EMERGENT CORRELATION IN A LOCAL-DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE

In the paper's words

This paper investigates the foundational schism between the ontological coherence of superdeterminism and its epistemic rejection by the scientific community. Superdeterminism, a proposed solution to quantum non-locality, preserves locality and realism by rejecting the axiom of Measurement Independence. While often dismissed on methodological grounds as “scientifically sterile” or “conspiratorial,” this critique is challenged through a novel computational approach.

The abstract, verbatim, and its opening sentence is the claim. Every line below is quoted from the text.

Numbers it reports

1. Hall demonstrated that a local deterministic model could reproduce the perfect anti-correlations of the quantum singlet state with as little as 0.066 bits of mutual information between $\lambda$ and the settings (Hall, 2015).

   from 2.3

2. The system begins in a generic, random state and, within a remarkably short time, evolves to a state where a statistically significant correlation is established, with an outcome agreement rate exceeding 97%.

   from 5.1

3. They used entangled electron spins located in diamond crystals separated by 1.3 kilometers, employing an event-ready scheme with high-efficiency readout and fast random basis selection to close the locality and detection loopholes in a single experiment.

   from 2.6

4. The correlation established tag is triggered when the correlation metric first exceeds a high threshold (e.g., 0.75), marking the point at which the system’s emergent order becomes statistically significant.

   from 3.7 Correlation Metric

5. This tag is not arbitrary but is triggered by the simulation’s internal logic when the quantitative correlation metric first exceeds a threshold of 0.75, indicating a statistically significant departure from random chance.

   from 4.3

How it is done

1. PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE Author: Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas Contact: rowan.quni@outlook.com ORCID: 0009-0002-4317-5604 ISNI: 0000000526456062 URL: https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/emergent-correlation-in-a-local-deterministic-universe/ Date: 2025-12-22 Version: 1.0.1 Abstract : This paper investigates the foundational schism between the ontological coherence of superdeterminism and its epistemic rejection by the scientific community.

   from A COMPUTATIONAL

2. These frameworks provide a powerful proof-of-concept for a deterministic ontology but typically stop short of specifying the precise evolutionary laws that would give rise to the specific, non-local-appearing correlations observed in nature.

   from 1.1 The

3. This structure provides stability and coherence, but it also creates a methodological gap: it has a clear procedure for rejecting theories that attack the hard core but offers no formal path for their comparative assessment or potential acceptance.

   from 1.2

4. If no conceivable experiment can disprove a hypothesis, then that hypothesis lies outside the domain of empirical science.

   from 1.3

What would falsify it

1. The goal was to provide a computational counterexample to the universal claim that any local-deterministic explanation for Bell correlations must rely on fine-tuned initial conditions.

   from 5.4 Limitations

2. This result provides a direct, computational counterexample to the common objection that superdeterministic correlations must be fine-tuned into the universe’s initial conditions.

   from A COMPUTATIONAL

3. While we acknowledge the model’s limitations as a realistic depiction of physics, we contend that its value lies in its role as a conceptual proof and a direct refutation of a specific epistemological claim.

   from 1.1 The

Where the claim stops

1. The most significant limitation is the model’s failure to reproduce the specific, quantitative statistical predictions of quantum mechanics.

   from 5.4 Limitations

2. Our model does not reproduce this quantitative behavior.

   from 5.4 Limitations

3. The model also possesses a preferred reference frame and does not respect Lorentz covariance.

   from 5.4 Limitations

Where to read

1. EMERGENT310 words · 1 min
2. 1.0 INTRODUCTION & PROBLEM4,166 words · 18 min
3. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW4,423 words · 19 min
4. 3.0 METHODOLOGY4,369 words · 19 min
5. 4.0 ANALYSIS & RESULTS4,412 words · 19 min
6. 5.0 SYNTHESIS & DISCUSSION3,205 words · 14 min
7. APPENDICES3,038 words · 13 min