3 ms·
For the record, my comment was not meant to imply that entanglement is the source of psi; it is rather clear that it is not (regardless of how many pseudo-scien
by SoftwareMaven 12y ago
For the record, my comment was not meant to imply that entanglement is the source of psi; it is rather clear that it is not (regardless of how many pseudo-scientific books on Amazon say otherwise). My point is that the world became much more weird than we would have given credit for a century ago or so ago, to the point that we still don't fully understand it (even if we can use it to make predictions to a remarkable level of accuracy), after all, to cover it today, we have to manufacture new universes every time a person makes a decision to make the data fit (obviously, I'm reaching into hyperbole to make a point, but only because I put the person in the middle).
Could psi be an exhibition of some other weirdness, something in the realm of the indecipherable thing we call consciousness or some other effect we have yet to find? I think the odds are very long against it, but they are probably greater than zero. We live in a universe that may be a 3D hologram above a 2D reality; that leaves lots of room for things we don't understand. I'm not ready to concede that we know everything (but while a handful of current psi researchers are interesting, I'm fully on the skeptical side).
- pdonis 12y ago> Could psi be an exhibition of some other weirdness, something in the realm of the indecipherable thing we call consciousness or some other effect we have yet to find? No, because, once again, if there were any such weirdness that could transmit information through non-sensory channels, or allow people to influence matter with their minds, etc., etc., we would already have seen it in the experiments we have run. Saying magic words like "consciousness" does not change that. Yes, we don't know everything, so we can't rule out everything that isn't covered by our current knowledge; but in the areas of physics we do know, we have a very good understanding of the boundaries of our knowledge, which means we have a very good understanding of what is ruled out by what we already know. The Carroll article I linked to goes into all this.