What is meant by this example?

[Speldosa]

Hello! Sorry if this question is to basic but since I'm no physicist, this confuses me.

 

I'm reading an article by Ned Block about consciousness ("Two neural correlates of consciousness"). In it, he tries to draw parallels to physics in how to find a criteria for consciousness. He writes:

 

"...observed electrons can provide evidence about electrons that cannot in principle be observed, for example electrons that are too distant in space and time (e.g. outside our light cone) to be observed."

 

I have pretty good understanding of high school physics but this I can't really understand. Can even something outside our light cone affect us? Could someone explain what phenomena he's referring to?

[J.C.MacSwell]

He's probably referring to this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[Bob_for_short]

Think of it as of very distant electron's not being able to influence us immediately.

 

The event is out of light cone if cannot affect us immediately.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Bob_for_short

[ydoaPs]

He's just talking about uniformity of the laws of physics; how we assume the universe behaves the same everywhere. An electron is an electron is an electron.

[swansont]

I think it's entanglement, as J.C.MacSwell has suggested, but awkwardly phrased.

 

If two particles are entangled, and you measure the state of one, you know the state of the other immediately, even if it is far away (outside of the light cone). The mistake is treating them as separate particles — they are a system. If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, I instantly know the other side is heads, even if the coin is huge (e.g. measured in light-days). But since the sides of the coin have a pre-existing relationship, there really isn't any problem — all of the information about the system is contained in observing the tail or the head.

 

It's possible this is an attempt to legitimize some idea by invoking quantum mechanics. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

[Speldosa]

Hi again,

 

After looking at your suggestions I also think that it's quantum entanglement Block is talking about, although in a quite strange way.

 

However, ydoaPs suggestion is interesting. It makes the quoted section less strange. However, it doesn't fit that well into the general argument Block makes.

 

Block argues that the neural correlate of phenomenal consciousness can be studied empirically. He means that there is no kind of gold standard of evidence in any scientific area and that the science of consciousness should be no different. Therefore, we should be able to use indirect proof to detect conscious experiences in the same way indirect evidence is accepted in, for example, physics.

 

This is what Block is trying to convey with his example. Since it is about correlations and what kind of knowledge you can draw from them, the quantum entanglement theory seems most likely.