Recent content by Demystifier

The fact that macroscopic objects are quantum objects that can be entangled with other microscopic or macroscopic objects is a key to understanding many other conceptual issues in QM. For a historical example of the Einstein-Bohr photon-box thought experiment see my https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1139

You have never seen such a language before, either in BM or oQM, because most texts don't mention the von Neumann theory of quantum measurement. To understand QM properly, you must start from that. Without that theory of quantum measurement, QM is indeed puzzling. After you learn some basics of...

I know that I said I give up, but the quote above is so so wrong, and absolutely the main source of your misunderstanding of BM, that I must try to explain it once again. The M(A) is absolutely the most important physical object appearing in Norsen's (2). If you can't understand that, you will...

@DrChinese I disagree with almost all your points in the last post. Since I don't see how to explain my points without repeating what I already said, I give up.

No, BM does not assert that. Yes, but that value is not encoded in B and C alone. It's encoded in the whole universe, or more precisely, in everything what is entangled, or will be entangled, with B and C. Only if you assume that the rest of the universe cannot change. A and D cannot, but...

Right. We often associate the quantitative with precise and objective, and the qualitative with vague and subjective, but a priori such an association is not necessary. Quantification of consciousness is probably possible as you suggest, but it seems to me that this way one can only address the...

Recorded is the key word. This means that these values are carried by ##M_A## and ##M_D##. Not by ##A## and ##D## themselves. Not really. The stone is ##M_{BC}##, not ##B## and ##C##. Without measurement, namely without ##M_{BC}##, spins in BM do not have any values at all. As long as you will...

Yes, but there is a difference. When you measure a correlate of a physical quantity, you establish a correlation of one quantity with another quantity. But when you measure a correlate of consciousness, you establish a correlation of a quantity with a quality. For instance, even though the...

Technically, they observe a correlate of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

Philosophers get grants too, just sayin. :wink:

I agree with your points above. But it will be much more illuminating if you jump to my post https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entanglement-swapping-and-bohmian-mechanics.1086070/page-8#post-7320980 The most interesting thing happens at ##t_3##, when A and D become linked (entangled) through...

Which is exactly where the hard problem of consciousness comes from.

So you see physicalism as an ontological (rather than epistemological) position, right?

To measure something means to use an empirical knowledge to associate a number (*) with it. In other words, science based on measurement is quantitative. By contrast, phenomenal consciousness is qualitative, it is associated with the notion of "qualia". That's precisely the source of the...

I think robots can already do that, but that's not at all what is meant by phenomenal consciousness. At best, this could be some form of access consciousness, but the hard problem is to explain the phenomenal consciousness. https://protoscience.fandom.com/wiki/Phenomenal_and_Access_Conciousness