I'll have to give this a read. I understand superdeterminism as not an interpretation of quantum theory itself, but a (often derisive) categorisation of Bell experiment explanations/loopholes. It could conceivably describe a class of interpretations, but I haven't seen a well-defined interpretation which falls into this class. Perhaps this book will change my perspective.

It also has a "comeback" because people are still very much enamored of something which is virtually indistinguishable from, "The Hand of God." Along with DeBB, it's still hanging on by the, "can't falsify this yet!" thread, but as with DeBB it adds nothing at all to the predictive power of existing theories.

> It also has a "comeback" because people are still very much enamored of something which is virtually indistinguishable from, "The Hand of God."

If we try to find a "social" explanation why superdeterminism has its comeback, I would rather tend to the fact that progress in neuroscience gives a lot of doubt concerning the existence of free will. Superdeterminism fits quite well into this pattern, since it attempts to show that we can solve the problem of the Bell violation by simply refusing the assumption of free will.

Trying to insert biology into physics is a real non-starter, IMO, especially in QM. The standards are so massively different, and frankly, not comparable. Bell tests, and more generally BSMs don’t measure anything like free will, and don’t assume it. Worse, God or Superdeterminism isn’t going to be falsifiable.