Comments by "Cyberfunk" (@cyberfunk3793) on "Dr Ben Miles" channel.

@slipcaseslitpace The title of the video is: "How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real", it isn't: "How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Real".
5
@jimatperfromix2759 "don't have anything to do with whether or not the Universe is real in the sense of actually existing" Yes it does. The experiment refutes local realism which implies either realism is a false assumption, locality is a false assumption or they are both wrong assumptions. So it definitely has to do with realism and whether or not that type of assumed reality exists. If you assume it does, then you have to give up locality and vice versa. "virtually everybody now agrees that the Locality Assumption (no faster-than-light causality or information travel) is not the assumption that should be thrown out to eliminate the contradiction." Like who? As far as I remember one of the few explanations that fits with the observations is super determinism which doesn't ditch realism. Are you talking about many worlds or what? Afaik, that certainly isn't a concensus among physicists.
2
@rickfrombohemia9550 Yes, there is limited number of outcomes. Randomness doesn't mean that if you flip a coin, a magic dragon could appear and start dumping gold bars. Randomness means there is no deterministic formula you can use to know the outcome of something, even if you had perfect knowledge of the current set up.
2
@Guirko Nobody knows if the state of pair of particles is undertermined or simply changing constantly before measurement, because we can't observe it before we observe it obvoiusly. The idea of superposition is just a concept to explain the observations, there is no way of knowing how it matches with physical reality. That is the measurement problem afaik, nobody really knows if there is an actual collapse of the wave function or not. The observations we have show inherent randomness in the observations at the time of measurement, of for example spin values, in a way that the pair is however perfectly correlated if they are entangled. As long as QM is though to be fundamental, then the randomness must be fundamental as well. If someone can demonstrate something going deeper than QM that is deterministic that is another story, but I would not be holding my breath.
2
I can't believe people are still saying this doesn't violate relativity when it's so obvious that it does. If it's not superdeterminism and reality exists, then these observations only fit with a theory where there is some faster than light interaction between the pairs. It's irrelevant if we can use it or not to send signals, according to relativity (at least how I learned it) no such(any) causation can propagate faster than light and here according to observations it must.
1
@seoul_muks You are the one that is claiming the magic here when you assert there is some determinism without being able to demonstrate it. The starting point isn't determinism, it's randomness that is so far demonstrated by experiments. Those that assert determinism have the burden of proof, as that idea obviously includes some other layer nobody has been able to observe so far.
1
@rickfrombohemia9550 You would call non-determinism "fuzzy determinism" ? That requires some mental gymnastics.
1
@rickfrombohemia9550 "Complete randomness would exclude even the probabilities, everything would be equally possible and impossible, i.e. a total mess" Randomness in the context simply means it's unpredictable as in non-deterministic. When with even "perfect knowledge" of current state you still can't tell how it will evolve.
1
@aWomanFreed Well this experiment and others are currently considered the demonstration of randomness. Unless you demonstrate some more fundamental level, that is what we have now: quantum mechanics that is inherently random. It's not up to the people believing it's random that have to prove it, it's up to the people that claim it's not that have to demonstrate some determinism in it and explain the causes nobody has seen.
1
@Guirko That is what randomness is, the spin of the particles is by definition assigned randomly. If you could demonstrate it's not random, that would be a rebuttal of quantum mechanics.
1
@ProtoIndoEuropean88 "Thomas Aquinas speaks of this same fact. No such thing as random. Everything is causality" Who cares what someone said ages ago? If you assert determinism, you need to demonstrate it.
1
@mistermelancholy7698 "considering water and organic matter has been proven to react to positive or negative thoughts" Proven where?
1