[ExI] Bell's Inequality
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 01:04:06 UTC 2017
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> A variation on superdeterministic, as has been stated before, but I
> shall repeat: what we measure was the truth all along, at least back
> to when the last decision by a sentient entity that could affect the
> outcome was made.
### Forgive me if it sounds like trolling, but are invisible unicorns
sentient? What about bacteria? They do some information processing, so
maybe they can collapse the wave function, at least a little bit?
Trying to rebuild a basic and simple, logically consistent and
experimentally predictive theory like QM to contain provisions for special
influence by "sentience" is just laughable. If a theory predicts
experiments without using undefined complicated magics ("sentience") tacked
on to it, then you must leave the theory alone.
If the multiplicity of universes under QM makes you uneasy, well, you can
Shut-Up-And-Calculate, never allowing yourself to think about QM's
corollaries but certainly don't try to add invisible fairies to QM and say
it's still science.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat