Another point occurs to me: Namely, if we figure out that quantum events are the source of consciousness, and how to model it in computers . . . then the machines will become conscious and take over like in the “Terminator” franchise, the “borg” in Star Trek, or the intelligent machines of “The Matrix.”
It will seem very ironic to me if the theme of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein: Or A Modern Prometheus will be a real premonition after all.
Even if that was true, then that indicates that this mechanism “senses” future events. It is not reliable or consistent. In fact I would venture to propose that the odds are on the losing side, with many “premonitions” that do not come true.
Even then, if I accept that premonitions are a very real event, that does not in any way prove the supernatural or a god.
We just have to prove what drives premonitions and their causes.
I do not reject quantum entanglement, it does explain determinism and “premonitions”. But before I truly accept it, the entire mechanism must be explored and explained. And we have not even scratched the surface.
I agree.
I was only exploring an idea, and–as I said–I don’t believe that things like quantum entanglement can exist in the environment of the human body.
As I said, it seems that hard vacuum, temperatures close to absolute zero, and superconducting magnets are required to see the strange, counter-intuitive consequences of quantum mechanics.
It seems that quantum entanglement can, somehow, transmit information over any arbitrary distance.
Perhaps quantum entanglement can happen between two particles separated in time, although I’m not sure how. This may seem ridiculous, but I think the consequences of entanglement between particles over any arbitrary distance seems equally ridiculous to me.
@Kevin_Levites Just like me, you have an open mind and do not automatically reject a proposition without cause. But just like me, you do require good evidence to accept any proposition.
These are interesting fringe concepts that fall into the “we do not know, we require more investigation” category.
It sounds like simple selection bias to me. For example how many people have such feelings and nothing happens, I’d bet it’s a vastly higher number than the extremely rare coincidences described, but people tend to focus only on the unusual ones. Also had the person ever had any other instances where they imagined themselves dying, but it didn’t happen.
Understandably people tend to focus on what they perceive as mysterious or unusual, while ignoring the much higher number of failed “premonitions”.
Hence selection bias. Also not have contrary evidence or explanation doesn’t lend any credence to a claim, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Again you seem to be leaping to an unevidenced assumption.
Hardly surprising don’t you think, given the nature of his presidency, and an extremely bloody civil war it entailed.
Again selection bias or simple coincidence is the more propable and rational claim, since we know those are both possible, and have no objective evidence so called premonitions are, and unlike the latter selection bias and a coincidence requires no logical fallacies to support them as explanations.
The number of claims doesn’t matter, as the reasoning is flawed. My atheism has no direct relevance that I can see?
I once dreamed I was in a plane that had lost control and was spiraling towards the ground, it recurred. I’m still here though, but don’t watch Seconds from disaster much anymore…
David I agree in a slightly different manner…for me, more investigation is warranted to determine whether or not something like this is even a “candidate explanation”.
Edit because
It is weird and kind of counter-intuitive; but it isn’t magic. There is a lot of hocus pocus claims about it out there that are non-sense that confuse the matter.
It sure seems that way at first glance—I know—but if you work it out, you can’t send information that way.
eta: one way to describe the problem is that typically it comes down to making two measurements at two locations (particles A and B that are fully entangled in some way). Each measurement will produce one of the two results ( 0 or 1) with a 50% chance for either. You do the measurement on particle A, and by pure randomness you get a result of 0. Now there is a 100% chance the other guy at B will get 1 as a result. However:
Put your self in the other guy’s shoes. He goes to measure his particle and finds a 1. That means one of two things:
There is no way for him to know which situation happened (without sending and receiving standard messages, at the speed of light or slower). No information has traveled from A to B.
I’ve often half-joked that nature conspires to protect Special Relativity.
Thank you for clarifying this.
Still . . . there are claims that the brain works like a “quantum computer” , and that this is the source of consciousness.
I dunno.
These folks supposedly communicated over distance with quantum entanglement.
Supposedly, at least.
A lot of people seem to enjoy have some rather mystical ideas about QM. I’m not saying that describes you, but if it does; don’t read the following article, as it will let some air out of those tires:
My understanding is that no communication can occur with quantum entanglement over distance. Over distance, any action at one end is completely lost in all the behavior of the action at the other end. This makes ‘communication’ a current impossibility.
I’m sure, and my knowledge of quantum mechanics is not advanced enough to intelligently disagree with you . . . although a few physicists seem to have won the Nobel Prize in physics for using quantum entanglement to communicate from “Point A” to “Point B”, unless I misinterpret what I read.
I’ll read over it again in case I misunderstood.
Quantum Entanglement communication: 2020 Article.
Does that mean, though, that we can use quantum entanglement to communicate information at faster-than-light speeds?
It might seem so. For example, you might attempt to concoct an experiment as follows:
![The wave pattern for electrons passing through a double slit, one-at-a-time. If you measure “which... [+] slit” the electron goes through, you destroy the quantum interference pattern shown here. Regardless of the interpretation, quantum experiments appear to care whether we make certain observations and measurements (or force certain interactions) or not.](https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/startswithabang/files/2017/03/Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_four-1200x702.jpg?format=jpg&width=960)
The wave pattern for electrons passing through a double slit, one-at-a-time. If you measure “which… [+]
DR. TONOMURA AND BELSAZAR OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
This seems like a great setup for enabling faster-than-light communication. All you need is a sufficiently prepared system of entangled quantum particles, an agreed-upon system for what the various signals will mean when you make your measurements, and a pre-determined time at which you’ll make those critical measurements. From even light-years away, you can instantly learn about what was measured at a destination by observing the particles you’ve had with you all along.
Right?
It’s an extremely clever scheme, but one that won’t pay off at all. When you, at the original source, go to make these critical measurements, you’ll discover something extremely disappointing: your results simply show 50/50 odds of being in the +1 or -1 state. It’s as though there’s never been any entanglement at all.
![Schematic of the third Aspect experiment testing quantum non-locality. Entangled photons from the... [+] source are sent to two fast switches, that direct them to polarizing detectors. The switches change settings very rapidly, effectively changing the detector settings for the experiment while the photons are in flight. Different settings, puzzlingly enough, result in different experimental outcomes.](https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/startswithabang/files/2016/11/aspect3.jpg?format=jpg&width=960)
Schematic of the third Aspect experiment testing quantum non-locality. Entangled photons from the… [+]
CHAD ORZEL
Where did our plan fall apart? It was at the step where we had the observer at the destination make an observation and try to encode that information into their quantum state.
When you take that step — forcing one member of an entangled pair of particles into a particular quantum state — you break the entanglement between the two particles. That is to say, the other member of the entangled pair is completely unaffected by this “forcing” action, and its quantum state remains random, as a superposition of +1 and -1 quantum states. But what you’ve done is completely break the correlation between the measurement results. The state you’ve “forced” the destination particle into is now 100% unrelated to the quantum state of the source particle.
The only way that this problem could be circumvented is if there were some way of making a quantum measurement to force a particular outcome. (Note: this is not something permitted by the laws of physics.)
I think you are correct - some kind of communication is occuring. It’s as if seeing the results retroactively improves the players’ chances of guessing right, as if they can look into the future. Is guessing right really communicating? Are we adding more to the idea than is justified?
@Kevin_Levites
It is good that people are skeptical of entanglement. It is VERY weird, which gives it a nasty learning curve. Pile on to that all the non-sense that people publish in these popularization of science articles and the average person has no chance. I have a slight advantage because I speak the “language” that the discussion takes place in (math). For me it is like knowing how to read English, then trying to read Jabberwocky. It is confusing as hell, but on a good day I can make sense of a paragraph or two; but most of it is just noise. I imagine without that leg up, it would be like trying to read cuneiform.
This might help (link is to last ten minutes of a class on the subject:
I honestly don’t know.
I do believe (and please note that I said “believe,” and not “know”) that the realm of quantum mechanics is like a vast ocean, and we are only looking at a tidepool.
I do know that every time we say something is impossible . . . some oddball genius comes along and proves us wrong.
However, please don’t interpret my open-mindedness as a lack of skepticism.
A fan once wrote to Isaac Asimov that every time a scientist said something was “true” (in however you define the word), a century goes by and further advances prove him wrong.
It follows that things that we accept as true now will be proven wrong in the future.
Asimov was quick to point out the fallacy of this chain of reasoning as follows (and I promise I’m digressing for a reason, and I’ll get back to quantum mechanics in a moment): Eratosthenes (in Ancient Greece) proved that the Earth was round, and assumed it was a (more or less) perfect sphere.
Isaac Newton calculated that the Earth should bulge slightly at the equator, and was proven correct.
The Telsar satellite demonstrated that this bulge was slightly larger just south of the equator.
Asimov’s point is that this gradual refinement and increase in accuracy proves that each prior idea about the Earth’s shape is wrong . . . but still different from claiming that the Earth is a cube in Ancient Greece, a pyramid shape to Isaac Newton, and a torus (or doughnut shape) to the Telstar satellite. This is because “right” and “wrong” are fuzzy concepts that should be defined on a spectrum rather than as absolutes.
I wonder if it is such with quantum mechanics.
Are we at the stage where we’re claiming that something is a perfect sphere, and in the future a refinement will show a slight bulge in the equator?
Or are we so early in our process of understanding that we may abandon a sphere in favor of a torus?
My feeling (very unscientific) is that there is so much that we don’t understand that I feel that we may see a torus in the future (to use my analogy).
I feel this way because the bizarre, counter-intuitive consequences of quantum mechanics seem to show considerable credibility gaps in our understanding.
As for the “No Communication Theorem,” I wonder.
There are many logical arguments that just don’t have any validity in real life. An example would be Zeno’s paradox.
Zeno asks us to imagine a race between a turtle (very slow) and a hare (very fast). Because the hare is a gentleman and wishes to demonstrate good sportsmanship, he gives the turtle a considerable head start, as he wishes to create a level playing field.
Zeno said that by the time the hare had reached halfway to the turtle, the turtle will have moved on.
So . . . the hare can get as close as he wants to the turtle, but will never overtake the turtle. The paradox is that the hare still always manages to win.
A brilliant argument, but it doesn’t match the real world.
So, I don’t think that the “No Communication Theorem” automatically reflects reality.
I’m sure that it does . . . but I still think of Zeno’s paradox, and how a brilliant argument doesn’t mean that the Universe is obligated to conform to our notions.
Let me stop you right there: the no-communication THEOREM is a mathematical proof, derived from the postulates of quantum mechanics. If it turns out to be false, this will be the time to throw away the baby with the bath water. Start physics over at step 1. It is always possible; but that isn’t the square I’d put my poker chips on!
eta: also if that were the case, modern semiconductors and lasers would just basically became magic, because those inventions rely on the same postulates. It would be a wild ride indeed!
eta2: would imply that the subject of probability/statistics has been nonsense since about the time of Newton.
Loved the video - Emphasis on ‘Probabilistic.’ Also we need to be very clear as to whether we are discussing ‘Theorem’ or ‘Theory.’ They are not the same. What holds true in math, is not necessarily true in reality. It’s all over my paygrade but I do enjoy listening to someone rational talking about it, Biran Cox, and I am generally bleeding from the ears when people like Deepak Chopra or Michio Kaku start spilling their nonsense. Oh another one I can’t stand… Jordan Bernt Peterson. Fuck me! I would go fuckling nuts having to sit in a room with that idiot for longer than 30 minutes.
I’m saying, the quirky entanglement effects are mathematical consequences of the postulates of quantum mechanics. It is impossible for that part to be invalid. If you notice, when it makes the right predictions, it is correct of course, but in a case where it might seem like it will return something false, instead it “sabotages” itself and returns nothing (returning nothing is considered being true). Because of the very special way it was cooked up, it can’t be wrong. This is how serious people prove things. You stack the playing field so high in your favor that your success is guaranteed.
What could be wrong are the postulates of quantum mechanics (they are incredibly strange). If they are wrong, all bets are off (time to start throwing out a bunch of babies and bath water).
I don’t see a way around your points, so I concede (and I’m not being sarcastic).
Upon reviewing my points, I didn’t sufficiently distinguish between a logical argument and a mathematical proof, and to conflate the two is a subtle way of resorting to a straw man argument.
I really know better, because the Creationists do this all of the time.