Superdeterminism, Many-Worlds, and Quantum Luck
January 4, 2022
Quantum mechanics predicts outcomes with extraordinary precision, yet each interpretation asks a different question about what exists behind those results. Brian Greenforest connects superdeterminism, many-worlds, relational physics, and consciousness in one ambitious foundations conversation.
The comparison matters because correlations, observers, branching, and lived experience shape more than physics. They also shape how researchers think about intelligence, agency, and the limits of computation.
One Question, Several Ontologies
Superdeterminism treats measurement settings and hidden variables as part of one correlated history. Many-worlds keeps unitary evolution and reads every quantum outcome as a branch. Relational quantum mechanics makes physical properties meaningful through relations between systems.
Brian places Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer beside Stephen Wolfram, Sean Carroll, Carlo Rovelli, Erik Larson, and Federico Faggin. That cross-disciplinary map turns interpretation into a shared problem for physicists, computer scientists, and researchers of mind.
Connect Physics, Computation, and Experience
The central invitation reaches beyond allegiance to one label. A complete account must connect mathematical structure with observed outcomes, observer relations, and the experience of choosing among possibilities.
Researchers working across quantum foundations, consciousness, and machine intelligence can use this comparison as a meeting point. Bring the models into the same room and pursue the account of reality that explains the most.
LinkedIn status when archived: Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn.
I have read and completely understood Sabine's paper she wrote in collaboration with Palmer in 2019, "Rethinking Superdeterminism."
I feel that many-worlds, and consciousness as quantum luck makes more sense than fractal spiral correlations. I like the idea of Superdeterminism a lot by many reasons (as a computer scientist), but reject it because many-worlds and quantum luck help me to explain my personal circumstances in life, and the reasons why we can't make AIs, as Erik Larson explains in his book.
I also think that Sabine and Wolfram believe in the same picture of reality, although Stephen Wolfram's position overlaps with Carroll's.
I wish Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli were closer friends, met with Erik and Federico Faggin.
Relational interpretation does require reconciliation with many-worlds ASAP, under the simple assumption that all quantum physics results are pixels drawn on the surface of reality, which is inherently spiritual in its nature.
#idealism