How do you, personally, reconcile your every day conception of

>implying things exist outside of perception anyway

Wew lad.

I don't get it. Is this something I'm just too stupid to grasp? Why would this have any effect on my day to day life or views about reality?

>>1556323
Simply put, there is some mechanism that produces nonlocal correlations at space-like separated distances between entangled quantum states, destroying any classical conception of locality and separability in nature. It does not transmit matter and/or energy, it does not make use of superluminal matter transport, but it does seem to invoke some kind of superluminal causation and information transfer

>>1556295
I pray for guidance expecting a voice in my head to tell me something, but the answers usually come in real life dilemmas I am forced to make a decision on.

>>1556338
>...that produces nonlocal correlations at space-like separated distances ...
> correlations
> correlations
> correlations
not causes bro.
they just appear like that becuase theres a lot of shit in the universe, but only a limited way how that shit can behave.

>>1556353
Well, the correlation is the minimal statistical interpretation of the experiment. They're called correlations because we find that when we measure one half of an entangled state as, say, spin-up, we find the corresponding state to be spin-down. If the formalism is correct, then the only explanation is a denial of reality or action at a distance. The collapse of the entangled state is instantaneous. 'Measurement' at one end of the entangled state leads to a correlated result at arbitrarily far distances at the other.

>bifurcation
>formalism is shit
>coincidence
>electrcity
>conservation of enegery
>entropy

are there any precautions / or caveats we have to be aware of about time when doing these type of quantum experiments?
How "instanaenous" is the action?
I mean is there a delay when we make quark x spin up and measure the quark in the andromeda galaxy with a down spin?"

>>1556295
As expected, your sub-tier non-beta mind is to corrupted by “deep” and “meaningful” philosophy magazine articles to understand what entanglement is and what it means in the large scale world.

Yes, entanglement is real. It has been demonstrated and there really is spooky action at a distance. But this only applies to (sub)-atomic particles. It has no bearing on humans, trees, automobiles, mountains and planets and other such stuff that is comprised of many atoms.

>>1556458
what about neuron or sodium ion or pk channels in a neuron?

If spooky action at a distance is true, I'd be interested to learn the implications of a sub atomic particle, or a concentration of sub atomic particles located in my brain are entagled with a consentration of sub atomic particles residing on the surface of a star in the next galaxy over.

File: spooky.png (119KB, 715x238px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 715x238px

>>1556295
I accept that my understanding of things is not 100% accurate.

A contradiction on a minute scale in a physics experiment doesn't mean that if I lift up a pencil and let go there isn't a 99.999999999999999999999999% chance that it will fall to the ground. Or at the very least I can apply occam's razor and make that assumption. It doesn't tip my world upside down. It won't drive me insane like watching Nyarlathotep emerge from the aether.

>>1556581
>>1556581
The subatomic particles in your brain cannot be in an entangled state because they are too close to too many other particles. Your neurons are part of the large scale non-entangled world.

File: download (4).jpg (6KB, 136x160px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 136x160px

>>1556295
>action-at-a-distance
spooky

>>1556437
>How "instanaenous" is the action?
It's pretty fucking instantaneous

>Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one hundredth of a percent of the travel time of light between them (wiki: Entanglement)

File: Stirner.gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

>reality is literally a spook

>>1556458

>"(sub)-atomic" don't affect people

The protracted collapse of material rationalism is like one of those train wreck Seinfeld episodes.

>>1556295
>applying large-scale mechanism to sub-atomic particles
Ishygddt

>>1556458
That is an incredible amount of assumptions in one post. Entanglement has actually been demonstrated on objects as large as small diamonds. So eat my nuts. The "deep" and "meaningful" thing to take from this is that the world, at a fundamental level, is not locally causal. The "deep" and "meaningful" thing is that there are physical quantities not localized in space and that something is actually producing action-at-a-distance. Nothing to do with humans or whatever the fuck you think other people think

>>1556458
How many particles do you need in a body for quantum effects to stop happening?

>>1556295
With several different ontologies that i dont require to be reconcilable.
Different scales operate in different ways and they all dont have to converge into some sort of universal ontology.
Particles are not people and cells are not people and they all represent different PERSPECTIVES on life.

>>1558403
*reality

File: 44522.jpg (29KB, 640x519px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x519px

Anyone else think their values and opinions are stupid memes? fairness was something i believed in, i would get extremely angry if i thought a certain situation wasn't fair, then i realized fairness in an inherently unfair world is unfair, most of my beliefs and values are memes that could easily be shattered.

>>1556295
Process Philosophy, easily.

>>1556295
>All these occult fools in this thread
Wew. Action at a distance is unscientific. The universe is composed solely of mechanical corpuscles acting on one another through physical contact.