Genady

How many shades of red do you see here? I see two, but there is only one.

No, not at all. It is just short. This diagram shows how short is proper time of a falling particle between the event horizon, r/M=2, and the singularity, r/M=0:

When their event horizons join they quickly make one black hole.

No. Here is what happens:

Do you know if this is also why my dogs chew gravel sometimes?

Here is the exact answer (36.16a): where

This is perhaps why red is my wife's "favorite color", while I don't even know how a color can be "favorite."

I see arguments regarding interpretations of that mental experiment. Somehow, I don't see what the question is.

The normal spacetime.

My null hypothesis is that if we can examine how our neurons react to the same color, we find that their reactions are generally somewhat similar but not the same in details in different heads. Moreover, they are not the same in the same head at different times and conditions.

Yes, the complete answer to me is this:

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics | Physics Today | AIP Publishing

This sentence (see the title) has appeared several times recently in this forum. Could somebody please explain to me what it means? I honestly don't understand.

How do you know this?

i.e., as long as brain is a 'black box,' I agree. I know that now, it pretty much is. I think, I know now what the quoted sentence referred to. Thanks a lot.

Certainly, any static picture, even one that includes not only the connectome map but also momentary distribution of all neurotransmitters etc., is not sufficient. Dynamic data are necessary. Here is another analogy, weather. Static satellite pictures of current weather conditions do not allow to make predictions. Dynamic data are necessary. But I doubt that it necessitates knowledge of the entire history of Earth. Cf.,

I guess the snapshot of a state is not the same as the state. Using a mechanical analogy again, is a snapshot like a 'position' of particle, while a state is its 'position and momentum'?

This is correct. +1

I think my lack of understanding of this point is caused by my lack of understanding of what "to reconstruct what things mean" means. My point (perhaps different from the one in question) is that to describe the next state of a system all one needs to consider is its current state and the current state of all external factors that affect it.

My source tells me that people come up with quite a wide range of answers: Unfortunately, it does not explain what kind of errors they make.

The brains are different - the results should be expected to be different. As in a simplest mechanical system, the same force being applied to different masses causes different accelerations.

I understand that there are no two identical brains. What I don't understand is, how history of a given brain can affect its current thoughts and memories without affecting its current state.

The statement in the article, which I did not fully understand is this: I don't think it is explained in the article, why it might be so.

This is good and I can make it into a question. +1