4 ms·
The article explicitly states that non-locality could explain it: >But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words,
by teilo 8y ago
The article explicitly states that non-locality could explain it:
>But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions — the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality — must be wrong.
- mistershrubber 8y agoI personally think that the idea that we have freedom of choice is the incorrect one. I believe our idea of free will is an illusion created by how our mind works. Instead, our decisions come from totally predictable processes and we hallucinate the choice afterwards.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, of the possibilities, "reality we can agree on" is the least likely to be wrong.
- teilo 8y agoI agree. I'm in the non-locality camp myself.