[jeffreyH (OP)]

I have heard that super determinism solves issues with the QM measurement problem. Also that everything since the big bang is determined and there is no such thing as free will. Is this a valid idea?

[alancalverd]

A scientific hypothesis is valid if it always predicts the outcome of the next experiment. Does it?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I have no idea. You tell me.

[Halc]

I have heard that super determinism solves issues with the QM measurement problem.

Several mutually contradictory ideas are valid solutions to the QM measurement problem. Superdeterminism is just one of them.

Also that everything since the big bang is determined and there is no such thing as free will.

This is typically said of ordinary determinism and isn't a trait unique to superdeterminism. Almost all quantum interpretations are deterministic in one sense or another. Depends of course on your definitions of deterministic and free will, both of which are often referenced without clear definition (as has been done above for example), resulting in only confusion in discussion.

Is this a valid idea?

The idea does not result in a conclusion that contradicts its premises, so yes, by definition it is a valid idea.

[alancalverd]

The idea does not result in a conclusion that contradicts its premises, so yes, by definition it is a valid idea.

The sun revolves around the earth. As is obvious. I can even use it to predict where the sun will be tomorrow. But it isn't valid!

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The idea that all the future states of the universe were set at the time of the big bang seems a little too strange.

It means that at the time of the big bang it was predetermined that I would be typing this. I had no opportunity to do anything else. It was inevitable that I was born etc, etc...

So for any experiment that is ever done the outcome of the measurement is also predetermined.

Just think of the abdication of responsibility that this ultimately leads to. Even that would be predetermined and on and on and on ...

[Halc]

The idea that all the future states of the universe were set at the time of the big bang seems a little too strange.

It means that at the time of the big bang it was predetermined that I would be typing this. I had no opportunity to do anything else. It was inevitable that I was born etc, etc...

You again speak of the consequences of ordinary determinism, which plenty of people accept, and not superdeterminism, which is not very plausible since it asserts that all measurements are potentially rigged and we thus cannot see the true nature of reality.

Determinism is a consequence of your choice of interpretation of time and interpretation of quantum mechanics.  I know of no interpretation of QM that supports superdeterminism.

Just think of the abdication of responsibility that this ultimately leads to. Even that would be predetermined and on and on and on ...

No, it doesn't. It only defines responsibility a different way. It does admittedly result in abdication of external responsibility, meaning you cannot be responsible to an entity that is not part of the determined structure.

I think you are confusing determinism (that your choices are determined) with fatalism (that events will unfold a certain way regardless of the choices you make), which would actually result in abdication of responsibility. Determined choices are still choices, and those choices do make a difference, else we'd have not evolved brains to make better ones.

If determinism seems too strange to you, then by all means choose a different philosophy that suits your needs. That's how philosophy works: Start with answers you like, and then work backwards to an explanation that is compatible with those answers.