From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 00:27:58 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:27:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In-Reply-To: References: <14f7db10603.scerir@alice.it> Message-ID: In this case, the problem seems to be the limited speed of transmission of information about the information. If you entangle photons A and B, let B travel away, then measure A, you know what B is...but your knowledge of it is not immediately available where B is. You can tell people, but that itself does not travel faster than light. As far as B and those around it are concerned, B remains entangled until the light cone of your measurement of A reaches them. Is that not the case? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilia.stambler at gmail.com Tue Sep 1 09:07:30 2015 From: ilia.stambler at gmail.com (Ilia Stambler) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:07:30 +0300 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Promoting_biomedical_research_of_aging_toward_Oct?= =?utf-8?q?ober_1_=E2=80=93_the_International_Day_of_Older_Persons_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_this_year_and_the_next?= Message-ID: Dear friends, There has been emerging a tradition by longevity researchers and activists around the world to organize events dedicated to promotion of longevity research on or around October 1 ? the UN International Day of Older Persons. This day is sometimes referred to in some parts of the longevity activists community as the ?International Longevity Day?. As this is the official UN Day of Older Persons, this provides the longevity research activists a perfect opportunity to emphasize the importance of aging and longevity research for the development of effective health care for the elderly, in the wide public as well as among decision makers. Events and promotions around that day, increasing education on biological and biomedical research of aging and longevity, are now planned in over 30 countries, on 5 continents. The support ranges from small, emerging local grassroots groups of longevity research activists to scientific societies. http://www.longevityforall.org/international-longevity-day-october-1-2015/ Initiatives toward that day vary from meetings and seminars, including online and recorded meetings and presentations in different languages, through special publications, to special promotions, for example, the distribution of a free e-book on the history of longevity science ( http://www.longevityhistory.com/), a short film contest on life extension ( http://www.heales.org/nhs/index.php/8-english/48-2015compshortmov) or fundraising actions for longevity research by a crowd-funding platform ( http://www.lifespan.io/) and an outreach platform ( https://www.fightaging.org/fund-research/ ). Additional events, meetings and promotions are welcome! The participants in this campaign advocate that the status and support of this scientific field should be improved within the general framework of aging advocacy and support for older persons. And preparations are already made for the next year?s International Day of Older Persons. Thus, on October 1-2, 2016, the International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD) will hold its next international conference, that will take place at the University of Stanford CA, US ( http://isoad.org/content.aspx?info_lb=600&flag=103 ). In 2014, the ISOAD conference in Beijing provided an excellent venue for scientific presentation http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2015.0115 as well as public advocacy for aging research http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2014.1210 with leading researchers from around the world showcasing the advance and promise of the field and calling for its increased support. Hopefully, the 2016 conference in Stanford will continue the tradition of excellence. The list of topics ranges from interventions for longevity through stem cell research, metabolism, age-related cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, genetics and systems biology of aging, protein oxidation and DNA damage and repair, immunity and translational studies of aging, to public support for aging research, and more http://isoad.org/content.aspx?info_lb=605&flag=103 The conference will involve leading scientists and provide a broad international platform for cooperation and knowledge exchange. http://isoad.org/content.aspx?info_lb=628&flag=103 The submission of abstracts and proposals is started and welcome. http://isoad.org/content.aspx?info_lb=604&flag=103 Additional events and promotions, as well as outreach to relevant decision makers and officials, drawing their attention to the critical importance of biological and biomedical research of aging for the sustainable aging society, are welcome. Hopefully, thanks to such meetings and promotions, the importance of the field will be widely recognized, and the support for the field will be increased. Thank you for your support. Ilia Stambler, PhD Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease ? ISOAD www.isoad.org ilia.stambler at gmail.com http://www.longevityforall.org/international-longevity-day-october-1-2015/ http://www.longevityforall.org/international-longevity-day-october-1-2015-press-release/ https://www.facebook.com/LongevityDay https://www.facebook.com/events/1017229998296364/ -- Ilia Stambler, PhD Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease - ISOAD http://isoad.org Chair. Israeli Longevity Alliance / International Longevity Alliance (Israel) - ILA *http://www.longevityisrael.org/ * Coordinator. Longevity for All http://www.longevityforall.org Author. Longevity History. *A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century* http://longevityhistory.com Email: ilia.stambler at gmail.com Tel: 972-3-961-4296 / 0522-283-578 Rishon Lezion. Israel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Sep 1 19:40:45 2015 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:40:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Personal BIG Data - How much? Message-ID: <00a101d0e4ee$18acedc0$4a06c940$@natasha.cc> Does anyone know how to find out what your approximate personal BIG data is? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at jarbox.org Tue Sep 1 20:00:56 2015 From: andrew at jarbox.org (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:00:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Personal BIG Data - How much? In-Reply-To: <00a101d0e4ee$18acedc0$4a06c940$@natasha.cc> References: <00a101d0e4ee$18acedc0$4a06c940$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <16601EC5-F638-40FD-BB88-922A0C9798C2@jarbox.org> > On Sep 1, 2015, at 12:40 PM, wrote: > > Does anyone know how to find out what your approximate personal BIG data is? I am unfamiliar with the definition of "personal BIG data?. Could you unpack that a bit more? Cheers, Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 08:42:05 2015 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:42:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] AI risks Message-ID: It's funny, but the point about all the effort going into making sure that AI doesn't harm humans is -- How do you control humans that deliberately want to harm humans? BillK From sparge at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 11:23:29 2015 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:23:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] AI risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:42 AM, BillK wrote: > How do you control humans that deliberately want to harm humans? You can't. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Wed Sep 2 11:01:29 2015 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:01:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] new nutrition thread In-Reply-To: References: <55E2A2B2.3080603@infinitefaculty.org> Message-ID: <55E6D709.4000200@infinitefaculty.org> El 2015-08-30 a las 20:18, Jason Resch escribi?: > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Brian Manning Delaney > > wrote: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331686 > > This study confirms that eating saturated fat raises HDL and LDL levels, > which is true. But what wasn't appreciated at the time of the diet-heart > hypothesis is that there are many types of LDL, and that the kind of LDL > particle that is raised by intake of saturated fat isn't one of the > harmful ones. Not clear, but could be. > Another worth reading: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4475777/ > > Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I am of the opinion that MCT's (medium > chain length triglycerides) are among the healthiest calorie sources > available to us, and also that PUFA are in-general less healthy than > SFA. PUFA are longer chain lengths than most SFA, so there is perhaps > something to longer chain fatty acids being progressively less healthy. That's my educated guess, but there might be a "sour" (that is, opposite of sweet) spot around 14:0 and 16:0, with longer-chained SFAs actually not being /quite/ as bad as 14:0 and (especially) 16:0. But context may also matter. (Search PubMed for [ palmitic acid cholesterol ] and note the studies indicating how context -- presence of non-animal ?-6, for ex. -- alters the hypercholesterolemic effect of palmitic acid.) We don't know very much. In a few decades there'll likely be another Gary Taubes-like "oops we were drinking Kool-Aid" moment, but this time about something else, or in the opposite direction of Taubes's schtick. In any event, like I've been suggesting, looking at individual studies doesn't seem very productive. I think we need a broader framework to make sense of the aggregate data about diet and health. And, far more importantly, at least for me -- as I noted in the thread "Online health trackers/storage [Was: Old Nutrition Studies]" -- I would love a health tracking system that could handle tons of data and find correlations I miss between dietary changes and markers of health. Then, the interpretation of the studies becomes less important (to the extent that the markers of health I'm using have been sufficiently validated, for which, of course, some of those difficult to interpret studies are needed!). - Brian From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 13:42:30 2015 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:42:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] AI risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:42 AM, BillK wrote: > > >> How do you control humans that deliberately want to harm humans? > > > You can't. > ### I am partial to machine guns but other methods work, too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 13:50:29 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 06:50:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] AI risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Dave Sill wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:42 AM, BillK wrote: >>> >>> How do you control humans that deliberately want to harm humans? >> >> You can't. > > ### I am partial to machine guns but other methods work, too. My favored method is friendly persuasion. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 13:59:29 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:59:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] new nutrition thread In-Reply-To: <55E6D709.4000200@infinitefaculty.org> References: <55E2A2B2.3080603@infinitefaculty.org> <55E6D709.4000200@infinitefaculty.org> Message-ID: In any event, like I've been suggesting, looking at individual studies doesn't seem very productive. I think we need a broader framework to make sense of the aggregate data about diet and health. Let's face it: we are just climbing out of the dark ages in medicine (and psychology, to be truthful). What was poo-poohed 30 years ago is accepted wisdom today (but may be poo-poohed 30 years from now). And the medical profession is quite conservative, as it should be, though it takes too long to see the truth sometimes. As much as I love learning about people, if I had to do it over again I'd go into microbiology. As we are just now realizing, microbes control far more of what we are and what we do than we now know. And they can evolve in such an incredibly short time. Nanotechnology is not just machines: it's creating new microbes, or using 'old' ones, to make chemicals, to fight other microbes, and much much more. This is the future of medicine. The current use of antibiotics will in the future look extremely primitive, about on the level of drinking willow bark tea. Will probiotics be added to our food? Thanks for the thanks, Brian. Too rare on this site. bill w On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Brian Manning Delaney < listsb at infinitefaculty.org> wrote: > > El 2015-08-30 a las 20:18, Jason Resch escribi?: > >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Brian Manning Delaney >> > wrote: >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331686 >> >> This study confirms that eating saturated fat raises HDL and LDL levels, >> which is true. But what wasn't appreciated at the time of the diet-heart >> hypothesis is that there are many types of LDL, and that the kind of LDL >> particle that is raised by intake of saturated fat isn't one of the >> harmful ones. >> > > Not clear, but could be. > > Another worth reading: >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4475777/ >> >> Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I am of the opinion that MCT's (medium >> chain length triglycerides) are among the healthiest calorie sources >> available to us, and also that PUFA are in-general less healthy than >> SFA. PUFA are longer chain lengths than most SFA, so there is perhaps >> something to longer chain fatty acids being progressively less healthy. >> > > That's my educated guess, but there might be a "sour" (that is, opposite > of sweet) spot around 14:0 and 16:0, with longer-chained SFAs actually not > being /quite/ as bad as 14:0 and (especially) 16:0. But context may also > matter. (Search PubMed for [ palmitic acid cholesterol ] and note the > studies indicating how context -- presence of non-animal ?-6, for ex. -- > alters the hypercholesterolemic effect of palmitic acid.) > > We don't know very much. In a few decades there'll likely be another Gary > Taubes-like "oops we were drinking Kool-Aid" moment, but this time about > something else, or in the opposite direction of Taubes's schtick. > > In any event, like I've been suggesting, looking at individual studies > doesn't seem very productive. I think we need a broader framework to make > sense of the aggregate data about diet and health. > > And, far more importantly, at least for me -- as I noted in the thread > "Online health trackers/storage [Was: Old Nutrition Studies]" -- I would > love a health tracking system that could handle tons of data and find > correlations I miss between dietary changes and markers of health. Then, > the interpretation of the studies becomes less important (to the extent > that the markers of health I'm using have been sufficiently validated, for > which, of course, some of those difficult to interpret studies are needed!). > > - Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:01:33 2015 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:01:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Friendly persuasion? Ever worked at a mental hospital? I've seen patients take a dose of an antipsychotic that would knock over an elephant - and still keep raving. bill w On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Dan wrote: > On Sep 2, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:42 AM, BillK wrote: >> >> >>> How do you control humans that deliberately want to harm humans? >> >> >> You can't. >> > > ### I am partial to machine guns but other methods work, too. > > > My favored method is friendly persuasion. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:17:14 2015 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:17:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] AI risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <584D5E4C-51A7-4FBF-85CB-D504D737E92A@gmail.com> On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:01 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Friendly persuasion? Ever worked at a mental hospital? I've seen patients take a dose of an antipsychotic that would knock over an elephant - and still keep raving. It's not a flawless strategy but it seems to work in an overwhelming majority of cases, especially outside mental hospitals. And when it doesn't work, the method of leaving the area works in the majority of remaining cases. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:23:54 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:23:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In-Reply-To: References: <14f7db10603.scerir@alice.it> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 Adrian Tymes wrote: > ?> ? > In this case, the problem seems to be the limited speed of transmission of > information about the information.If you entangle photons A and B, let B > travel away, then measure A, you know what B is...but your knowledge of it > is not immediately available where B is. You can tell people, but that > itself does not travel faster than light. As far as B and those around it > are concerned, B remains entangled until the light cone of your measurement > of A reaches them.Is that not the case? > > ?A? lthough influences can be transferred faster than light this can not be used to send a message. Think of quantum entanglement as 2 entangled coins, I have one and you have the other, no matter how far apart we are if I flip my coin and it comes up heads then when you flip your coin it will always come up heads, if my coin is tails then so will your coin be when you flip it. As marvelous as this fact is there is no way I can use the coins to send you a message because I have no control over my coin, it could come out heads or tails, so you see just randomness in the coin toss just like I do. It is only when we communicate through conventional means (at the speed of light or less) do we realize that my apparently random sequence of coin tosses and your apparently random sequence of coin tosses are identical. And you need more than that to send a message. ? John K Clark ? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:30:38 2015 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:30:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In-Reply-To: References: <14f7db10603.scerir@alice.it> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:23 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> > >> In this case, the problem seems to be the limited speed of transmission of >> information about the information.If you entangle photons A and B, let B >> travel away, then measure A, you know what B is...but your knowledge of it >> is not immediately available where B is. You can tell people, but that >> itself does not travel faster than light. As far as B and those around it >> are concerned, B remains entangled until the light cone of your measurement >> of A reaches them.Is that not the case? > > A > lthough influences can be transferred faster than light this can not be used > to send a message. Think of quantum entanglement as 2 entangled coins, I > have one and you have the other, no matter how far apart we are if I flip my > coin and it comes up heads then when you flip your coin it will always come > up heads, if my coin is tails then so will your coin be when you flip it. As > marvelous as this fact is there is no way I can use the coins to send you a > message because I have no control over my coin, it could come out heads or > tails, so you see just randomness in the coin toss just like I do. It is > only when we communicate through conventional means (at the speed of light > or less) do we realize that my apparently random sequence of coin tosses and > your apparently random sequence of coin tosses are identical. And you need > more than that to send a message. Right, and he "magic" only works if the coins are tossed. If you try to cheat and send me a message, for example you lay your coin on the table with heads or tails up, the spell is broken. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:48:02 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:48:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In-Reply-To: References: <14f7db10603.scerir@alice.it> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2015 7:24 AM, "John Clark" wrote: > ?A? > lthough influences can be transferred faster than light But you're not really transferring anything. You weren't sure what state that far away photon was in. Now you are. But it was in that state all along. Are there any measurable physical properties of being in a superimposed state, or is that literally nothing more than code for, "we don't know which state it is in yet"? The latter seems to be the case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:06:48 2015 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:06:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In-Reply-To: References: <14f7db10603.scerir@alice.it> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 Adrian Tymes wrote: > ?> ? > But you're not really transferring anything. > > ?You're transferring an ?influence ?but not any information because I have no control over what my coin does, all that happens is that the distant guy produces the same random sequence of coin flips as I do, and that's not good enough to send a message. > > ?> ? > You weren't sure what state that far away photon was in. Now you are. > > ?If I flip my coin ?and get tails I immediately know that the owner of the other entangled coin also got tails when he flipped ?his coin ? even if he's a billion light years away, and he knows I got tails too, but that's all we know ?and? ? is of little use. > > ?> ? > But it was in that state all along. > > ?Maybe. That's called realism, the idea that things are in a definite state even if they have not been measured. Another property is locality, the idea that the future can not change the past and distance diminishes the strength and speed of an effect. The third is determinism. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated therefore we know for a fact that AT LEAST one of the following must be untrue: 1) Realism 2) Locality 3) Determinism I'd like all three but if I had to give up one of them (and I do) I'd give up determinism, to my mind it would be the least disturbing, and giving up reality would be the most disturbing; but the universe may not agree with me so for all I know all 3 may be false. John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:22:24 2015 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:22:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In-Reply-To: References: <14f7db10603.scerir@alice.it> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2015 10:07 AM, "John Clark" wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 Adrian Tymes wrote: ? >> But it was in that state all along. > > ?Maybe. That's called realism, the idea that things are in a definite state even if they have not been measured. Another property is locality, the idea that the future can not change the past and distance diminishes the strength and speed of an effect. The third is determinism. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated therefore we know for a fact that AT LEAST one of the following must be untrue: > > 1) Realism > 2) Locality > 3) Determinism I get the sense that the future/past part of locality may need redefining. As in, people say "events that are not yet in my lightcone can not affect my past", when the "event" was just measuring the other photon, which does not affect your past but only reveals information that was already there - if not yet measured - for your photon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Wed Sep 2 18:06:46 2015 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir at alice.it) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:06:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] R: Re: Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication Message-ID: <14f8f3d58b9.scerir@alice.it> ----Messaggio originale---- Da: atymes at gmail.com Data: 1-set-2015 2.27 A: "ExI chat list" Cc: Ogg: Re: [ExI] Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication In this case, the problem seems to be the limited speed of transmission of information about the information. If you entangle photons A and B, let B travel away, then measure A, you know what B is...but your knowledge of it is not immediately available where B is. You can tell people, but that itself does not travel faster than light. As far as B and those around it are concerned, B remains entangled until the light cone of your measurement of A reaches them. Is that not the case? ###### Hi Adrian, Yes and no. If you have a source of entangled photons and this source is much much closer to location A than to location B, and if A and B are close enough, an observer O could jump from A to B and you can imagine he could perform magic tricks. In other words ... in general the problem arises because obsevers are local, and quantum correlations are not. But if you have ... nonlocal observers .... No story in space-time can describe nonlocal correlations: we have no tool in our story-toolbox to talk about nonlocal correlations (Gisin). Hence, we usually say things like "event A influences event B", or "event A has a spooky action at a distance on event B" or "event A causes a collapse of the wavefunction at location B". But we know that this is all wrong: there is no time ordering between the events A and B ("acausality"). Hence no story in time is appropriate. Moreover, the distance between A and B is irrelevant. Hence the distance should not occur in our story. A good review paper about all that (and about many different - and very often also smart - attempts to build quantum signalling machines) is this one, by GianCarlo Ghirardi http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2305. See also http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1133 http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0893 . Ghirardi is the "G" of the GRW interpretation. For different arguments see Gisin here (Appendix B) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3440v1.pdf Scarani and Gisin here http://www.unige.ch/gap/quantum/_media/publications:bib:v35_328.pdf Another interesting point is the speed of quantum information or, to say it better, the speed of quantum "influences" (between the two parts of the entangled quantum system, i.e. the two parts of a bi-photon). There are many interesting papers. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795 (The experimental violation of Bell inequalities using spacelike separated measurements precludes the explanation of quantum correlations through causal influences propagating at subluminal speed. Yet, any such experimental violation could always be explained in principle through models based on hidden influences propagating at a finite speed v>c, provided v is large enough. Here, we show that for any finite speed v with c