Oh wow that was a deep rabbit hole. So if I’ve understood correctly, by super determinism, the outcome of the big bang has more influence on the measurement of particles than particles have locally with one another.
If two particles are entangled, “independent” measurements to verify this are contaminated by their causal connection to the big bang, which will still give readings that the particles are entangled.
Or, if I have a bag with an orange and an apple, I throw one at random to Alice and one at random Bob, Alice catching an orange has nothing to do with Bob catching apple, but more to do with the which side of the bag the apple was leaning on in the bag initially?
Thats correct. Superdeterminism suggests that the initial conditions of the universe, like the state of the big bang, could be responsible for everything that happens, including our measurements and decisions. In this view, all particles, including those measuring the experiment, are part of the same predetermined system. So, when we talk about entangled particles, their behavior is not just influenced by their local properties but also by the shared history of the universe.
In your apple and orange analogy, it’s less about which side of the bag the apple leaned on and more about the fact that the bag, the apples, and even Alice and Bob’s actions were all predetermined by the conditions of the universe at the big bang. Alice catching the orange and Bob catching the apple wouldn’t be a truly independent or random event—it would be the result of an unbroken chain of causality going all the way back to the beginning of the universe.
I think I understand it now, but damn that’s just… weak?
It’d be like me smoothly sidling up to a pretty girl in a bar and saying “HEY GURL, YOU DON’T KNOW ME AND I DON’T KNOW YOU BUT YOU AND I SHARE THE SAME MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR OVER 155,000 YEARS AGO AND CAN I BUY YOU A DRINK EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY IN YOUR DECISION AT A COSMIC LEVEL.”
I don’t know if I didn’t understand that because I’m too drunk, or because I’m too stupid. It’s probably both but I really want to come back to this sober so I can try again.
![Special interest [Sarah Anderson]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/98b34dbe-6445-40aa-9955-e8cf2de5f373.jpeg){kind=link}
Me wanting to know what my friends think about superdeterminism while we play monster hunter
Is that like supermarionation?
Am disappointed it’s not Super Mario Nation related.
My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Nah I mean this
But your thing is interesting too
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
Oh wow that was a deep rabbit hole. So if I’ve understood correctly, by super determinism, the outcome of the big bang has more influence on the measurement of particles than particles have locally with one another.
If two particles are entangled, “independent” measurements to verify this are contaminated by their causal connection to the big bang, which will still give readings that the particles are entangled.
Or, if I have a bag with an orange and an apple, I throw one at random to Alice and one at random Bob, Alice catching an orange has nothing to do with Bob catching apple, but more to do with the which side of the bag the apple was leaning on in the bag initially?
Is that right?
Thats correct. Superdeterminism suggests that the initial conditions of the universe, like the state of the big bang, could be responsible for everything that happens, including our measurements and decisions. In this view, all particles, including those measuring the experiment, are part of the same predetermined system. So, when we talk about entangled particles, their behavior is not just influenced by their local properties but also by the shared history of the universe.
In your apple and orange analogy, it’s less about which side of the bag the apple leaned on and more about the fact that the bag, the apples, and even Alice and Bob’s actions were all predetermined by the conditions of the universe at the big bang. Alice catching the orange and Bob catching the apple wouldn’t be a truly independent or random event—it would be the result of an unbroken chain of causality going all the way back to the beginning of the universe.
I think I understand it now, but damn that’s just… weak?
It’d be like me smoothly sidling up to a pretty girl in a bar and saying “HEY GURL, YOU DON’T KNOW ME AND I DON’T KNOW YOU BUT YOU AND I SHARE THE SAME MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR OVER 155,000 YEARS AGO AND CAN I BUY YOU A DRINK EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY IN YOUR DECISION AT A COSMIC LEVEL.”
It just feels wrong to do that to women.
I don’t know if I didn’t understand that because I’m too drunk, or because I’m too stupid. It’s probably both but I really want to come back to this sober so I can try again.
Another person mentions Gerry Anderson-related topic
Slowly begins raising the cymbals
Holds up a triangle and nods
DEW IT!
plays the theme to ghost busters, whilst everyone looks super disappointed