Re:Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (2015)
by tritium on Friday June 02, 2017 @12:08PM
(#14470950)
My statement was written in such a way, so as to deliberately avoid this part of the conversation, forcing you're use of the word "seem" to be injected into your conclusion.
I am aware of the charged concepts of Bell's Theorem, Fate and Determinism and the interplay of Quantum Entanglement and that unique quirk of particle spins seeming to solidify into concrete realities, only after observation.
Basically, I'm taking the position of the agnostic, and concluding nothing. I am aware of the conflicts and debates you've enumerated, and eliciting no opinion or stance.
What I am saying, is that all of these things I've avoided are human interpretations of observed realities for now, and remain mostly unresolved, with neither side really giving in, regardless of numbers and head count on either side.
> "God does not play dice with the universe."
So you're in good company. However, it's more complicated than it appears and most physicists do not agree.
The randomness in QM is different and deeper than that which appears classically. For example, a coin flip isn't really random: if we can measure the coin's weight and the imparted momentum precisely enough we can predict the result. In QM this is fundamentally impossible, a measurement of a superposition state produces a random outcome. It's not merely and expression of our lack of knowledge of the underlying facts. Experimental violations of Bell's inequality demonstrate that there are no underlying facts in QM (called 'hidden variables'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Unless you accept one of:
A) There is no free will: we are all enacting a clockwork fate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
B) Non-locality (faster than light interactions between distant systems)
It sound like you may already accept A, in which case fair enough!