Ever since the implications of quantum entanglement between particles became unavoidable for physicists and cosmologists, the doubt of the accuracy or completeness of Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity became real… Einstein himself called quantum entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the possibility of faster than speed of light transfer of information between two entangled particles (no matter what distance between them) would violate relativity and the fundamentals of one of the most successful theories in science…
Recently, however, several experiments have confirmed that entanglement is not only real but it seems to violate relativity.
The results of the first experiment have provided the speed of entanglement, which was measured to be at least 10.000 times faster than the speed of light. here
In the second experiment scientists have been able to send data via quantum entanglement at 1200 km distance. Next OP will be on this theme…
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where 2 particles, like photons or electrons, become entangled, or their quantum state, or properties, became interdependent. Any change to the property of one entangled particle instantaneously (or faster than speed of light) affects the other. Einstein believed that the exchange of information at the speed faster than speed of light would create paradoxes, such as sending information to the past. That was one of the reasons Einstein and many other physicists have rejected quantum mechanics as either incomplete or false. And yet, up until today, no experiment has ever contradicted any of the predictions of QM.
As the experiments clearly show, the speed of entanglement is at least 10.000 faster than the speed of light and if that is the case, then entanglement violates relativity, as quantum information about the quantum state of one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other entangled particle…
So, if that is true, as it clearly appears to be, why didn’t we hear about it on the News?
What I would like to do with this OP is to get everyone involved to state their opinion or provide facts why these news have not been widely spread or accepted…
As most of you probably suspect, I have my own theory about it…Yes, just a theory…for now… 😉
BTW: I love quantum mechanics…
Just like Steven Weinberg once said: <strong><i>”Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”
OK cool. We disagree. you think one thing for some unexpressed reason an I think another.
No problem. I really am not interested in going through it again either.
So OMagain will not entertain the possibility that he could be wrong because he thinks it’s pointless and unpleasant to do so.
I’m perfectly cool with that. It does not surprise me that he would feel that way.
I’m happy with my demonstrating that he was mistaken when he claimed that I would not entertain the possibility that I was wrong and leaving it at that.
It’s hard to resist telling me something but at the same time pointless and unpleasant to do so.
How odd
To say that “X is true” is not the same thing as saying that “X is Truth” but I expect you knew that.
peace
PS how about discussing something else? Like the plausibility of immortality given the many worlds interpretation
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m not too fond of the many-worlds theory myself. Dunno about its relevance to immortality.
Here is an interesting article disusing another instance of individuals saying that their understanding of the facts is the correct one and refusing to enter into any process to demonstrate that is the case.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/14/why_fact_checkers_need_to_accept_that_they_can_err_137275.html#2
peace
Read it again, thinking of yourself.
did you read the short story?
here is a syllogism that I’m playing with.
premise one: something empirically equivalent to the many worlds interpretation is plausibly correct
premise two: Given the many worlds interpretation some individuals that are indistinguishable from walto are immortal.
conclusion: If the many worlds interpretation is correct walto is immortal.
alternative conclusion: walto is plausibly immortal
What do you think?
here is an article that might be pertinent
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-idind/
I already did. That is why I offered a testable criteria to determine that I was wrong.
Pity you are unable/unwilling to do the same
peace
No no. I said read it AGAIN. You didn’t.
Re the possible worlds stuff. You need to be very clear what you believe ‘walto’ refers to and what ‘indistinguishable’ means. If ‘Walto’ refers to the person in the actual world (only), it won’t fly. If it refers to me in every possible world, I don’t think you need the indistinguishable part. I.e. if immortality is a contingent property that I have in some worlds but not others, I just want to know whether I have it in the actual world and I don’t care too much that I have it in some non-actual world.
I haven’t read the short story yet. Would you mind sending the link again? Thanks.
I suppose there’s a point somewhere. But I am not seeing it.
Truth, factuality — it’s a mess. It does not fit an ideal logical picture. There cannot be a final arbiter of truth. The best we can do is have freedom of speech, and allow people to decide for themselves what they will accept as truth.
you sound exactly like the factcheckers the article is talking about ;-o. Perhaps you should read it again
I think there is a difference between philosophical “possible worlds” and the actual worlds in the many worlds interpretation.
Since the actual world is just one of many other actual worlds that differ in various degrees there is a good change that it will fly.
It might seem unlikely but as long as it’s possible it will happen for certain.
Again we are not talking about “possible worlds” we are talking about actual worlds inhabited by actual beings that are indistinguishable from walto.
earugo
https://www.tor.com/2010/08/05/divided-by-infinity/
peace
If they are living in an actual world different from the one where walto is living, then that already shows that they are distinguishable from walto.
Actually there can be but it can’t be fact- checkers or folks on the internet.
I’m fine with that as long as people don’t appoint themselves the final arbitrator as we tend to see here.
It’s much better to just agree to disagree and leave open the possibility that you are mistaken instead of refusing to even entertain the possibility because you believe it to be “unpleasant” and “pointless” like Omagain and company seem to be doing.
peace
Actually they are indistinguishable from the one walto is living in.
They only diverge at the point where one walto dies and the infinite indistinguishable waltos live on.
peace
Until you give a clear specification of what it means to be distinguishable, this is just a bullshit claim.
Sometimes what seems to be happening and what is actually happening are different.
Seems to me you’ve worn out your welcome here. If that’s actually the case then it will become clear over time as nobody engages with you.
you need to read the story. it is entertaining and it will clear a lot of things up.
peace
for sure. we just disagree as to when this is the case
yep that would be a sure sign.
On the other hand the fact that even you continue to engage with me is evidence that you are the one who does not have a clear handle on what the facts are in this case. 😉
peace
It seems your desperation for negative attention outweighs the fact the attention is negative.
Ignored.
fifthmonarchyman,
Thanks. I read, well, most of it. Not really my thing. Maybe Dr. Ehlmann would go for it, though. It seems to rely on the same premise he does, while giving a lot more flesh to what never-ending awareness might entail. It’s imaginative–so long as you don’t really try to make sense of it.
Believing everyone else is wrong is a danger sign
I wholeheartedly agree,
Of course you know that there are a lot more people who think like I do than who think like you do.
The problem is that AFAIK you don’t normally associate with folks like that.
When you surround yourself with an echo chamber of folks who share your worldview it’s easy to not see how biased you appear to folks who think differently.
peace
I actually think there are only a couple people in the world who think like you do.
I find stuff like that to be helpful in driving thinking in directions that it would not normally go
I’m really interested in the underling idea that if the many worlds interpretation is correct then immortality is near certain.
What specific objections do you have to that argument?
The subject also brings up a lot of interesting questions dealing with the materialist concept of identity.
For instance is a being that is empirically indistinguishable from walto living in a world that is empirically indistinguishable from the one that walto inhabits……… walto.
I’m not sure how you can say he is not unless you go for cartesian dualism of some sort.
what say you?
Anyway I expect it’s a lot more “pleasant” for you than rehashing the nature of truth and it’s relationship to deity.
peace
In this case I think distinguishable means that you can tell the two apart empirically. And indistinguishable means that there is no empirical way of telling them apart.
here is the article I linked earlier
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-idind/
I think it might be pertinent and help you understand what I mean.
Briefly here is the context of the story I hope you take time to read.
If I understand it correctly the many worlds interpretation posits that each time a collapse of the wave function happens the universe splits into at least two worlds each having identical histories and identical empirical content.
Two worlds with two waltos that are indistinguishable from one another at least up till the point of the collapse.
Since his death is one such instance of collapse then at that precise moment at least one walto dies and another lives on…
The process repeats itself ——world with out end amen.
This is a gross generalization but I think it gets to the heart of what is being presented.
peace
Depends on the topic. 😉
There are a couple people in my house who think like I do about a lot of things.
If the topic is whether God is truth then anyone who holds to the inerrancy of Christian scripture would be in my camp.
That is a pretty big party.
peace
I’m skeptical about modal concepts, generally. I used to be fonder of Kripke and Plantinga on possibility and necessity than I have been since (fairly recently) reading Quine’s “Intensions Revisted”–a paper that I think deserves much more attention than it has received.
In any case, all I can really say about these OTHER possible waltos is that I don’t care if any of THEM survive THEIR deaths. None of that seems to have anything to do with ME. Empirically distinguishability isn’t everything. There’s a great old paper by Max Black involving a universe containing nothing but two perfect spheres, each of the same size, mass, chemical composition, etc. They have all their properties in common (including the property of being exactly one mile from a perfect sphere having X,Y, and Z properties). But this “empirical indistinguishability” doesn’t mean our world really consists of only one sphere and not two, does it? The moral is that indiscernibles need not be (numerically) identical.
This problem was handled by some scholastic philosophers with haecceities (individual essences), and by Kripke and others by the use of a causal/baptismal theory of reference.
It’s not the negative attention I crave.
It’s a little civility on a site designed to encourage that.
The fact that you are unable to be civil to someone who is different from you is strong evidence that it takes more than penguin pictures to make discussion “pleasant”.
peace
They are not possible waltos. This is not a philosophical exercise.
They are actual waltos with identical histories and identical bodies and brains as you.
This seems to be an admission that you are more than your body brain and history.
Is that correct?
The are no empirically indistinguishable spheres in our world if nothing else the two spheres don’t occupy the same space.
That all flies out the window if the many worlds interpretation is correct. In that case each world contains it’s own sphere and the two (spheres and worlds) certainly are indistinguishable.
I see no reason not to say that there is one sphere in that case.
I would say materialism has little place for things like “individual essences” and causal reference entails a “normative namer” and each walto has equal standing in that regard.
peace
Don’t occupy the same space?! What century are you living in?
Materialism. Shmaterialism.
Are the spheres you refer to supposed to be the earth??
What century are you living in??
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-earth-not-a-perfect-sphere
I assumed you were discussing spheres like the ones below
test
No fair
I did not expect to discuss this topic with a Cartesian.
If you are willing to entertain things like individual essences there are a lot more ways to get to immortality.
😉
peace
I don’t know which underling came up with that idea. But it is ridiculous anyway.
In which of those many worlds, is the empirical evidence gathered? And how can that empirical evidence be relevant to any other of those many worlds?
Materialism, Cartesianism, location in absolute space? You’re not even up to Leibniz yet!
I don’t think it makes a difference.
However I believe a tenant of the MWI is that each world is isolated from all the others.
This is one reason that the MWI is deemed to be empirically equivalent to the other interpretations.
I’m not sure what you mean by relevant. It’s certainly relevant for walto to know that he is immortal.
That is one of the points of the story
peace
Again this was not intended to be a philosophical discussion.
I assume that most folks here hold to the position that the only existence that counts is empirically measurable.
That is the position that the story assumes. I suppose I could modify my syllogism like this to specify that.
modified conclusion. Assuming that walto is not more than the sum of his experiences as mediated through his body and brain it is plausible that he is immortal (given the MWI).
how does that sound??
But he does not and cannot know that.
Let’s start with the two spheres. Since there’s no absolute space, there are no (non-haecceital or “impure”) properties to distinguish one sphere from the other. But there are definitely two of them. So before we get to walto, we have to agree that the principle of the identity of indiscernibles is false–at least if it’s meant to be a necessary truth. It may be (and probably IS) the case that every two items are discernible, one from the other, but they need not be. There is nothing that assures the necessary truth of that claim.
So (as if anybody really needed to be convinced of this), nobody ought to be claimed to be identical to some person in some other possible world just because they have all their pure properties in common.
But of course you’ve distinguished me and this other walto with zillions of pure properties, because I am mortal and he is immortal. I don’t deny that I could have a “counterpart” in some other possible world with different properties than I have here, for those who like that kind of talk. But first we’d have to agree that this other person is me and all we mean is that I might have had different pure properties than I happen to have in the real world.
So, now, is being mortal a contingent property of me, a necessary property of me, or not a property of me in any possible world in which I exist?
Damned if I know.
And what’s really important for the sci-fi aspect here is that if we suppose that mortality is a contingent property, that I’m mortal in some worlds but not others, that ought to be of little consolation. What good does it do ME to be possibly immortal if I’m ACTUALLY mortal? (I mean unless one believes that one has some power to effect immortality–which maybe you do, but I don’t.)
He knows that if MWI is correct he is immortal.
He also knows that MWI is empirically equivalent to each of the other QM interpretations so his certainty will depend on his objections to the other interpretations.
So for instance if he thinks the Copenhagen interpretation’s observer dependence sounds to much like theism his confidence in his own immortality will grow.
peace
more later
No.
So says the person who is forever questioning whether we can know anything.
No, walto does not know those. And some of us are beginning to suspect that it is fifthmonarchyman who doesn’t know anything.
I read the story, I still don’t understand why the many worlds theory alone would entail immortality. My understanding is Walto would only exist in a finite number of worlds. And unless one of those worlds allowed him to be immortal, an impossibility in this timeline , no matter how many waltos exist each would be mortal.
Why?
Does theism entail human physical immortality?
peace
I don’t think that’s right.
Interesting, I guess it depends on how you define what it means to be a walto.
I’ll suggest that what it means to be a walto is not actually definable.
i contain multitudes goddamit!