Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superdeterminism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) it 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]

Per below, I'm open to a redirect to Bell's theorem#Metaphysical aspects or Determinism#With free will, but we really don't have enough for a full article here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain relying on the enthusiastic physicists and hoping for the best. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) ~~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). (Really, it is mentioned already in Bell's theorem#Metaphysical aspects.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TR, that's regular determinism. If the laws of physics are deterministic, so is our behaviour. This certainly doesn't warrant its own article, and can be treated in Determinism or in Free will. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Superdeterminism" is a form of regular determinism. It mainly emphasizes that even if observers A and B are at a spacelike separation their choices may not be fully independent because they share a common (region of their) causal past. Bell's theorem (and the scientific method in general) assumes that A and B can make independent choices. 't Hooft's cellular automaton interpretation avoids Bell's theorem in exactly this way.T R 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Superdeterminism" seems to be used here as a kind of buzzword for concepts that are already described in other pages, as mentioned above, and I agree that this should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "fringe concept of I don't know what" sounds right. The article is written like an essay and does not cover a coherent, notable topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfDs should be decided based on policy. "Superdeterminism" is covered in multiple reliable source from independent (and well respected) authors: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] This is clearly enough to establish notability under WP:GNG.T R 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough material to warrant its own article, a subsection of determinism is all that's needed here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "superdeterminism" specifically refers to a loophole in Bell's theorem (although with wider implications than that) if were to treated within another article Bell's theorem would be a much more logical choice. However, despite your statement, their is clearly enough source material in reliable source to base an article on. The six refs are just from the first few pages of a quick google scholar search. I'm pretty sure I've encounter discussion of the loophole in various books on Bell's theorem as well. It would take some more time to dig up though. (Time that I may not have, since I am facing a grant application deadline).T R 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, nice... Under WP:GNG, "Sources" should be secondary sources. All sources listed above are primary. Also: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Sources "2" and "6" above are from t Hooft, and "2" is "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" discussed before (on this page). And nevertheless, if TimothyRias will volunteer a sketch of a new "Superdeterminism" page based on these sources, with due proportion for t Hooft and Morales, :-) that could satisfy me. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well accept that journal article can act both as primary and secondary sources depending on the context. Typically, they should be treated as primary sources for the original work present in the article, but as for review previous results and relation to other work journal articles can act as secondary sources. (Most of the links I provided fall in the second category). For example, 't Hooft spends an entire section discussing superdeterminism, how it relates to his deterministic CA interpretation, and why it is not quite as preposteruous as you might intially think.

As for a sketch of the "Superdeterminism" page. The current lede is fairly OK (and sourced), and could function as a stub for the article. The section on Morales's work raises all sorts of red flags regarding undue weight and self-promotion. I suspect it should be axed (almost) completely. Based on other sources (for example in part the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder linked above) there maybe could be section about possible experimental tests. This should probably be proceeded by a section on the frequent criticism that superdeterminism would completely undermine realism and the scientific method.T R 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, may I hope that you'll implement your proposal? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we can use the articles by Hossenfelder and 't Hooft as sources to rewrite the article. Count Iblis (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains nothing useful, and the section on Morales is clearly inappropriate for a wikipedia entry 2.31.27.153 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superdeterminism is an important concept that is raised from time to time in discussions about determinism in quantum mechanics. It is important that Wikipedia has a well written article about this topic, it helps people interested in the foundations of physics to look up what the concept means. I have not carefully reviewed the article to see if it is acceptable as it is written now, but I don't think it is acceptable for Wikipedia to not have an article very specific about superdeterminism at all. It cannot be presented well in the determinism article, because that's primarily a philosophical article, while superdeterminsism is a far more rigorous physics topic, presenting this topic correctly is not going to work well in a not so technical philosophy article. When applying the usual rules leads to ambiguous results w.r.t. inclusion, you can also ask if an expert in the topic area would sound stupid if he/she doesn't know anything about it. Clearly, in that's the case here. You would expect someone in the field of the foundations of QM to actually have an opinion about this. Most strongly reject the notion of superdeterminism, but you would not expect a Prof. to not be able to answer a student's question about this loophole. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Really, I am glad that two physicists, TimothyRias and Count Iblis, got interested in this article. Indeed, I was forced to write on the talk page there: "But it 'is within the scope of WikiProject Physics'; if physicists prefer to keep away from it, then delete this confusing template and feel no more responsible for the content of this article." Before that, I tried to raise the problem on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Superdeterminism, but got only two most negative replies: "ultra-windbag-ism" and "What nonsense. AfD'd". Once again, IF someone will volunteer a sketch of a new "Superdeterminism" page, with due proportion for t Hooft and Morales, :-) and more rich in content than the corresponding fragments of "Determinism" and "Bell's theorem", THEN probably I'll withdraw my "Delete" vote. OTHERWISE the vacuum of good content turns this buzzword into a crankery attractor, to be deleted. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.