Taking the second objection first, the retrocausal proposal ...
  27. [27]
    Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Free will is dead, let's bury it.
    Jan 10, 2016 · Whether illusory or not, free will simply means that you have personal responsibility for the choices that you make. Just because circumstance ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Viability of Superdeterminism
    Aug 28, 2023 · Superdeterminism: a reappraisal. Synthese volume 200, Article number: 361. Ayer, A. (1972). Freedom and Necessity. In Philosophical Essays ...
  29. [29]
    No-go theorem based on incomplete information of Wigner about his ...
    Using ideas from the gedanken experiment of Wigner's friend, it has been argued that, when combined with the assumptions of locality and no superdeterminism, ...
  30. [30]
    The measurement problem and Wigner's friend thought experiment
    Wigner's friend-like scenarios comprise observations of observers, highlighting the ambiguity of the two dynamics of quantum theory: Unitary evolution of ...Missing: variant | Show results with:variant
  31. [31]
    Blog Archive » Jacob Barandes and Me - Shtetl-Optimized
    Enjoy Harvard's Jacob Barandes and yours truly duking it out for 2.5 hours on YouTube about the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
  32. [32]
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4119
  33. [33]
    The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations
    Aug 20, 2012 · The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: Causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning.<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2009.0080
  35. [35]
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2009.0080