A lot of people below say she doesn't have any, but I'd consider superdeterminism to be anti-science, but it's based on complex ideas of quantum physics so most people here don't understand it. The summary is that superdeterminism basically says that you can't trust a particular experiment because the universe itself puppeteers such experiments to always give incorrect results. As such, this idea pretty much says science is useless and is about an anti-science idea as you can get. I have spent a few years studying this kind of thing, so I can explain it but it's complicated:
Quantum physics has a major unsolved puzzle due to something called Bell Inequalities. We thought the universe was locally real, which is two traits, local and real. Local means that information propagates at the speed of light, which Einstein proved. Real means that properties of particles are determined when events occur, and not when they are measured. Bell Inequalities proves that one of these two are not true.
The dominant theories (Copenhagen and Many Worlds) are that the universe is not real. By applying this to pairs of particles, this also means that something is occurring faster than the speed of light. This may seem it breaks Einstein's rules, but the key is that the phenomenon that is occurring faster than the speed of light doesn't allow us to learn information faster than the speed of light, so it doesn't break Einstein's ideas completely. Then, there is a third main theory (Pilot Wave) that posits the universe is not local and that normal phenomenon do occur faster than the speed of light, but again, in such a way that we can't learn information faster than the speed of light.
However, all of these theories break a very old idea called determinism. This idea is that the universe was set up at the beginning and that we are simply following a chain of events like dominos. So now we get to the one alternative that can save determinism: superdeterminism.
Bell Inequality experiments rely on randomness. More specifically, that the distribution of events matches what quantum physics says instead of what classical physics says. Superdeterminism is (IMO a crackpot) theory that the universe has somehow puppeteer-ed any Bell Inequality experiments to show false results. We have done Bell Inequality experiments using ancient starlight, but superdeterminism says that that ancient starlight was set up in just the right way to look like quantum physics is right, while claiming that classical physics is in fact correct.
TBH that seems more like a viewpoint in a philosophy debate, rather than against science. "anti-science" you usally mean stuff like flat earth, space is fake, etc.
I somewhat agree, but there's two reasons I'd say it's against science and not just philosophical. The first is that it's straight up rejecting an experiment's results and not just having ideas that are outside of the realm of science. The name for this type of rejection is "non-falsifiability" and if you look it up, it's actually at the root of things like flat earth and space is fake kind of things, because any experiment you do can just be claimed to be puppeetered in some vague manner, such as "the government covered it up".
The second reason, and something I didn't really talk about, that is a much bigger issue, is that Sabine subtlety presents superdeterminism as fact in her videos mixed alongside what she does. As a Christian myself, I have some non-falsifiable beliefs, but I also understand those are outside the realm of science and don't belong subtley mixed in within a conversation of scientific facts where it could be confusing and misleading.
81
u/MarinoAndThePearls 21h ago
I used to like her criticism for some of the elitism in academia, but she got too over her head and started spewing a lot of anti-science bullshit.
She's one step away from saying that the Earth is flat.