I actually should add that my picture makes it look less weird than it is.

Non-local correlations of particles also depend on measurement settings at the point the particle is measured, which are chosen by the experimenter or by some other random event.

Superdeterminism would also mean not only that a common cause is affecting particle behavior but also the choice of measurement settings. If you chose the settings then that common cause is making you pick those settings. If you chose settings with a dice roll then the common cause is causing the outcome of the dice roll. If you chose settings by looking at the light patterns of quasars very far away and that originate from billions of years ago (because of how long it takes light to reach us) then the common cause is causing the behavior of those quasars billions of years ago.

Bohmian mechanics just means simple communication between particles faster than light given the measurement settings.

It's similar in a way. Apustimelogist answered but I would change a bit of his answer: rather than saying Bohmian is faster-than-light communication, I would say it's "retrocausal". I guess in practice that's indistinguishable from faster-than-light.

The similarity between Superdeterminism and Bohmian is that in both cases, the process producing the entangled particles somehow knows how the particles are going to be measured, and takes on the appropriate values (in aggregate) that Quantum Physics suggests. In Bohmian Mechanics, as I understand it, that's because the Wave Function is really real, it's just operating in a sort of retrocausal way. In superdeterminism... there is no explanation. Superdeterminism is basically saying "our experiments that prove Quantum Physics are wrong, but I can't tell you why they're wrong or how to fix the experiments. They just happen to be the exact right results to prove QM correct, but that's wrong, ignore your experiments and listen to me.".

I still don't quite follow what superdeterminism is. Anyone else know what makes it different from normal determinism? — TiredThinker

Seems like ordinary determinism to me. But some have this urge to invent new definitions, like "supertasks" or "superdeterminism" simply to have a their own vocabulary for talking about physics. After all, it narrows the "specialists" that can discuss the topic, just like in philosophy that you cannot explain otherwise dasein than in Heidegger's original German language.

The loophole is superdeterminism where statistical measurements cannot be taken due to the lack of 'free choice' to measure anything that the conspiracy wants to be kept hidden. — noAxioms

Wouldn't the answer be that as we are part of the universe, we cannot be "superdeterminist" information because we cannot look objectively at everything including ourselves? The whole problem of the measurement affecting what is measured simply states this problem with objectivity.

With ordinary determinism, you cannot have probabilities. And this "superdeterminism" simply isn't possible for us, so the whole thing in a logical misunderstanding. The best way to model a "superdeterminist" reality is using a model using probabilities.

Seems like ordinary determinism to me. — ssu

It's not.

Assumption that the world is deterministic, is determinism. No matter in what context, be it physics, quantum mechanics or a loophole in Bell's theorem, or something that postulates the existence of hidden variables to explain quantum phenomena.

So it is. At least for me, if not for you.

Right, so you *really* think all these scientists are talking about it like it's a unique propsoition clearly distinct from determinism, because physicists don't know what they're talking about and you know better.

I cannot roll my eyes harder.

No, superdeterminism is not normal determinism. You have failed to see the distinction, I hope no one else is fooled by that failure into thinking there isn't a distinction.

I do understand that this is a discussion about modelling quantum phenomena, hence it's a theoretical discussion in physics. So yes, a quantum physicist would be clueless just what you are talking about if you would use just "determinism", but would immediately understand what you mean by "superdeterminism".

Yet this is a philosophy forum. It is deterministic, because the model starts from determinism. But yes, that's not of course what theory is actually about. Yet that doesn't make it not to be of determinism.

Or are you then saying that superdeterminism isn't deterministic / determinism?

I'm saying it's not *ordinary* determinism. There's nothing ordinary about it. It is a TYPE of determinism, but not an ordinary one, not if you understand what superdeterminism is actually saying about the universe.

Not sure I agree that "superdeterminism" is a type of determinism. It is just a mechanism for Bell violations which has a silly name because of how far-out it is. The use of "determinism" in the name is meaningful in the sense that many people do think of quantum mechanics as random, so pointing out that the mechanism is deterministic is informative - however it seems incredulously deterministic, "superdeterministic" if you will. But I think thats just rhetoric.

It did occur to me that superdeterminism is possibly compatible with some indeterminism, but i couldn't find any confirmation of that online.

It isn't compatible with determinism, I don't think. I just meant that it is possibly meaningful for the name to point out that the mechanism isn't indeterministic, separating it from alternative indeterministic interpretations.

It isn't compatible with determinism, I don't think — Apustimelogist

based on what?

Woops, I mean't indeterminism!