BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Louis Vervoort

Louis Vervoort contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
quant-phmath.PRphysics.hist-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Aspects of Superdeterminism Made Intuitive

We attempt to make superdeterminism more intuitive, notably by simulating a deterministic model system, a billiard game. In this system an initial 'bang' correlates all events, just as in the superdeterministic universe. We introduce the notions of 'strong' and 'soft' superdeterminism, in order to clarify debates in the literature. Based on the analogy with billiards, we show that superdeterministic correlations may exist as a matter of principle, but be undetectable for all practical purposes. This allows us to counter classical objections to superdeterminism such as the claim that it would be at odds with the scientific method, and with the construction of new theories. Finally, we show that probability theory, as a physical theory, indicates that superdeterminism has a greater explanatory power than its competitors: it can coherently answer questions for which other positions remain powerless.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Does Chance Hide Necessity ? A Reevaluation of the Debate 'Determinism - Indeterminism' in the Light of Quantum Mechanics and Probability Theory

In this PhD thesis the ancient question of determinism ('Does every event have a cause ?') will be re-examined. In the philosophy of science and physics communities the orthodox position states that the physical world is indeterministic: quantum events would have no causes but happen by irreducible chance. Arguably the clearest theorem that leads to this conclusion is Bell's theorem. The commonly accepted 'solution' to the theorem is 'indeterminism', in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation. Here it is recalled that indeterminism is not really a physical but rather a philosophical hypothesis, and that it has counterintuitive and far-reaching implications. At the same time another solution to Bell's theorem exists, often termed 'superdeterminism' or 'total determinism'. Superdeterminism appears to be a philosophical position that is centuries and probably millennia old: it is for instance Spinoza's determinism. If Bell's theorem has both indeterministic and deterministic solutions, choosing between determinism and indeterminism is a philosophical question, not a matter of physical experimentation, as is widely believed. If it is impossible to use physics for deciding between both positions, it is legitimate to ask which philosophical theories are of help. Here it is argued that probability theory - more precisely the interpretation of probability - is instrumental for advancing the debate. It appears that the hypothesis of determinism allows to answer a series of precise questions from probability theory, while indeterminism remains silent for these questions. From this point of view determinism appears to be the most reasonable assumption, after all.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Bell's Theorem: Two Neglected Solutions

Bell's theorem admits several interpretations or 'solutions', the standard interpretation being 'indeterminism', a next one 'nonlocality'. In this article two further solutions are investigated, termed here 'superdeterminism' and 'supercorrelation'. The former is especially interesting for philosophical reasons, if only because it is always rejected on the basis of extra-physical arguments. The latter, supercorrelation, will be studied here by investigating model systems that can mimic it, namely spin lattices. It is shown that in these systems the Bell inequality can be violated, even if they are local according to usual definitions. Violation of the Bell inequality is retraced to violation of 'measurement independence'. These results emphasize the importance of studying the premises of the Bell inequality in realistic systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

The interpretation of quantum mechanics and of probability: Identical role of the 'observer'

The aim of the article is to argue that the interpretations of quantum mechanics and of probability are much closer than usually thought. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the concept of probability (within the standard frequency theory of R. von Mises) reveals that the latter concept always refers to an observing system. The enigmatic role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation therefore derives from a precise understanding of probability. Besides explaining several elements of the Copenhagen interpretation, our model also allows to reinterpret recent results from 'relational quantum mechanics', and to question the premises of the 'subjective approach to quantum probabilities'.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A detailed interpretation of probability, and its link with quantum mechanics

In the following we revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of Richard von Mises, in order to bring the essential implicit notions in focus. Following von Mises, we argue that probability can only be defined for events that can be repeated in similar conditions, and that exhibit 'frequency stabilization'. The central idea of the present article is that the mentioned 'conditions' should be well-defined and 'partitioned'. More precisely, we will divide probabilistic systems into object, environment, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning allows to solve a wide variety of classic paradoxes of probability theory. As a corollary, we arrive at the surprising conclusion that at least one central idea of the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of the meaning of probability. More precisely, the idea that the "observer influences the quantum system" is obvious if one realizes that quantum systems are probabilistic systems; it holds for all probabilistic systems, whether quantum or classical.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access