Michael Egnor talks with podcaster Lucas Skrobot about how we can know we are not zombies

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Also: Egnor , a neurosurgeon, told Skrobot: “My wife jokes with me that meeting me is always the worst part of a person’s life.”

Comments

"It’s pure logic." JVL, You are stuck on something. I'm not sure what it is. Pure logic resides in your mind. I don't think you can find it anywhere else. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Sure. In your imagination.. NOT in my imagination. Anyone who knows the mathematical procedures would get the same result. The procedures work for finite objects you could actually measure and touch. Use the same procedures on something that's infinite and you can get infinite and finite results depending on what procedure you followed. Math HAS to work that way. Or it wouldn't work at all. It's not made up or imagined. It's pure logic.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Thank you for proving that the set of even integers is smaller than the set of all integers.ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

ET: What “one more”? You already have everything. Not necessarily. Take the set of all even integers. That's an infinite set. Add in the integer '3' which is not an even integer. You still have an infinite number of integers. Add in all the odd integers and you still have an infinite set. Add in all the values like 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 . . . you still have an infinite set. Hilbert's metaphor isn't something I find very useful to be honest. Just doing the math works and makes more sense. Math is like a language, the pleasure you get out of it depends on how well you speak it.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

"So, again, the finite and infinite are manifest in the same object." JVL, Sure. In your imagination. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Asauber: And you end with something finite, right? It depends. For example: in Calculus when you're trying to figure out if an infinite series converges or diverges you might get a finite result (it converges) or you might get an infinite answer (it diverges). Have you taken Calculus? There's tons of examples. On of my favourites is: take the function 1/x for x > 1 and rotate it about the x-axis. You get a horn-shaped thing (sometimes nicknamed the horn of Gabriel). It turns out, if you do the math right, that that object has a finite volume but an infinite surface area. So, again, the finite and infinite are manifest in the same object. Fractals are another good example: they have infinite perimeter but finite area.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

JVL:
If you have an infinite number of things and you add one more you still have an infinite amount of things.
What "one more"? You already have everything.ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

"When you take a limit to infinity you start with something finite and let it grow without bound so you are using the concepts of finite and infinite together." JVL, "so are a lot of higher level mathematical operations and manipulations" Of course. Abstractly. "you start with something finite" And you end with something finite, right? Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Of course they are using it. But it’s all in their heads. ???? But then so are a lot of higher level mathematical operations and manipulations. And I didn’t say mathematicians are “wrong”. You are just trying to put words in my mouth. Well, I don't know what you meant then when you said they don't work together. When you take a limit to infinity you start with something finite and let it grow without bound so you are using the concepts of finite and infinite together. The mathematics is pretty simple and straightforward and has been used for quite a while now. I don't think it's just in the mathematicians head since, I believe, any being of any kind in any reality would come upon the same procedure and use it the same way. How could it be otherwise?JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

JVL, And I didn't say mathematicians are "wrong". You are just trying to put words in my mouth. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

"mathematicians who have been using infinity" JVL, Of course they are using it. But it's all in their heads. ;) Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Let me put it to you philosophically, which happens before you start math. Finity = context. Infinity = context removed. They don’t work together, other than in someone’s imagination. Well, I don't have the heart to tell several centuries of mathematicians who have been using infinity that they are wrong. You're going to have to do it. Did you ever take Calculus by the way? And take a limit as x goes to infinity? Just wondering.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

JVL, Let me put it to you philosophically, which happens before you start math. Finity = context. Infinity = context removed. They don't work together, other than in someone's imagination. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: says the man with no ‘mathematical kitchen’ to cook in, Because I cannot conceive of mathematics working any differently than it does I do not believe mathematics depends on any kind of design. I may be wrong but I think math HAS to be the way it is. ET: There isn’t any such thing as infinity + 1 Of course there is! If you have an infinite number of things and you add one more you still have an infinite amount of things. Simple. Asauber: This has nothing to do with math. I was just being silly.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

"If you can’t do the math, stay out of the kitchen" JVL, This has nothing to do with math. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

JVL:
What’s incorrect about it?
There isn't any such thing as infinity + 1ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

"If you can’t do the math, stay out of the kitchen " says the man with no 'mathematical kitchen' to cook in,
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. ,,, In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
bornagain77_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Conceptually, mixing infinite in with finite gives you absurdity. If you can't do the math, stay out of the kitchen . . . or something.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

ET: Hilbert said there was a hotel with infinite rooms, that were filled by infinite guests. Then another guest shows up, making it infinity + 1, which is incorrect. What's incorrect about it? It's just a thought 'experiment'. Infinity + 1 = infinity. Simple. The issue is there isn’t any queue. The guests would turn and enter the room they are next to Yup, that's correct. I was just messin' with you earlier.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Andrew's Infinite Public Service Announcement: Conceptually, mixing infinite in with finite gives you absurdity. Carry on. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

JVL:
There are infinitely many of them so the queue extends forever.
Infinitely many? That isn't a thing. But that is still a non-sequitur.
They already exist, just like the positive integers. An infinitely long line of rooms and guests.
That isn't what Hilbert said. Hilbert said there was a hotel with infinite rooms, that were filled by infinite guests. Then another guest shows up, making it infinity + 1, which is incorrect. The issue is there isn't any queue. The guests would turn and enter the room they are next toET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

ET: Ok wait, if infinite rooms are filled with infinite guests, how do more guests show up? There are infinitely many of them so the queue extends forever. If they can just pop into existence then so can then the rooms to accommodate them can also pop into existence. They already exist, just like the positive integers. An infinitely long line of rooms and guests. You get the rooms from the same place Hilbert got the newly arriving guests, from his arse. No need for anyone to move. Which room in the infinite hotel would you like then? Pick a positive integer, any positive integer. We will have that room and can make it available.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

Ok wait, if infinite rooms are filled with infinite guests, how do more guests show up? If they can just pop into existence then so can then the rooms to accommodate them can also pop into existence. You get the rooms from the same place Hilbert got the newly arriving guests, from his arse. No need for anyone to move.ET_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Next time you go there, you should check the rooms carefully. They might look rectangular, but they're actually arranged around a circle.Bob O'H_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

@Bob it seemed like I was changing rooms forever.Retired Physicist_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

He spent a week in a hotel counting the sides. It would have been a weekend but more guests kept on turning up, so RP had to change rooms repeatedly.Bob O'H_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

RP:
Apeirogons are generalized polygons whose sides are countably infinite.
How do you know?ET_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

We really need an open thread around here so I can post fun things like this. Apeirogons are generalized polygons whose sides are countably infinite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApeirogonRetired Physicist_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally. First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
November 2019 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Thus in conclusion, and as Dr. Egnor pointed out, although the mental attribute of qualia is forever beyond 'the purview of physical science", we are not left completely in the dark as to seeing how the immaterial mind might relate to the physical world. Specifically, the mental attributes of the 'experience of the now' and of free will do lend themselves very much to scientific investigation and confirm, in over the top fashion, that, as Richard Conn Henry put the current situation in quantum mechanics, "The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."
"The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy." Richard Conn Henry - The mental Universe - 06 July 2005 https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a
bornagain77_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

And it is also interesting to note that this finding or ‘quantum entanglement in time’ also refutes Dr Vincent Torley’s strenuous objection against Dr Egnor. Dr. Torley strenuously objected that perception cannot possibly occur ‘at a distance’ since a Supernova that we might be observing “ceased to exist nearly 200 millennia ago, long before the dawn of human history.”
The Squid and the Supernova: A Reply to Professor Egnor – December 9, 2015 – vjtorley Excerpt: In February 1987, a supernova appeared in the Southern skies, and remained visible for several months. ,,, The problem is that the object itself ceased to exist nearly 200 millennia ago, long before the dawn of human history. Even if the squid that witnessed the explosion were capable of having perceptions which are located in intergalactic space, as Egnor contends, they are surely incapable of having perceptions which go back in time. ,,,perception is a bodily event, and that an event involving my body cannot take place at a point which is separate from my body. An event involving my body may occur inside my body, or at the surface of my body, but never separately from it. Thus it simply makes no sense to assert that I am here, at point X, but that my perceptions – or for that matter, my actions – are located at an external point Y. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-squid-and-the-supernova-a-reply-to-professor-egnor/
Yet, despite Dr. Torley’s strenuous (materialistic) objection against Dr. Egnor’s claim that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance.” and to repeat Professor Crull’s provocative statement, the findings of quantum entanglement in time “implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.” In short, quantum mechanics itself could care less about Dr. Torley's materialistic presuppositions. In further confirmation of Stanley Jaki’s contention that, “There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future.”, in further confirmation of that contention, not only does “quantum mechanics show us that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”, but quantum mechanics also shows us that our present conscious choices ultimately determine what type of future will be presented to us in our measurements of quantum systems. As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012 Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems. In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation. Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit. Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-weird-magic-ingredient-quantum.html
Thus, Stanley Jaki’s contention that “There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future.”, is now experimentally established to be true by the fact that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and is also established by the fact that, “We are not just passive observers,,, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure”. Thus, (contrary to what Einstein himself thought was possible for experimental physics), advances in quantum mechanics have now shown, in overwhelming fashion, that ‘the experience of the now’ is very much a part of experimental physics. Likewise, as mentioned previously, the mental attribute of free will also makes its presence known by recent advances in quantum mechanics. As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, states in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html Experimental test of local observer-independence - 2019 Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf
Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
bornagain77_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 28 29 30 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply