> And that it’s possible that these things have conspired (unknowingly) to make sure that my detector settings and a particle’s spin measurement is correlated in a particular way in my lab in a law-like way.
Yes exactly, which is to say that your instrument calibration dicated by that elaborate randomization process, just ensures that the particle will arrive in a specific configuration, which is a purely local, realistic phenomenon.
Sabine and Palmer recently explained how superdeterminism can be understood easily as future input dependence:
Edit: despite superdeterminism annoying you so much, I bet you're perfectly fine with general relativity in which time is just another space-like coordinate, and the correlation you describe is a perfectly well-defined path along a closed timelike curve. An interesting inconsistency if true.
I think s/he is simply against anything that postulates things aren't happening in realtime. That's what the problem boils down to regarding superdeterminism vs quantum mechanics. Certain people are okay with predeterminism while others want every moment to have been processed when it happened maybe "process" isn't the best way to express it but it gets the point across.
Yes exactly, which is to say that your instrument calibration dicated by that elaborate randomization process, just ensures that the particle will arrive in a specific configuration, which is a purely local, realistic phenomenon.
Sabine and Palmer recently explained how superdeterminism can be understood easily as future input dependence:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139...
Edit: despite superdeterminism annoying you so much, I bet you're perfectly fine with general relativity in which time is just another space-like coordinate, and the correlation you describe is a perfectly well-defined path along a closed timelike curve. An interesting inconsistency if true.