there isn't even the beginning of a theoretical account of what the necessary hidden variables might be. Sabine and nobody else is telling us what the hidden variables are, and that's the core of physics. I mean, that's how physics is done now. Another person that

um, who hasn't conceded uh any any ground at least to to my knowledge to your criticisms of her work is uh past guest on this show Sabina Hossenfelder. Uh many of her channel audiences subscribe to this channel and are

probably listening right now. Um so you wrote an article back in early earlier this year called "The Fantasy Behind Sabina Hossenfelder's Superdeterminism." Uh and then you had a debate uh with my good friend Kurt Jongle as

the as the mediator moderator however you want to call it. I I personally think debates are almost pointless but uh because very few people come away changed from their original perspective. They get reified and and and more sunk cost into their original philosophy. But first would you mind describing uh the

the the notion of superdeterminism and and perhaps steel Manning or in this case steel womaning uh Sabina's position uh and why she believes what she believes. What's accurate about that and then um why you guys have this continuing uh kind of uh

friendly but but dispute nonetheless. So first of all, what is superdeterminism in your uh mind? What does it mean to you? What's wrong with it? And then what's right about Sabina's uh interpretation as a steel womaning uh attempt? Yeah, a

lot there how still woman it yeah because a lot of people do present superdeterminism in a way that is not what Sabina is trying to get you to put forward some people confuse superdeterminism for instance with an argument against free will and that goes way further than it

needs to go for superdeterminism to to make some sense the claim is the following in experiments with entangled particles we know statistically now and this has won the Nobel Prize in physics this year after 40 years of experimental confirmation we know that the physical

properties that we measure on a particle the properties that define what the particle is the properties that define physicality such as angular momentum which is a popular one in this kind of experiments those properties are are a function a function of the experimental setup in other words what you what you

see about a particle depends on what you choose to measure about another particle entangled with the first one so the particles don't don't seem to have a prior physical properties their physical properties seem to arise from from measurement and it it seems to be that

the act of measurement it's what brings physicality into existence which I think is correct by the way now in an attempt to try to save physicality to say no no there were physical particles there before if you say that then you have to explain why everything unfolds as if the

act of measurement determines the physical properties and the way to go about it in superdeterminism is to say that there are hidden variables uh in the the particles and the detectors that establish a causal chain in the act of measurement whereby the setup of the measurement

apparatus causally changes the particle in a non-local way or even uh yeah it would have to be a non-local way now why do I think this is baloney why do I think this is a fantasy for a number of reasons one of them is to try

to bring the assumptions that have to be made at the microscopical level microscopic level try to bring them into a level that we can relate to with our intuition what super determinism requires is equivalent to the following suppose you take your camera and you want to

photograph the moon at night and then you set your aperture and you set your exposure time in your camera and you point the camera to the moon and you photograph it what super determinism would say in this analogy is that what the moon is the physical properties of

the Moon such as its perimeter its mass whatever are a function of the aperture and the exposure time in your camera so if you would set your camera differently to a different aperture at a different exposure time then the moon would be different that's what is required U I

think that is not intuitive it's a it's a rather extraordinary hypothesis but to make it worse there isn't even the beginning of a theoretical account of what the necessary hidden variables might be Sabine and nobody else is telling us what the hidden variables are

and that's the core of physics I mean that's how physics is done when when Peter Higgs uh first proposed the Higgs boson back in the 60s he gave us a full well fairly complete characterization he told us I expect it to be found in this

energy range, I expect it to decay into these and these particles because nobody has ever measured the Higgs directly. It decays before it interacts with an experiment, any measurement surface, so you have to know what it decays into in order to reconstruct the event and be

able to say there was a Higgs in there. He also told us coherently how the Higgs boson plays its role, how it leads to inertia in other words, to to to mass, uh uh, by means of the Higgs field, that sticky

field that prevents things from moving at the speed of light all the time. So we had a complete map of what to look for when we started looking for it back in 1994, and I know because I was there when the the the the ATLAS experiment was

proposed and and approved. Uh, we knew what we were looking for, we knew where to look and how to look, but there is no such thing for the hidden variables of superdeterminism. They are just a placeholder and as such an expression of faith. The faith is there has to be

something. God knows what that does. God knows how what needs to be done for us to be able to hold on to our prejudice that physical entities have standalone existence and they're not epiphenomenal. I don't think that's good science, and in

that debate, as Zina told to my face that she had she had determined what the hidden variables are, that she had published a paper saying what the hidden variables are, and when I looked at the paper, it was a toy model. In other words, those were the hidden variables of a

fantasy universe, not hidden variables that are plausible or tenable in any way in this universe. So know that the hidden variables are just a placeholder for fantasies and wishful thinking as of this time. And to her credit, she did propose one experiment that, in principle, 

doesn't need the hidden variables to be determined in advance. It doesn't matter what they are, the experiment could produce a relevant outcome either way. The problem is, and I don't know how much detail you want to get here, um, that experiment uh is non-falsifiable in 

other words, because we don't know what the hidden variables are, once the experiment produces a negative result, we you can always say, well, it's it just is not accurate enough. We didn't repeat the measurement fast enough uh to to account for entropy or anything else. So it's not 

it will never be a conclusive experiment because it cannot falsify the hypothesis that motivated it to begin with. So I don't think that's productive either.

Bernardo Kastrup: Sabine Hossenfelder is WRONG About Superdeterminism!

Bernardo Kastrup: Sabine Hossenfelder is WRONG About Superdeterminism!

Scripts