A local deterministic theory that violates Bell's inequaities

[WaveJumper]

There is no evidence that the electrons and quarks in a human brain should be treated differently than those in a quartz crystal.

Those are the same electrons, but they do not act in the same way. Are you claiming the electrons in your brain are acting the same, regardless if you are dead or alive? Life, being an emergent phenomenon, is just that - a process that introduces completely new behaviour to constituent parts - quarks, electrons, etc. Those same constituent parts in a living entity carry bits of information(just the human DNA molecule carries 3.2Gb). How much information does a molecule in a quarz crystal carry?

This might be the whole point of free will - it is likely another emergent phenomenon, after a certain stage of intellectual development is reached.

BTW, why would anyone be against free will? What is driving this trend?

 

[kote]

Those are the same electrons, but they do not act in the same way. Are you claiming the electrons in your brain are acting the same, regardless if you are dead or alive? Life, being an emergent phenomenon, is just that - a process that introduces completely new behaviour to constituent parts - quarks, electrons, etc. Those same constituent parts in a living entity carry bits of information(just the DNA molecule carries 3.2Gb). How much information does a molecule in a quarz crystal carry?

Are you saying that different laws of physics apply to particles in the brain? If we entangle measured electrons with brain electrons would we see different correlations than usual?

"Information" is also a matter of context and isn't anything physical itself. We could design a machine that interprets a quartz crystal and behaves differently depending on the properties of that crystal. In that case the crystal would hold just as much information as DNA, even if it started out just as a normal rock.

 

[WaveJumper]

Are you saying that different laws of physics apply to particles in the brain?

Yes. Life is an emergent phenomenon that governs constituent parts in a whole new way. Life is the 'Ghost' in atoms.

If we entangle measured electrons with brain electrons would we see different correlations than usual?

Probably. See Schroedinger's "What is Life?"

"Information" is also a matter of context and isn't anything physical itself.
We could design a machine that interprets a quartz crystal and behaves differently depending on the properties of that crystal. In that case the crystal would hold just as much information as DNA, even if it started out just as a normal rock.

I'll believe this, when you prove that a certain configuration of quartz crystal can on its own and by itself, carry and communicate vast amounts of information. Until i see that crystal, i maintain, that life processes cannot be explained by the laws of physics as we know them.

 

[alxm]

Those are the same electrons, but they do not act in the same way. Are you claiming the electrons in your brain are acting the same, regardless if you are dead or alive?

Yes. I think most here would claim exactly that. That the electrons of a given molecule are going to act the exact same way as long as the external conditions like temperature, etc.

Those same constituent parts in a living entity carry bits of information(just the human DNA molecule carries 3.2Gb).

There's nothing particularly special about how DNA carries information.

This might be the whole point of free will - it is likely another emergent phenomenon, after a certain stage of intellectual development is reached.
BTW, why would anyone be against free will? What is driving this trend?

People aren't against free will. They're against pseudoscientific blather like this, the mingling of metaphysics and speculative nonsense with real science.

Yes. Life is an emergent phenomenon that governs constituent parts in a whole new way. Life is the 'Ghost' in atoms.

There is no 'ghost' in atoms. We understand atoms quite well without any need to invoke the actions of specters and spirits. What is this 'ghost' supposed to be?

I'll believe this, when you prove that a certain configuration of quartz crystal can on its own and by itself, carry and communicate vast amounts of information.

You just moved the goalposts. First you talk about DNA and how it's supposedly fundamentally different from a quartz crystal. Now you're saying that the crystal must "by its own and by itself" carry and 'communicate' (whatever THAT's supposed to mean) the information? A piece of DNA can not do ANYTHING by itself. Plenty of viruses consist of little more than a strand of DNA, which requires another living organism to execute its instructions.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000P1O73A/?tag=pfamazon01-20 an example of more information than what your average DNA has, in a silicon crystal. It can't reproduce itself. But you can put a program on it that will reproduce itself if inserted into the correct machine.

Until i see that crystal, i maintain, that life processes cannot be explained by the laws of physics as we know them.

There are thousands of scientists around the world explaining and elucidating the processes of life every day, and they're all using the laws of physics as we know them. None of them has run into anything that cannot be explained by the laws of physics as we know them or anything generally believed unexplainable by the laws of physics as we know them.

We know how DNA replicates for instance, down to each specific chemical reaction. Thousand and thousands of engineers repeat that process artificially in PCR machines every day.

So why would anyone care what you think? You're the one who thinks there's a 'ghost' that makes what's going on in the cell somehow fundamentally different from what's going on in the PCR machine.

 

[Dmitry67]

Reading the last page:

I think you all have an impression that if nothing "magic" happens in our brains (so all processes in our brains are goverened by the QM laws) then ours consciousness have the same attributes QM has.

For example, if QM is deterministic then our consciousness is deterministic too, et cetera.

This is not true for purely mathematical reasons - on some level of complexity composite systems can have properties which can not be derived - in principle - from the properties of the parts they consists of.

Let me know if you need more details. In that case I will explain it, but I will have to learn LATEX a little bit. Usually i use just pure handwaving, but not in this case.

 

[WaveJumper]

Yes. I think most here would claim exactly that. That the electrons of a given molecule are going to act the exact same way as long as the external conditions like temperature, etc.



There's nothing particularly special about how DNA carries information.



People aren't against free will. They're against pseudoscientific blather like this, the mingling of metaphysics and speculative nonsense with real science.



There is no 'ghost' in atoms. We understand atoms quite well without any need to invoke the actions of specters and spirits. What is this 'ghost' supposed to be?



You just moved the goalposts. First you talk about DNA and how it's supposedly fundamentally different from a quartz crystal. Now you're saying that the crystal must "by its own and by itself" carry and 'communicate' (whatever THAT's supposed to mean) the information? A piece of DNA can not do ANYTHING by itself. Plenty of viruses consist of little more than a strand of DNA, which requires another living organism to execute its instructions.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000P1O73A/?tag=pfamazon01-20 an example of more information than what your average DNA has, in a silicon crystal. It can't reproduce itself. But you can put a program on it that will reproduce itself if inserted into the correct machine.



There are thousands of scientists around the world explaining and elucidating the processes of life every day, and they're all using the laws of physics as we know them. None of them has run into anything that cannot be explained by the laws of physics as we know them or anything generally believed unexplainable by the laws of physics as we know them.

We know how DNA replicates for instance, down to each specific chemical reaction. Thousand and thousands of engineers repeat that process artificially in PCR machines every day.

So why would anyone care what you think? You're the one who thinks there's a 'ghost' that makes what's going on in the cell somehow fundamentally different from what's going on in the PCR machine.

So, basically your whole point was that you can explain away emergent properties via reductionism. Are you serious? Your post is nonsensical.

So your logic leads you to believe a dead person's atoms behave entirely in the same way as as those of a live one. Well done! So, we are all dead.

 

[kote]

Yes. Life is an emergent phenomenon that governs constituent parts in a whole new way. Life is the 'Ghost' in atoms.

I would just like to point out that, while the interactionist substance dualism you are proposing is still alive to some degree, it is not required even by nonreductive dualism. Also, emergence is not compatible with interactionism. If the mind intervenes on physical causation then it is not emergent from the physical but is independent at least to some degree. Emergence implies at least a sort of reductionism.

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#Int and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#9

Scientists (and apparently ueit ) typically identify with physicalism, although that is by no means a statement of its worth - just an observation. Physicalism is also not incompatible with free will.

 

[WaveJumper]

I would just like to point out that, while the interactionist substance dualism you are proposing is still alive to some degree, it is not required even by nonreductive dualism. Also, emergence is not compatible with interactionism. If the mind intervenes on physical causation then it is not emergent from the physical but is independent at least to some degree. Emergence implies at least a sort of reductionism.

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#int and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#9

Scientists (and apparently ueit ) typically identify with physicalism, although that is by no means a statement of its worth - just an observation. Physicalism is also not incompatible with free will.

It's not about dualism, kote. It's about,for example, what law of physics dictates that a protein would move a single atom in a cell to its target, to repair a broken cell wall? The cell operates according to its own laws, the emergent properties of Life. There is a clear difference between dead and living matter(Am I even supposed to say this on a science forum?) that reaches all the way down to how individual atoms behave. This is offtopic and if someone chooses to continue this argument, i'll start a new thread.

 

[kote]

It's not about dualism, kote. It's about,for example, what law of physics dictates that a protein would move a single atom in a cell to its target, to repair a broken cell wall?

From the interactionism section I linked: "If physical laws are deterministic, then any interference from outside would lead to a breach of those laws. But if they are indeterministic, might not interference produce a result that has a probability greater than zero, and so be consistent with the laws?"

Isn't this exactly what you're talking about? Anyway, there are no such things as cells or proteins in physics. Are you asking how chemistry emerges from physics and biology emerges from chemistry? I thought it was generally accepted that higher level sciences are reducible to physics and never violate the laws of physics.

 

[WaveJumper]

From the interactionism section I linked: "If physical laws are deterministic, then any interference from outside would lead to a breach of those laws. But if they are indeterministic, might not interference produce a result that has a probability greater than zero, and so be consistent with the laws?"
Isn't this exactly what you're talking about?

No.

Anyway, there are no such things as cells or proteins in physics. Are you asking how chemistry emerges from physics and biology emerges from chemistry? I thought it was generally accepted that higher level sciences are reducible to physics and never violate the laws of physics.

I am sure that you understand that I am talking about Life and how Life as an emergent property of a certain configuration of atoms, cannot be confined by the laws of physics(as we know them). The laws of physics, as we know them, cannot explain the bahaviour of living organisms(the vast information transfer and the resultant interactions, the self-awareness, etc.).

If i had to sum up my position, that started this argument, it'd be - atoms in the human body do not behave in the same way 5 seconds after the person dies(when the emergent property of life is gone).

What law of physics dictates that a particular configuration of matter should be 'alive' and move about according to its own will and agenda? No one knows of such a law and that's why life is regarded as 'emergent property' and all the constituent parts in the system behave according to this new emergent property. And this emergent property may well harbour the notion of free will(as another emergent property) in a deterministic universe, aka compatibilism, which, in turn, goes against the idea of superdeterminism, Matrix style simulations, sealed-fate robots, consiparcy theories, etc, etc.

 

[Descartz2000]

That's a great question. I'm not sure I am up to the task.

First, I cannot say for an absolute fact that free will exists. We certainly believe we have freedom of choice, but do we? I have struggled for years to try to define consciousness, without much success. Certainly, our conscious thought convinces us of our own free will. But clearly that wouldn't count as evidence if the cells in our brain are actually operating as deterministic machines at some very low level. But generally, I would make the "unscientific" argument that my consciousness implies my free will.

Second, should indeterminism exist as a necessary requirement for true free will? Possibly, and again I do not think this can be demonstrated as an actual requirement for free will. But let's suppose it is. Is nature indeterministic in some respects? We know about some important physical laws which appear indeterministic - such as QM. But as you know, it may be possible to connect the apparent randomness with unknown initial conditions. Those initial conditions, plus deterministic laws, could actually be a prescription for absolute cause and effect - and then we wouldn't really have free will. I personally choose to believe that the randomness in nature is without prior cause. But again I would not call this a scientific argument.

Thirdly, do animals have free will? Does my dog? Is my dog conscious? I think so, but can I be sure? And if so, at what level of creature - going down the chain - does free will disappear? It certainly gets messy as you move down that slope.

And yet with those arguments made - and they are certainly not very strong ones - I am not sure I am any closer to answering your main question: how would free will work? Perhaps our brain acts like a quantum magnifier. Somehow, a small quantum fluctuation is amplified within our neurons and that gives an unpredictable element to our actions. We call that free will. But even in that case, would it be? Or would a random external stimulus be the culprit, and we are back to being "robots" that act in a knee-jerk reaction to the stimuli we are presented with.

Sticky problem to be sure. I see consciousness and indeterminism as somehow important to the notion of free will, but I can't make get very far without resorting to questionable reasoning - reasoning which involves belief more than knowledge. I certainly don't expect anyone to be persuaded by this.

I'm not sure consciousness equates to free-will. One is biologically based and the other is conceptual. If you look at recent studies in neuroscience you will find that the unconscious part of the brain is triggered first, and the conscious experience (alleged free will) is the result of this triggering. So, a physical process is the initiator. The loophole here is to say consciousness is not physical and then nothing more can be said about the argument. I think it is established in neuroscience that for true free-will to exist, consciousness must be immaterial. A mental world being immaterial seems like an insane proposition to me. I thought physics was in the business of refuting metaphysics and getting back to the basics of testable research.

 

[kote]

I thought physics was in the business of refuting metaphysics and getting back to the basics of testable research.

Physics can't refute metaphysics, only particular metaphysical theories. There are foundational issues in physics that can't be answered by experiments. See, for example, the interpretational divide in QM. Whether to assume theory realism (Bohm) or entity realism (Bohr), determinism or locality, etc, can never be decided by physics.

Physics makes assumptions about math and induction about other things. Metaphysics studies these assumptions.

Also, neuroscience makes the metaphysical assumption that minds are reducible to brains. Its findings, correspondingly, can only provide circular (read: non-) evidence for the reducibility of minds to brains.

 

[Descartz2000]

Physics can't refute metaphysics, only particular metaphysical theories. There are foundational issues in physics that can't be answered by experiments. See, for example, the interpretational divide in QM. Whether to assume theory realism (Bohm) or entity realism (Bohr), determinism or locality, etc, can never be decided by physics.

But, I think one day we will know which one of these existing models (or new ones that are yet to be discovered), will correlate with our Universe in explicit ways. I think the answers will be found in time, and I think physics can answer these questions.

Physics makes assumptions about math and induction among other things. Metaphysics studies these assumptions.

Also, neuroscience makes the metaphysical assumption that minds are reducible to brains. Its findings, correspondingly, can only provide circular (read: non-) evidence for the reducibility of minds to brains.

Maybe minds are not reducible to brains, maybe this will be answered in my lifetime and maybe it won't. But, I am more inclined to buy into a theory that is based on some kind of consistent reality. I think the only option left if we do not accept a physical basis for consciousness, is one in which an adequate definition can not be applied. The argument for a non-physical mind falls apart in your hands because you are left with answering questions like: Where did it come from? Is there a process behind free choice? What is the physical stuff going on in the brain if it does not correlate to the mind? What is free-will free of, as it seems we are our biology and heredity, and our experiences? And so, my mind is free of my experiences and of my genetics? I think the only realistic option is to accept a biologically based mind. I do not think the mind has an exact correlate for physical properties, But, I do think through emergence, there is a higher order process that develops when neurons fire in assembly. But, I do not think this emergence allows for a system to guide itself (brain); it is still guided by a larger system (Universe).

 

[Descartz2000]

"But, I think one day we will know which one of these existing models (or new ones that are yet to be discovered), will correlate with our Universe in explicit ways. I think the answers will be found in time, and I think physics can answer these questions."

Sorry Kote. my quote. I thought I could interject when responding to your quote and I did it incorrectly.

 

[Descartz2000]

Physics can't refute metaphysics, only particular metaphysical theories. There are foundational issues in physics that can't be answered by experiments. See, for example, the interpretational divide in QM. Whether to assume theory realism (Bohm) or entity realism (Bohr), determinism or locality, etc, can never be decided by physics.

But, I think one day we will know which one of these existing models (or new ones that are yet to be discovered), will correlate with our Universe in explicit ways. I think the answers will be found in time, and I think physics can answer these questions.

Physics makes assumptions about math and induction among other things. Metaphysics studies these assumptions.

Also, neuroscience makes the metaphysical assumption that minds are reducible to brains. Its findings, correspondingly, can only provide circular (read: non-) evidence for the reducibility of minds to brains.

Maybe minds are not reducible to brains, maybe this will be answered in my lifetime and maybe it won't. But, I am more inclined to buy into a theory that is based on some kind of consistent reality. I think the only option left if we do not accept a physical basis for consciousness, is one in which an adequate definition can not be applied. The argument for a non-physical mind falls apart in your hands because you are left with answering questions like: Where did it come from? Is there a process behind free choice? What is the physical stuff going on in the brain if it does not correlate to the mind? What is free-will free of, as it seems we are our biology and heredity, and our experiences? And so, my mind is free of my experiences and of my genetics? I think the only realistic option is to accept a biologically based mind. I do not think the mind has an exact correlate for physical properties, But, I do think through emergence, there is a higher order process that develops when neurons fire in assembly. But, I do not think this emergence allows for a system to guide itself (brain); it is still guided by a larger system (Universe).

 

[WaveJumper]

But, I do not think this emergence allows for a system to guide itself (brain); it is still guided by a larger system (Universe).

So the rate of spin of Andromeda galaxy is influencing my wife's choice whether to wear black or pink underwear?

 

[ueit]

I don't consider GR to be superdeterministic. It would take a theory of everything (TOE) to contain superdeterminism, by definition. (Because there are unexplained variables acting that are not part of GR.)

Let's consider a system that is completely described by GR. Is it possible to separate this system into 2 or more independent subsystems or not?

 

[Descartz2000]

So the rate of spin of Andromeda galaxy is influencing my wife's choice whether to wear black or pink underwear?

I would say 'yes', at least indirectly. I think the issue is with a mind (or brain for that matter) being a first cause of a particular action. I think my brain, where I make decisions, is based on a lengthy evolutionary process. I did not create this process of brain development, the larger system of the Universe did. The Universe supports our galaxy, which supports our solar system, which in turn, supports life on Earth and the choices that we make. I am not sure what would happen if Andromeda spontaneously disappeared from the Universe; but chances are good it would in some way effect every body on Earth and their decisions about underwear.

 

[DrChinese]

Let's consider a system that is completely described by GR. Is it possible to separate this system into 2 or more independent subsystems or not?

1. Of course, we have that situation in the current universe. There are volumes of space that have never been in causal contact.

2. Now, for the sake of argument, suppose everything had been in causal contact at one time. How would that change the situation? You would next probably ask if there were other physical laws that might contribute to the dynamics.

3. But for the sale of argument again, suppose all we had was mass which exhibited no further dynamics. In this case, we would have a deterministic evolution.

Of course, that would not make it a superdeterministic evolution.

4. And yes, that system could evolve into subsystems which were independent. That too has actually happened. Most of the universe is isolated from most of the universe at this point.

 

[Count Iblis]

Let's not forget that the MWI is also a local deterministic theory.

 

[Halcyon-on]

There are more and very interesting deterministic theories, some of the seams to be really promising. The original 't Hooft theory assumes some particular underlying periodic dynamics that, by a process of information lost, give rise to QM as we know it. In a toy formulation they are supposed governed by a hidden variable and the periodicity should be of the order of the Planck time (cellular automata of his last paper). This idea has been followed by H. T. Elze that conjectured an extra time dimension to originate such as periodic dynamics and also an effective time. Following this line Dolce (not jet reviewed) has proposed that the periodic dynamics that generated QM are noting else than the de Broglie space-time periodicities, that is the natural periodicities of the fields.

 

[DrChinese]

There are more and very interesting deterministic theories, some of the seams to be really promising. The original 't Hooft theory assumes some particular underlying periodic dynamics that, by a process of information lost, give rise to QM as we know it. In a toy formulation they are supposed governed by a hidden variable and the periodicity should be of the order of the Planck time (cellular automata of his last paper). This idea has been followed by H. T. Elze that conjectured an extra time dimension to originate such as periodic dynamics and also an effective time. Following this line Dolce (not jet reviewed) has proposed that the periodic dynamics that generated QM are noting else than the de Broglie space-time periodicities, that is the natural periodicities of the fields.

I see these authors have recent works, but don't see specific papers that relate to the subject at hand. To me the question is whether there is a local deterministic theory which violates Bell. I say there are none (excluding of course time symmetric variants as they would probably not be considered deterministic in the traditional sense). Is there anything you can point us to?

 

[Halcyon-on]

To me the question is whether there is a local deterministic theory which violates Bell. I say there are none (excluding of course time symmetric variants as they would probably not be considered deterministic in the traditional sense). Is there anything you can point us to?

The 't Hooft and Elze theories are based on hidden variables and extra dimension, in this case I don't know hoe they can violate Bell. In the Dolce paper (pag. 28) there are no local hidden variables. QM arises imposing boundary conditions to the fields, similarly to the semiclassical QM. Therefore the hypothesis of the Bell's theorem are not satisfied.

 

[ueit]

1. Of course, we have that situation in the current universe. There are volumes of space that have never been in causal contact.

1.Can you provide examples of such regions?

2.What evidence do you have that they have never been in causal contact? Did they not originate from the big-bang singularity?

3. Are you sure that GR does apply for them? For example, two objects that were not in causal contact should not attract at all. Likewise, two charged particles should not display Coulombian interaction. I doubt that such a case has been observed.

2. Now, for the sake of argument, suppose everything had been in causal contact at one time. How would that change the situation? You would next probably ask if there were other physical laws that might contribute to the dynamics.

First I'd like you to answer my previous question:

Let's consider a system that is completely described by GR. Is it possible to separate this system into 2 or more independent subsystems or not?

I am not interested in the history of that system, only in the fact that it is correctly described by GR.

4. And yes, that system could evolve into subsystems which were independent. That too has actually happened. Most of the universe is isolated from most of the universe at this point.

Maybe, but then this system isn't correctly described by GR (two massive objects would not attract at all), do you agree?

 

[Dmitry67]

It is not directly related to the thread, but I wanted to post a link here to another thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=337197

Because on many occations you were talking about the determinism, free will and is our minds are (super) deterministic.

 

[Halcyon-on]

If it happens to you to kill a cat using the Schrodinger experiment and be processed about this crime, you could always appeal to the court saying that it was a quantum mechanics aleatoric event, that it was a indeterministic event beyond your control. If the court has a good knowledge of QM they will find you not guilty, since it was not your free-will.

If there is no free-will is nobody guilty of nothing?

 

[Dmitry67]

Court would agree with you, but then they would have absolutely no choice but to put you into prison :)

 

[Halcyon-on]

Why? are the physics laws secondary with respect to the human laws? ;)

When I ope the box I cannot predict if the cat is dead or not. The killer is the QM dice.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why? are the physics laws secondary with respect to the human laws? ;)

YES!

When I ope the box I cannot predict if the cat is dead or not. The killer is the QM dice.

This is meaningless.

In science, a "logical inconsistency" means it is mathematically incorrect. One proves using pure logic, or mathematics, that something is logically inconsistent. So choose your language carefully.

So again, please show where QM is "logically inconsistent" other than simply your matter of tastes, which doesn't count. And if you missed it, please review the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you had agreed to. Pay particular attention to our policy on speculative post. And if you hold SO highly of human laws, those guidelines are OUR human laws that you had agreed to.

Zz.

 

[Dmitry67]

just imagined.

"Do you need a lawyer"?
"It is useless. World is superdeterministic"

 

[ZapperZ]

There appears to be two different thread going on roughly on the same topic. If these two threads do not diverge any time soon, one of them will end up being closed.

Zz.

 

[Halcyon-on]

Zz... see #19 of "Could someone explain the "Schrodinger's Cat" experiment to me?"

The Schrodinger cat experiment highlights one of the many paradoxes of QM.

Paradox: (logic) A self-contradictory statement, which can only be true if it is false, and vice versa. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paradox]

In logic (Aristotle truth table), when one find a contradiction he concludes that there is at least a false hypothesis.

PS: I'm not saying that a killer should not be put in gail because of QM. I just using this argument to explain how big and dangerous could be the paradox of the Schrodinger cat.

 

[ZapperZ]

And I've replied to that post already. There are no contradictory here.

You need to give physicists at least some measure of respect for their intelligence. If they see something that is logically inconsistent, they would have addressed it. As of now, it appears that YOUR understanding of QM that is inconsistent, and you're confusing that, with QM itself.

All discussion about the cat should not be done in this thread, or they will all be deleted.

Zz.

 

[kote]

just imagined.

"Do you need a lawyer"?
"It is useless. World is superdeterministic"

With regard to free will and moral responsibility, the issue is much deeper than superdeterminism or even determinism at all. If the world is deterministic, how can we be held responsible for events that were determined to happen before our births? If the world is not deterministic, how can we be held responsible for random events that can not be traced back to us by a certain causal chain of events?

There have been, of course, arguments to reestablish free will. It takes a lot of work to get there though, and it isn't immediately obvious how it might be done.

As for all of the world being causally connected, I think ueit had it right. Physics places no limits on the propagation distance of gravitational forces, for example.

 

[zonde]

To me the question is whether there is a local deterministic theory which violates Bell. I say there are none (excluding of course time symmetric variants as they would probably not be considered deterministic in the traditional sense). Is there anything you can point us to?

Not a theory obviously but interpretation - Ensemble Interpretation.
Following the link from Wikipedia I found interesting description of Ensemble Interpretation.
The part about EPR - http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm21.htm#EPR"

In short not only LHV theories lead to problems but nonlocal hidden variable interpretations lead to inconsistencies as well. So hidden variables should be dropped completely in order to recover local determinism.