Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superdeterminism

Superdeterminism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about some fringe concept of... I don't know what. The 'superdeterminism' concept is not, despite the article's claims, something that was discussed by John S. Bell, and opposed by Anton Zeilinger (they are talking about the 'normal' determinism) ut is rather something only found in fringe/crank journals like the The General Science Journal (relativity deniers) and International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences, some obscure Pakistani journal of physics, whose website is setup to make it look like a legitimate journal of science through their own version of an 'impact factor', not the Thomson Reuters one. This is a non-notable fringe claim, which I think originates with some Manual S. Morales, backed by no/few independent reliable sources.

This also seems related to a recent edit war on the Higgs boson article by an WP:SPA (see [1]). An WP:SPI may also be in order. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The notable part of the content is covered in "Determinism" and "Bell's theorem". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This concept is regularly discussed in the scientific discourse surrounding Bell's theorem. See for example most of the recent work by 't Hooft.T R 10:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, looking in "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by 't Hooft I see the word "superdeterminism" once in the abstract and then 1+3 times in Sect. 14.3 "Superdeterminism and Conspiracy" starting with:

"Superdeterminism may be defined to imply that not only all physical phenomena are declared to be direct consequences of physical laws that do not leave anything anywhere to chance (which we refer to as ‘determinism’), but it also emphasises that the observers themselves behave in accordance with the same laws. They also cannot perform any whimsical act without any cause in the near past as well as in the distant past. By itself, this statement is so obvious that little discussion would be required to justify it, but what makes it more special is that it makes a difference."

The rest of his text uses the term "determinism" (occurs about 120 times). Thus I am not convinced that he makes "superdeterminism" notable. Still, his position may well be noted in "Determinism" and "Bell's theorem", possibly mentioning the word "superdeterminism" there (as rather a synonym to "hard determinism" treated now in Determinism#With free will). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]