Eise

Especially this, from the article: That is what relativity is based on. So when Einstein says light speed is invariant he is wrong, but when you say it, it is correct???? And then suddenly all the argumentations of Einstein, based on the invariance of the speed of light are wrong???? And ehhh... why are you so angry, already in your first post?

But you are not explaining. Your posts here are nothing more than 'no you are wrong, I have studied physics, and it is like I say.' If I give a transcription of a part of the video, and I give an argument based on that transcription, but then only only say 'No, actually, it doesn't' but do not say why, it is not much help. This is what you said: Where are your particles 1 and 2? I think the ambiguity lies in 'the measurement'. So let me try to rephrase what you write above: a. There is 100% correlation of the spins, which are undetermined before the measurement of particle 1. Right, I understand that, with only this catch: there is 100% correlation between the measurements of the spins. b. If the particles had a pre-determined spin before the measurement, you would get different results. Right, that is what the Bell-inequality is all about. c. So in essence, particle 2 does become spin down when the other particle is measured to be spin up, because we know the specific spins could not have been in place before the measurements And this I do not understand. The part I do understand is what you said in b.: the spins are not determined before I measured particle 1. The part I do not understand is that you claim that at the moment I measure the spin of particle 1 being up, the spin of particle 2 becomes down. The reason is that I do not understand how you can know this. The only thing you know is that if you measure particle 2 in the same direction as particle 1, you will measure down. The reason I say this is, that you cannot empirically distinguish, based on your measurement of particle 2 alone: - if particle 1 was measured before you measured particle 2 - if particle 1 was measured after you measured particle 2 - if particle 1 was measured was measured at all If you cannot distinguish these, then what sense does it make to say that 'particle 2 does become spin down when the other particle is measured to be spin up', when there is no way to find out when this happens? Of course. But only one of the interpretations would suffice, isn't it? Both being correct interpretations is a kind of overkill. The problem I have with Swansont is that the video says: But then when I defend this position he says I am wrong. Can you help me out? Your remark between the brackets helps a little. But what is wrong, when I state more precisely that, after measuring particle 1, I know what spin I will measure with particle 2 in the same direction? What is the justification to say that it becomes spin down already before the measurement or particle 2?

I did not tell you what you believe: I wrote: 'If he is right...'. The maker of the video suggests that there are 2 possible interpretations: it only makes sense to talk about spin once they are measured entangled particles can signal each other faster than light to update their hidden information when the one is measured You told me the particle has a spin down as soon as the other is measured up: That excludes the first possibility. And it fits the second. Of course the particle has spin down at the moment it is measured spin down. But you said it already has spin down before you measured it, on basis of the measurement of the other. Yes, every followup measurement in the same direction will show us a spin down. But if you say that the particle already has spin down, before every subsequent measurement, you are going one step too far. Say, I measure the spin of just a single particle: it has spin down. Do you say then that it already had spin down before I measured it? Now it turns out, I was fooled: it was in fact an entangled particle. Laughing the other observer comes into the room, and says to me: 'I knew you would measure spin down, because I measured spin up.' Do you say now that it already had spin down before I measured it? But I was fooled again: the other particle was measured after I did my measurement. How does this change your position about the question of the particle already was spin down before you measured it? This citation is a literal transcription of the video: So I really do not understand you: you say that the spin becomes down at the moment the other particle is measured, but then you claim there is no hidden state before I measure the particle. A correction must be convincing. Maybe you are right, but then you did not explain it well enough. Can you show me where I make an error in my understanding of entanglement? Maybe that helps.

As you called this link as your 'wittness a decharge' (supposing I do not understand entanglement?), I carefully listened to this great explanation. See for yourself what phrases he uses: And last but not least: If he is right, then you belong to the second group, that obvious believes that hidden information is changed (faster than light!) because of the measurement of the first particle. Measuring real behaviour, means the spin is already there before it is measured, no? Isn't the 'revolutionary aspect' of QM that it shows that this 'assumption in science' is not correct?

Swansont, I think I understand what you mean, but I am inclined to formulate your last sentence differently: measuring the particle spin down means that if I measure it again in the same direction as before, I will measure down again. The italic part is important: if I ask you to measure the direction of the spin of a particle I give to you, but do not say in which direction I measured it, you have no way to find out that I measured spin down. Of course, if I give you thousands of particles, all measured down, you will find out: but not with one single particle.

Until here I follow you, assuming that you mean that the measurements of the spins correlate 100%. Otherwise you must explain this more detailed. And here I am not sure. QM says that the spin of a particle is not determined until it is measured. Now if you say that the spin becomes down you suggest it has a determined spin. What does that mean: that a local variable in the particle flipped to down? That makes no sense of course. As far as I can see the only thing you can say according to Bell's theorem is that the measurements are correlated, not the particle themselves. I know that sounds absurd, but if you formulate it in terms of the particles themselves, you make your self 'guilty of local variables-talk'.

Seasoned physicists correct me when I am wrong, but.... the spin of the other particle does not become spin down instantaneous. What Bell's theorem says is that when you measure the spin in a vertical direction you will measure spin down. That's it. All the rest is metaphysical speculation. There is no causal relationship between measuring one particle and the other. So we know there is no mechanism.

Would questions in a box do?

Me to. So let me repost what I have once written before: So, no, philosophy is not science, but it isn't 'fluff' either.

That is true. Two clocks, made according the same blueprint and exactly the same materials will be exactly alike. That means you will not care which clock you get, they will function exactly the same. Let's take your wife into the game: you are duplicated to Mars, 2 days later, you die on earth, but your wife doesn't know anything about it. Even worse, an hour after the duplicating she has phoned with your duplicate, and the duplicate says that everything went fine, he felt nothing of the whole process, and he wishes your wife a nice week, because you will return next week... with the teletransporter of course. At earth your wife welcomes you at the teletransporter gate, during your duplicate on his turn dies after two days on Mars in great pains. (Want to add some emotion...). Your wife is happy that your back, she notices no difference at all, you tell what you did on Mars, you remember the party where you both were 2 weeks before. Now here is the difference: for you the two clocks are the same, as long as you have one. For your wife, you your first duplicate and your second duplicate are exactly the same. So we are all happy. But for you, yourself: did you really die? Even twice? The difference is that for your there is another point of view: your experience of you being you. A clock has no inner experience. But if you believe that your are a brain process, and the brain process is exactly copied, you should believe that it doesn't matter in what piece of matter this process is running. Or you believe that your brain is something special, that is not copied to Mars. But then I want to know what this speciality of your present brain is. If you really believe that you are a process of your brain, then on Mars that other brain is then your brain. Where is the difference?

But Graeme M, If you think that, then you do not just think that you are a function of the brain. Something has died that does not continue to exist, and it is not just your brain process, because this process continues just as it was before you pressed the button. It looks as if you intuitive believe in something like a soul, something that defines your identity, the person that you really are.

So? Would you step in such a transporter? Will you die, or do you live on, on Mars? From your point of view. So you say: "You" are a construction, formed by the processes of your brain. "You" have no independent existence. But you would never step in such a transporter? But if you are just a process in a brain, then why worry? This process runs on exactly from the point where you have 'materialised' on Mars: you remember how you stepped into the transporter on earth, and the last thing you remember is that pressed the green knob in the transporter. What is killed on Earth, that does not continue on Mars? That's a good question. But who is the you: A stepping out of the transporter on Earth, or B, stepping out of the transporter on Mars? Would you step into the transporter?

Who is saying something about predictions using physics? Who is saying that you need perfect copies to copy you? A nano second from now all your quantum states may have changed. Does that make another 'you'? The whole thought experiment is to find out if someone really believes it, when he says that e.g. we are a function of our brain. A consequence of this idea is that you would have no problem to use the transporter. But what if the transporter turns out to be a copier, that with some delay destroys the originial? Would you use the transporter then?

Graeme M, I think you answer the original question too easy. Let's retell the story a little, in the hope that it becomes more clearly: Situation 1 On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are on Mars. Situation 2 On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are still on earth. You hear that there was a malfunctioning of the transporter. Your original 'you' (i.e. you) were not immediately destroyed in the process, but the copying worked well and your duplicate has just stepped out of the transporter cabin on Mars. If you want, you can talk with him via telephone. However, due to the scanning process, you will die in the next few days. Are you dying or surviving in situation 2? Would you step in such a device? If you wouldn't, would you in situation 1? Why?

The idea is good, but not original: see e.g. this 'existential comic'. Originally it was brought by Derek Parfit, in his 'Reasons and Persons'. He uses it as test for our our intuitions about personal identity. If you really believe that you are just a function of your body, would you then step into such a machine? Who would be the 'real you'? If you are copied to Mars: who would be the 'real you'? The one still being on earth, or the one on Mars? What if the machine causes the original to have a heart failure, so you will die in a few days?

Yeah, that is true. But I think that every discipline that claims to have, or be, valid and objective knowledge earns to be called pseudo science (well, of course if it is not really science). Well, if it is not claimed as scientific, then it is not claimed to be valid and objective knowledge. How is that with those 'some persons'? What is their claim that astrology is?

??? Wikipedia

That's what I would say too, yes.

But astrology has also one scientific leg: the positions of the planets and the stars. Why don't you think that (Wikipedia): does not fit to astrology? AJB. It doesn't even count as pseudo-science.

That is a great list, but why are these pseudo science and astrology isn't? (You see Swansont, I am still figuring out why astrology would not be a pseudo science.) Yeah, but is exactly, what I would say, is not copying, but faking.

A.L.P, I think you should read about Kant's antinomies.

Many pseudo-sciences (like astrology and alchemy) started as a proto-science, and as far as they are still existing (I am not aware of present day alchemy) they are pseudo-sciences now, claiming knowledge they simply do not have. Homoeopathy might be an example of what you mean: Hahnemann made empirical observations. They were of course worthless from a scientific point of view. So one cannot speak of 'copying the scientific method'. If one copies the scientific method, then one is really trying to do science. In fact homoeopathy is faking the scientific method. If astrology wants to be a body of knowledge, then it needs the scientific method. But we know what happens when we use the scientific method in astrology: nothing is left.

So what are good examples of real pseudosciences?

I don't even understand why you think that astrology would be based on a geocentric model. It has arisen in 'geocentric' times, yes, but I do not see why a heliocentric model would invalidate it. Astrology is based on the relative positions of celestial bodies to the earth. The relative positions of planets and constellations is the only scientific aspect of astrology: it can just borrow it from astronomy. As a small story: in my time as a student, I once visited an extreme 'new age believer'. He immediately wanted to know my birth day for drawing my horoscope on his PC. Then I asked him if he could make the horoscope of the present moment. Of course he could, and showed me the diagram. I said ,yeah, that fits.' He reacted with astonishment and asked 'what do you know about astrology?'. I asked him to go outside, and look to the western horizon: 'You see, these two bright stars there? They are no stars, those are Jupiter and Venus, close behind the sun that has just set. Exactly as you can see in your horoscope diagram'. 'Wow, I did not know that you could see that!'. Isn't that great? The only point where astrology touches science, he did not know anything of... I wonder why you call it 'not even pseudo science'. I think it has all aspects of pseudo science: it suggests it is a body of knowledge, suggests it has methods to determine outcomes etc, where in reality it has no methodological basis at all. There is no empirical program of gathering knowledge, of falsifying wrong hypotheses etc. Astrologists do not even get at the same results (except the diagram they draw with PC programs).

From Wikipedia. But if Suits' definition really is enough... Shouldn't be a game voluntary?