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

Comment on "Analysis of the superdeterministic invariant-set theory in a hidden-variable setting"

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

Published Aug 18, 2021• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations'. He also claims that the model is neither local nor $\psi$-epistemic. We here detail multiple problems with Sen's argument.

Related papers

Properties of Invariant Set Theory

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

In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations'. He also claims that the model is neither local nor $ψ$-epistemic. We here detail multiple inaccuracies with Sen's arguments - notably that the hidden-variable model of quantum physics he uses to critique Invariant Set Theory bares no relation to Invariant Set Theory - and use this opportunity to lay out the properties of Invariant Set Theory as clearly as possible.

arXiv:2108.08144•Aug 18, 2021•0 citations

Analysis of the superdeterministic Invariant-set theory in a hidden-variable setting

Indrajit Sen

A recent proposal for a superdeterministic account of quantum mechanics, named Invariant-set theory, appears to bring ideas from several diverse fields like chaos theory, number theory and dynamical systems to quantum foundations. However, a clear cut hidden-variable model has not been developed, which makes it difficult to assess the Proposal from a quantum foundational perspective. In this article, we first build a hidden-variable model based on the Proposal, and then critically analyse several aspects of the Proposal using the model. We show that several arguments related to counter-factual measurements, nonlocality, non-commutativity of quantum observables, measurement independence etcetera that appear to work in the Proposal fail when considered in our model. We further show that our model is not only superdeterministic but also nonlocal, with an ontic quantum state. We argue that the bit string defined in the model is a hidden variable and that it contains redundant information. Lastly, we apply the analysis developed in a previous work (Sen I, Valentini A, 2020 Proc. R. Soc. A , 476 , 20200214) to illustrate the issue of superdeterministic conspiracy in the model. Our results lend further support to the view that superdeterminism is unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations.

arXiv:2107.04761•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Mar 1, 2022•7 citations

Reply to superdeterminists on the hidden-variable formulation of Invariant-set theory

Indrajit Sen

In a recent article (arXiv:2108.08144), Hance, Hossenfelder and Palmer have advanced arguments claiming to show that the analysis of Invariant-set theory in a hidden-variable setting (arXiv:2107.04761) is wrong. We explain here why these arguments are incorrect, and involve misunderstandings of the hidden-variable model in question and Bell's notion of local causality.

arXiv:2109.11109•Sep 23, 2021•0 citations

Testing superdeterministic conspiracy

Sabine Hossenfelder

Tests of Bell's theorem rule out local hidden variables theories. But any theorem is only as good as the assumptions that go into it, and one of these assumptions is that the experimenter can freely choose the detector settings. Without this assumption, one enters the realm of superdeterministic hidden variables theories and can no longer use Bell's theorem as a criterion. One can like or not like such superdeterministic hidden variables theories and their inevitable nonlocality, the real question is how one can test them. Here, we propose a possible experiment that could reveal superdeterminism.

arXiv:1401.0286•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Apr 14, 2014•13 citations

4 Testing Superdeterministic Conspiracy

Sabine Hossenfelder

Tests of Bell's theorem rule out local hidden variables theories. But any theorem is only as good as the assumptions that go into it, and one of these assumptions is that the experimenter can freely choose the detector settings. Without this assumption, one enters the realm of superdeterministic hidden variables theories and can no longer use Bell's theorem as a criterion. One can like or not like such superdeterministic hidden variables theories and their inevitable nonlocality, the real question is how one can test them. Here, we propose a possible experiment that could reveal superdeterminism.

•Aug 16, 2016•9 citations

Rethinking Superdeterminism

Sabine Hossenfelder, T. N. Palmer

Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks a physical description of the measurement process. This ``measurement problem'' indicates that quantum mechanics is at least an incomplete theory -- good as far as it goes, but missing a piece -- or, more radically, is in need of complete overhaul. Here we describe an approach which may provide this sought-for completion or replacement: Superdeterminism. A superdeterministic theory is one which violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of hidden variables are independent of measurement settings). Intuition suggests that Statistical Independence is an essential ingredient of any theory of science (never mind physics), and for this reason Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of quantum foundations. The purpose of this paper is to explain why the existing objections to Superdeterminism are based on experience with classical physics and linear systems, but that this experience misleads us. Superdeterminism is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent nonlocality of quantum physics. Most importantly, we will discuss how it may be possible to test this hypothesis in an (almost) model independent way.

arXiv:1912.06462•Frontiers in Physics•May 6, 2020•170 citations
In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations'. He also claims that the model is neither local nor ψ\psiψ-epistemic. We here detail multiple problems with Sen's argument.
In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations'. He also claims that the model is neither local nor ψψψ-epistemic. We here detail multiple inaccuracies with Sen's arguments - notably that the hidden-variable model of quantum physics he uses to critique Invariant Set Theory bares no relation to Invariant Set Theory - and use this opportunity to lay out the properties of Invariant Set Theory as clearly as possible.
A recent proposal for a superdeterministic account of quantum mechanics, named Invariant-set theory, appears to bring ideas from several diverse fields like chaos theory, number theory and dynamical systems to quantum foundations. However, a clear cut hidden-variable model has not been developed, which makes it difficult to assess the Proposal from a quantum foundational perspective. In this article, we first build a hidden-variable model based on the Proposal, and then critically analyse several aspects of the Proposal using the model. We show that several arguments related to counter-factual measurements, nonlocality, non-commutativity of quantum observables, measurement independence etcetera that appear to work in the Proposal fail when considered in our model. We further show that our model is not only superdeterministic but also nonlocal, with an ontic quantum state. We argue that the bit string defined in the model is a hidden variable and that it contains redundant information. Lastly, we apply the analysis developed in a previous work (Sen I, Valentini A, 2020 Proc. R. Soc. A , 476 , 20200214) to illustrate the issue of superdeterministic conspiracy in the model. Our results lend further support to the view that superdeterminism is unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlations.
Tests of Bell's theorem rule out local hidden variables theories. But any theorem is only as good as the assumptions that go into it, and one of these assumptions is that the experimenter can freely choose the detector settings. Without this assumption, one enters the realm of superdeterministic hidden variables theories and can no longer use Bell's theorem as a criterion. One can like or not like such superdeterministic hidden variables theories and their inevitable nonlocality, the real question is how one can test them. Here, we propose a possible experiment that could reveal superdeterminism.
Tests of Bell's theorem rule out local hidden variables theories. But any theorem is only as good as the assumptions that go into it, and one of these assumptions is that the experimenter can freely choose the detector settings. Without this assumption, one enters the realm of superdeterministic hidden variables theories and can no longer use Bell's theorem as a criterion. One can like or not like such superdeterministic hidden variables theories and their inevitable nonlocality, the real question is how one can test them. Here, we propose a possible experiment that could reveal superdeterminism.
Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks a physical description of the measurement process. This ``measurement problem'' indicates that quantum mechanics is at least an incomplete theory -- good as far as it goes, but missing a piece -- or, more radically, is in need of complete overhaul. Here we describe an approach which may provide this sought-for completion or replacement: Superdeterminism. A superdeterministic theory is one which violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of hidden variables are independent of measurement settings). Intuition suggests that Statistical Independence is an essential ingredient of any theory of science (never mind physics), and for this reason Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of quantum foundations. The purpose of this paper is to explain why the existing objections to Superdeterminism are based on experience with classical physics and linear systems, but that this experience misleads us. Superdeterminism is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement problem, but also to understand the apparent nonlocality of quantum physics. Most importantly, we will discuss how it may be possible to test this hypothesis in an (almost) model independent way.