>>11385963the idea is that superdeterminism is contradicted by what we try to do in the lab. in the lab we say "oh now let's change our measurement device to check something else" and if the theory still holds then we are reassured that the theory isn't bullshit.
if we believe in superdeterminism, then maybe there was some sort of "cosmic conspiracy" that made us change our measurement at just the right time so that our bad theory would turn out right even though it is a complete crap description of actually how things work. since in superdeterminism the real theory could and would and would have to dictate how i choose to make my measurements. it would dictate whether i choose to measure my polarization along the vertical or horizontal axis. so me drawing conclusions from me changing horizontal vs. vertical would be explained by some crazy theory that is dictating MY behavior rather than the behavior of the thing i am measuring.
this is why superdeterminism is a nonscientific path. it leads you to the cosmic conspiracy.
even 't Hooft, who i respect, and who is a superdeterminism proponent, acknowledges that this is an issue. he uses the words "cosmic conspiracy" explicitly, multiple times, in his writings on these things.
i'd rather not assume the entire game is rigged so that i can't measure whatever i want. i do not feel anything that dictates my actions, so i assume i can change my dials however i want in the lab, and any theory that tells me "your decision was dictated by some unknown rule of nature" seems to violate occam's razor for me.
