Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2008.00631 · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

On Superdeterministic Rejections of Settings Independence

Gerardo S. Ciepielewski, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

Published Apr 15, 2021• 22 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Relying on some auxiliary assumptions, usually considered mild, Bell’s theorem proves that no local theory can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. In this work, we introduce a fully local, superdeterministic model that by explicitly violating ‘settings independence’—one of these auxiliary assumptions, requiring statistical independence between measurement settings and systems to be measured—is able to reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. Moreover, we show that contrary to widespread expectations, our model can break settings independence without an initial state that is too complex to handle, without visibly losing all explanatory power, and without outright nullifying all of experimental science. Still, we argue that our model is unnecessarily complicated and does not offer true advantages over its non-local competitors. We conclude that while our model does not appear to be a viable contender to its non-local counterparts, it provides the ideal framework to advance the debate over violations of statistical independence via the superdeterministic route.

DOI
10.1086/714819

Related papers

From statistical dependence to the space of possible superdeterministic theories

Mordecai Waegell, Kelvin J. McQueen

Abstract Bell’s theorem demonstrates that any physical theory that is consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and which satisfies some apparently innocuous assumptions, must violate the principle of local causality . It may therefore be possible to maintain local causality by rejecting one of these other assumptions instead. One possibility that has recently received significant attention involves rejecting the principle of statistical independence (SI). In this paper, we consider the frequency interpretation of SI, which states that $$\rho (\lambda ) \approx \rho (\lambda | Z)$$ , where $$\rho (\lambda )$$ is the relative frequency of an element of an ensemble being in the state $$\lambda$$ , and Z is a label that separates the ensemble into apparently randomly selected sub-ensembles. SI is violated when the sub-ensemble frequency $$\rho (\lambda | Z)$$ fails to be representative of the ensemble frequency $$\rho (\lambda )$$ . We argue that physical theories that systematically violate SI should all be understood as superdeterministic . This perspective on SI sheds light on a number of issues that are being debated in the superdeterminism literature, especially concerning its scope and philosophical consequences. Regarding scope, we argue that superdeterministic theories fall into three categories, deterministic theories with fine-tuned initial conditions, fluke theories, and nomic exclusion theories. We also argue that retrocausal and invariant set theories need not violate SI, which is contrary to how they are normally presented. Regarding philosophical implications, we argue that superdeterminism is incompatible with free will according to some prominent compatibilist accounts. We also argue that although superdeterminism is conspiratorial, it is not unscientific, but pre-scientific.

arXiv:2509.23047•European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Oct 17, 2025•0 citations

On measurement, superdeterminism, free will, and contextuality

Mordecai Waegell

Superdeterminism has received recent attention as a possible path toward a locally causal explanation of the entanglement correlations that appear in experimental tests of Bell's theorem. While the term `superdeterminism' was coined by Bell to refer to restrictions on the free will of experimenters, it was not rigorously defined until recently. It has now been defined as a property of any physical theory that produces systematic violations of statistical independence. Here we focus on formalizing the requirements that being nonsuperdeterministic places on a physical theory, and setting a standard that must be met before we can conclude that a given theory is not superdeterministic. We begin by carefully examining how a physical theory determines what outcomes we observe when performing measurements in terms of ontic states and response functions, and how this differs between superdeterministic and nonsuperdeterministic theories, in terms of the behavior of the types of vetted random sampling procedures that we use in experiments. The core result is that individual samples and measurement outcomes must be representative of the observed distributions, which is explained in detail. This also has a bearing on how measurement settings are chosen by agents, whether freely or randomly, and we argue that this standard ultimately defines what freedom/independence actually mean. We then discuss contextuality, and show that in most cases, superdeterminism is contextual. Finally, we discuss how different physical theories, with different notions of ontic states and response functions, can give rise to the same empirical data, and how the same operational contextuality may appear in different forms.

quant-pharXiv:2604.00311•Quantum Studies Mathematics and Foundations•Apr 2, 2026•0 citations

What does the world look like according to superdeterminism?

Baptiste Le Bihan

The violation of Bell inequalities seems to establish an important fact about the world: that it is non-local. However, this result relies on the assumption of the statistical independence of the measurement settings with respect to potential past events that might have determined them. Superdeterminism refers to the view that a local, and determinist, account of Bell inequalities violations is possible, by rejecting this assumption of statistical independence. We examine and clarify various problems with superdeterminism, looking in particular at its consequences on the nature of scientific laws and scientific reasoning. We argue that the view requires a neo-Humean account of at least some laws, and creates a significant problem for the use of statistical independence in other parts of physics and science more generally.

•Jan 1, 2020•13 citations

What Does the World Look Like according to Superdeterminism?

A. Baas, Baptiste Le Bihan

The violation of Bell inequalities seems to establish an important fact about the world: that it is non-local. However, this result relies on the assumption of the statistical independence of the measurement settings with respect to potential past events that might have determined them. Superdeterminism refers to the view that a local, and determinist, account of Bell inequalities violations is possible, by rejecting this assumption of statistical independence. We examine and clarify various problems with superdeterminism, looking in particular at its consequences on the nature of scientific laws and scientific reasoning. We argue that the view requires a neo-Humean account of at least some laws, and creates a significant problem for the use of statistical independence in other parts of physics and science more generally.

arXiv:2009.13908•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Apr 15, 2021•2 citations

Supermeasured: Violating Bell-Statistical Independence Without Violating Physical Statistical Independence

Jonte R. Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder, T. N. Palmer

Abstract Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).

arXiv:2108.07292•Foundations of Physics•Jul 19, 2022•25 citations

Supermeasured: Violating Bell-Statistical Independence without violating physical statistical independence

Jonte R. Hance, S Hossenfelder, TN Palmer

Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).

•Jul 19, 2022•0 citations
Relying on some auxiliary assumptions, usually considered mild, Bell’s theorem proves that no local theory can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. In this work, we introduce a fully local, superdeterministic model that by explicitly violating ‘settings independence’—one of these auxiliary assumptions, requiring statistical independence between measurement settings and systems to be measured—is able to reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. Moreover, we show that contrary to widespread expectations, our model can break settings independence without an initial state that is too complex to handle, without visibly losing all explanatory power, and without outright nullifying all of experimental science. Still, we argue that our model is unnecessarily complicated and does not offer true advantages over its non-local competitors. We conclude that while our model does not appear to be a viable contender to its non-local counterparts, it provides the ideal framework to advance the debate over violations of statistical independence via the superdeterministic route.
Abstract Bell’s theorem demonstrates that any physical theory that is consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and which satisfies some apparently innocuous assumptions, must violate the principle of local causality . It may therefore be possible to maintain local causality by rejecting one of these other assumptions instead. One possibility that has recently received significant attention involves rejecting the principle of statistical independence (SI). In this paper, we consider the frequency interpretation of SI, which states that ρ(λ)≈ρ(λ∣Z)\rho (\lambda ) \approx \rho (\lambda | Z)ρ(λ)≈ρ(λ∣Z) , where ρ(λ)\rho (\lambda )ρ(λ) is the relative frequency of an element of an ensemble being in the state λ\lambdaλ , and Z is a label that separates the ensemble into apparently randomly selected sub-ensembles. SI is violated when the sub-ensemble frequency ρ(λ∣Z)\rho (\lambda | Z)ρ(λ∣Z) fails to be representative of the ensemble frequency ρ(λ)\rho (\lambda )ρ(λ) . We argue that physical theories that systematically violate SI should all be understood as superdeterministic . This perspective on SI sheds light on a number of issues that are being debated in the superdeterminism literature, especially concerning its scope and philosophical consequences. Regarding scope, we argue that superdeterministic theories fall into three categories, deterministic theories with fine-tuned initial conditions, fluke theories, and nomic exclusion theories. We also argue that retrocausal and invariant set theories need not violate SI, which is contrary to how they are normally presented. Regarding philosophical implications, we argue that superdeterminism is incompatible with free will according to some prominent compatibilist accounts. We also argue that although superdeterminism is conspiratorial, it is not unscientific, but pre-scientific.
Superdeterminism has received recent attention as a possible path toward a locally causal explanation of the entanglement correlations that appear in experimental tests of Bell's theorem. While the term `superdeterminism' was coined by Bell to refer to restrictions on the free will of experimenters, it was not rigorously defined until recently. It has now been defined as a property of any physical theory that produces systematic violations of statistical independence. Here we focus on formalizing the requirements that being nonsuperdeterministic places on a physical theory, and setting a standard that must be met before we can conclude that a given theory is not superdeterministic. We begin by carefully examining how a physical theory determines what outcomes we observe when performing measurements in terms of ontic states and response functions, and how this differs between superdeterministic and nonsuperdeterministic theories, in terms of the behavior of the types of vetted random sampling procedures that we use in experiments. The core result is that individual samples and measurement outcomes must be representative of the observed distributions, which is explained in detail. This also has a bearing on how measurement settings are chosen by agents, whether freely or randomly, and we argue that this standard ultimately defines what freedom/independence actually mean. We then discuss contextuality, and show that in most cases, superdeterminism is contextual. Finally, we discuss how different physical theories, with different notions of ontic states and response functions, can give rise to the same empirical data, and how the same operational contextuality may appear in different forms.
The violation of Bell inequalities seems to establish an important fact about the world: that it is non-local. However, this result relies on the assumption of the statistical independence of the measurement settings with respect to potential past events that might have determined them. Superdeterminism refers to the view that a local, and determinist, account of Bell inequalities violations is possible, by rejecting this assumption of statistical independence. We examine and clarify various problems with superdeterminism, looking in particular at its consequences on the nature of scientific laws and scientific reasoning. We argue that the view requires a neo-Humean account of at least some laws, and creates a significant problem for the use of statistical independence in other parts of physics and science more generally.
The violation of Bell inequalities seems to establish an important fact about the world: that it is non-local. However, this result relies on the assumption of the statistical independence of the measurement settings with respect to potential past events that might have determined them. Superdeterminism refers to the view that a local, and determinist, account of Bell inequalities violations is possible, by rejecting this assumption of statistical independence. We examine and clarify various problems with superdeterminism, looking in particular at its consequences on the nature of scientific laws and scientific reasoning. We argue that the view requires a neo-Humean account of at least some laws, and creates a significant problem for the use of statistical independence in other parts of physics and science more generally.
Abstract Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).
Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).