Sorry, this might be the wrong term for a higher level concept based on determinism.
If everything is deterministic, then our actions can theoretically be pre-determined. I've seen discussion around pilot wave theory that goes into details about this thought process.
This is fine and good. But if I publish "A solution to the double slit experiment" and the contents are "everything is deterministic, therefore all the protons go where they go" (hidden behind a pilot wave and initial values), that's not really the right genre of paper is it?
It's not that I'm demeaning it, but that I don't feel like it's in the same realm of discussion os the Copenhagen's rather pragmatic "stuff happens behind the curtain, but here's how to work with it" approach.
> It's not that I'm demeaning it, but that I don't feel like it's in the same realm of discussion os the Copenhagen's rather pragmatic "stuff happens behind the curtain, but here's how to work with it" approach.
I don't get the distinction you're trying to make. The maths are all the same, so the interpretation has almost no bearing on how to work with it.
Furthermore, pilot waves produce a deterministic theory because of non-locality, but it sounds like you're criticizing superdeterminism. They're not the same. 't Hooft is working on a superdeterministic theory based on cellular automata.
In any case, how are pilot waves any different than any other classical theory in this regard? It's about describing the system as accurately as one can, which entails inferring the initial conditions based on how we know the system evolves, ie. this cannon ball fell here because it was launched with force X at angle Y from height Z.
If everything is deterministic, then our actions can theoretically be pre-determined. I've seen discussion around pilot wave theory that goes into details about this thought process.
This is fine and good. But if I publish "A solution to the double slit experiment" and the contents are "everything is deterministic, therefore all the protons go where they go" (hidden behind a pilot wave and initial values), that's not really the right genre of paper is it?
It's not that I'm demeaning it, but that I don't feel like it's in the same realm of discussion os the Copenhagen's rather pragmatic "stuff happens behind the curtain, but here's how to work with it" approach.