Strange

And a couple of other relevant quotations from that Gizomodo article:

But you said: Do you have any evidence that the universe is a simulation? If not (and you don't) then it is just science fiction. Therefore not an alternative to science. And, while we are at it: is the universe a hologram? No. That is NOT what the holographic principle says: https://gizmodo.com/you-arent-living-in-a-hologram-even-if-you-wish-you-we-1791793355

So do you have any evidence? Otherwise it is not science.

Memory and I/O access (where done directly by the CPU, rather than DMA) are normally done sequentially, so the order the requests are sent is the same as the order in which the data are returned. That is how the CPU knows what instruction each access is associated with - just the next one in the queue. To allow multiple asynchronous transfers then techniques like DMA are used, as Sensei says. In this case, it is the interrupt that is triggered at the end of the transfer which identifies the task that the data is for. There are architectures that allow the CPU to make asynchronous memory and I/O accesses. In this case, the data can return out of order. This is handled by associating a "tag" value with each access that identifies where that data is supposed to go (e.g. which instruction or thread of processing).

That is an extremely speculative concept that is just based on an apparent mathematical similarity. It is not yet established to be the case. The standard, and very simple, explanation is just that quantum effects are non-local (in both time and space).

It doesn't show any such thing.

Half as infinite is still infinite. I don't think this is being suggested as a way that universes could be created, just to help you understand that there is no reason why an infinite space cannot be (infinitely) subdivided into infinite sub-spaces.

Perhaps you are trying to apply "common sense" to the concept of infinity. That won't work. Take the number line again. There are an infinite number of negative integers, then there are an infinite number of positive integers. So two infinite "universes" in the multiverse of all integers.

Well, it doesn't explicitly say that it isn't understood but it seems pretty clear that it isn't from phrases like "in part because understanding how a trapped electron becomes entangled with its environment" and "but could not provide information on how electrons developed such a relationship with their surroundings" and "to better understand how an electron gradually becomes entangled in this manner with its environment" all suggest that it is not yet well understood. The paper is only available to subscribers. This may be the same or a very similar paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3982 (but I certainly don't understand it). Another short article on the work here: https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.107402

So is that your way admitting that you have no evidence to support your belief in Randolpin's fairy stories for how entanglement works? By running away from the issue ...

It says that they don't (currently) understand how it happens. That is the answer to your question.

Why? Those are two completely different concepts. Also, you have not provided any evidence that the universe is a simulation. This is not science. The holographic principle does not say that the universe is a hologram. More science fiction. Citation needed.

Really? Evidence that this is a simulation and entanglement is an artefact of that? Perhaps you could provide a reference to this evidence? Or perhaps you don't mean "science"?

This is the fallacy of "begging the question" - there is no reason to assume that any such entity exists but you start with that assumption and then precede to demonstrate that entity must be intelligent because it exists. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question Not surprisingly, nearly every explanation of this fallacy includes at least one example of religious "logic".

Even though it is fiction?

It is also explained by actual physics so we don't really need these science fiction stories.

That information can only be transmitted (separately) at light speed or less.

A pair of entangled particles are effectively a single entity so, when an observation is made of one particle (e.g. measuring its spin) then the measurement is made of the whole system and so the spin of both particles is determined at that instant. (Note that in quantum theory, the spins are not just unknown until they are measured, they don't have a specific value until measured.) From that moment, there are two separate particles with different spins. However, if Alice has one of he entangled particles and Bob has the other, there is no way that one of them can tell if the other has made a measurement of the spin (other than through traditional light-speed communication). So the measurement of one particle does not communicate any information to the observer of the other particle. But an entangled pair of particles does/can carry information. I don't know anything much about how quantum computers work, but entangled particles are used in several other contexts. For example, measuring "which slit" a photon went through in a double-slit experiment without interacting with the particle that actually went through the slit - you measure an entangled partner and use that information to deduce which slit the other one went through.

Why believe they are first? Because no one else has claimed to do this. Why believe they have done it at all? Well, one could review the published research or wait for others to do so. No it doesn't. No information is communicated.

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." https://xkcd.com/1357/

If the universe is infinite, then "on the scale the universe"doesn't really mean anything. (Apart from the fact you seem to be basing your conclusions on what you can imagine or what "feels" right. Neither of which have much chance of working in this context.) Why not? You can if they are infinite. The number line is an almost perfect analogy for this.

Yep. And it seems to answer your original question.

There are an infinite number of rational fractions between 1 and 2. And between 2 and 3. And so on for an infinite number of integers. More surprisingly, perhaps, there are an infinite number of real numbers between each pair of integers. And this infinity is larger than the infinity of integers.

How about re-reading the thread with an open mind (not with the assumption that you are right and the rest of the world has made some fundamental error).

There is a more detailed description of the Kondo effect here: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Kondo_effect (But, again, no mention of entanglement.)