3 ms·
You describe that as an analogy, but I always took that to be what it actually is (or at least one very simple example). Are you saying that that is how we inte
by normac2 5y ago
You describe that as an analogy, but I always took that to be what it actually is (or at least one very simple example). Are you saying that that is how we interpret our experience intuitively, but we need a more radical account under the various mainstream interpretations of quantum physics (Many Worlds, Copenhagen, etc.)?
- 0majors 5y agoThat’s right. Not only it’s an analogy, it is also a bad one and completely misleading, at least according to physics of the last 50 years. Note how the article frets about the loss of locality.
- normac2 5y agoHmn. Is that at least what we experience if we try it as an experiment (even if the underlying physics is quite different than what it seems)?
- Retric 5y agoThe only thing we experience from preforming at an experiment is the data it provides. As such from the data from existing experiments is where all the spooky action at a distance is actually observed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test though none of them are quite definitive on their own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_tests. I wouldn’t read much into the loopholes, but they do demonstrate just how difficult this stuff is.