Recent content by uzername

Yes - I meant only one observable. If we claimed to know them all, is that the same or related concept as hidden variables?

Doesn't the "wave function" collapse though, once you know? You've reduced the probability to either 1 or 0, right? so how is the uncertainty not vanished?

Okay, so that's a little bit different than implying that it basically only *happens* in a laboratory setting, and saying, "This has no consequences for most real life situations," isn't it? The mating behavior of a certain species of animal might not *ever* have been observed, but that doesn't...

Okay, that's very interesting. I never really thought about it in terms of multiple particles greater than two, to be honest. Only 2 particles. So I suppose to summarize what you seem to be saying (pls. correct me if I'm wrong) is that, in practical terms, when we entangle our own particles...

I don't think it was too much of a hijack. Or if it was, it was a useful one, as it's allowed us to have been able to discard Superdeterminism as untestable, which seems to make sense. onward!

Okay, that post just blew my mind. I sometimes think you guys do that on purpose - provide just enough of a provocative answer to open up 10 more cans of worms. :D "Everything might in some sense be entangled" -- that in itself is a very cool idea, and kind of where I am aiming, or where my...

Thanks, that is interesting and clarifying information. From a lay perspective, what is confusing to me is the idea that it's "real," and yet doesn't seem to be the case in most instances. Like for example, if we say a water molecule has a particular characteristic or behavior, then ALL...

That's too bad, because I have to admit that just on the face of it the idea has a kind of appeal. I don't mean in the sense that I would hope it is that way, but the idea that things have a kind of momentum or inevitable trajectory from an initial starting point just seems to make a lot of...

Thanks - did you see my earlier edit? I'll repost it here for convenience: --------------------- edited: nevermind - I think I get that, as a deterministic approach would negate the need for any kind of entanglement, because everything would "know" in advance what to do and how to behave...

I'm just looking up Superdeterminism, and then apparently that leads to the idea of "local hidden variables," and I can see that these ideas can start snowballing out of control very rapidly. :D Since this idea of local hidden variables (I'll call it LHV) seems related to my initial question...

Okay - I see your objection in your edit. I'm not really trying to tie anything to anything else that is not deserving of a tie, just trying to get a grasp on some of these concepts in relation to those that I'm more familiar with and that seem to be similar. I really wish now that I had more of...

Okay, thanks. So in your view, which aspects of the description are inaccurate? Everything didn't arise out of the Big Bang? Or there is no underlying connectedness or interrelatedness of phenomena?

Thanks for the references. I will definitely look those up. I don't know what ideas specifically have been ridiculed, but it seems strange to think any would be in a field that has "many world" hypotheses and things like that. What could be more bizarre and seemingly implausible than that...

Okay! Thanks for the responses. I'm glad to see that I'm on the right track, at least. The direction I'm going in this, and what is confusing to me, is that we - I mean, us as human beings, and specifically thinking about our brains - have electrons in us, too, don't we? I've been reading...

I'm not a physics student, just a layperson, and I'm wondering if anyone can briefly explain to me the concept of nonlocality in the context of quantum mechanics. My understanding is that basically it means that an electron at one physical location (or just theoretical?) can instantaneously...