i know sean carrol! but i will check out the others thanks

I at least hate articles like this because they get latched onto by people who know nothing about physics and then spun into quantum woo to pitch to the gullible (e.g. Deepak Chopra).

Action at a distance is "spooky" because the measurement of a property of one thing affects the likelihood of measurement results on another thing even outside of its light cone. It can't actually send information, though.

Bohr and Einstein weren't arguing about whether the universe exists when you don't look at it, despite how this article makes it sound.

This mostly boils down to "there are no hidden local variables" which /is/ deeply unintuitive, but it doesn't let you make water into weird shapes by being angry or any woo-woo shit.

7 brief lessons is also a good option.

In addition, I'd check out the world science festival talks that Brian Greene has done are very good places to learn.

Another author to check out would be Sean Carroll.

There are some really great physics authors these days. Helps the layperson understand the beauty of physics and certainly helped shape my world view

>that's a common misconception among laypeople

Unfortunately, it is also a common misperception among both physicists and philosophers, as well. In fact, there may well be good reason to believe that Bohr himself was willfully, perhaps even intentionally, confusing the issue to begin with. After all, we should not presume that, at the dawn of our exploration of quantum weirdness, even the most profoundly brilliant physicists knew just how weird things were going to get. The article seems more than slightly sensationalist, as almost any article on the subject of quantum mechanics is going to be, so it seems more of an inevitable rather than terrible choice for an essay which uses the phrase "quantum philosophy" in its title.

>As for physicalism... Lol, I will never pass up an opportunity to critique that!

The dialectic between a naive physicalism and a comprehensive one makes both critique and criticism unavoidable, I think.

>That your claim is implicit..

You claimed to be interpreting it literally.

Gotcha!! 😁

I must say: for some reason I particularly enjoying arguing with you, although I'm not sure why.

>but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking?

This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.

He's got more recent works that are in my queue to read, but "Reality is Not What It Seems" is not a bad choice. Mileage may vary, depending on one's background.

where should i start?

That your claim is implicit (but clearly indicated by your question and your position, as well as your lack of any other reasoning related to the issue, and confirmed by your subsequent argumentation) does not provide the effortless deniability that this was your premise which you apparently wish it did. It continues to vex you that I am capable of ascertaining your thinking based on your statements (including your queries and requests), but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking? You seem to be highly focused on either claiming or suggesting that I could not be accurately interpreting your words, but the fact that you don't ever bother to provide any more accurate interpretation (instead merely insisting that my interpretation is inaccurate without justifying your insistence beyond unsubstantiated denials bordering on indignation) actually ratifies my perceptions about your meaning and your beliefs, rather than contradicting them.

A god’s eye view is impossible pretty much by definition. Where would the information that contains this view reside?

Deleuze and Guattari worked with Isabelle Stengers when she was their student and the assistant of chemistry Nobel prize Ilya Prigogine. Their ontology developed in 1000 Plateaus is an attempt at creating a metaphysics for the time of quantum mechanics.

Speed of causality. It’s how fast particles can influence each other via interactions (mediated by “virtual” particles).

Lmao @downvotes. See here on speed of causality https://youtu.be/msVuCEs8Ydo

Zizek has discussed how quantum physics might play into philosophy in several talks and lectures. I am an idiot so I personally cannot go into detail as to how he describes it but I suggest people check it out to see how a well known and highly regarded philosopher addresses quantum physics as part of a philosophical cosmology.

Agreeing. It seems strange to me that the author of the article got that wrong; that's a common misconception among laypeople, but if you're writing an article about it??? Seems like at least a terrible choice of words.

As for physicalism... Lol, I will never pass up an opportunity to critique that!

I don't remember details nor where I watched it anymore, but as far I remember, she was "debunking" panpsychism with some arguments which were showing that she doesn't understand what panpsychism is claiming in the first place. Something along the lines of, electrons cannot make conscious decisions therefore they cannot be conscious

EDIT: ok, here is her post. A load of bullcrap:

backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html

>>>> Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?

>>> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.

>> Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.

> You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way [than literally].

Ok then: please point out the portion of my text where I explicitly make the claim you say I have.

I don't get it.

I'm not in that field so I wouldn't know. I do see she's got an h-index of 31, which is not bad, to say the least. Do you have some more info?

I can't tell what your point is, or even whether you mean to agree with or dispute my comment.

1. While it appears to be spooky action at a distance, there's no actual information travelling faster than the speed of light.

2. This is a issue of interpretations of quantum mechanics, probably the most interesting point to consider. Does physics describe the universe? Or does physics only describe what we can know about the universe? In QM we learn that particles aren't like billiard balls bouncing around. Rather, they exist as probability density clouds, which describe where a particle is likely to appear when measured. Importantly though, the particle doesn't *not exist* until it is measured, because the particle *IS* its probability cloud.

3. While retrocausality might appear to be happening, again there's not actually any information travelling backwards in time.

4. This is completely true, but this is really a consequence of Einstein's relativity.

>Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.

You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way.

>Then you should abandon it.

I am not the one professing the false premise. I find it almost too hard to believe you aren't aware you failed to interpret which premise I was referencing. To clarify, it was your premise (unstated, but unavoidable, and by no means rebutted by your accusatory dismissal and semantic gamesmanship) that whether something is true is identical to whether it can be presented as pseudo-code (and, further, that whether you are convinced to believe it, by that effort or any other, is identical to whether it has been objectively (logically) proven).

>You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged.

I do not need that for my position to be sound. You are the one that quantified the "rigging". I merely took your premise to be valid, and explained why it does not support the conclusion you expected it to.

>You are speculating, necessarily.

Indeed, necessarily so: as I seem to constantly have to remind you, all reasoning is speculation. Even the kind that relies on pseudo-code. But, in that way, you are merely speculating (but unnecessarily) that I am speculating, and have not provided any reason to believe my speculation is inaccurate even if your speculation is accurate. When will you abandon these semantic games, iiioiia? You just keep frustrating yourself more and more with every effort, by failing to even supply a coherent disputation of my conjectures.

>They are to some degree,

LOL.

>in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere,

Examining a system doesn't require knowledge of what is going on "everywhere", only within the system. By suggesting that some putative systems are black boxes (but providing no reasoning or analysis to allow us to identify which ones are) you must necessarily be insinuating that the particular (though hypothetic) system being considered is a black box, or you are just babbling. Absolute knowledge of what is going on within the system could be assumed to be essential, yes, but by quantifying the proportion of 'rigging' so precisely (and, I might suggest, minutely) you have forced the idea that such knowledge is available as part of your premise. I simply took you at your word, which is to say, I interpreted your text literally and with a calm mind.

>Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.

I dispute your idealistic notion, with no movement of any imaginary goalposts necessary. Your assumption that any system can ever or must be 100% reliable is... braindead. A characteristic which is acceptable in pseudo-code, but not actual reasoning.

>Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.

I do so with every word, despite your increasingly desperate contentions to the contrary. And you, also, like it or not, do the same: with every word you post, you reveal how braindead your reasoning is. It's nothing to be ashamed of; wishing that your thoughts had the precision and consistency of logic, pseudo-code, and computation is endemic in these postmodern times. But it is still an error, and both your reasoning and your attitude would be improved by abandoning it, as it is a vain hope and a dead end, philosophically speaking.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

"Observation" doesn't even mean "looking at," it means making a measurement with equipment that intra-acts with the particle.

Also you don't need quantum physics to challenge that kind of physicalism: that comes down to a logical absurdity.

What do you mean, "iffy takes on panpsychism?"

Yes, libertarian free will is self contradictory, I didn't make it clear that I wasn't making a case for that position in specific, my bad.

She's not cool, she's a professional physics shit poster. No one in the field takes her seriously but she lands all kind of media interviews so she's happy.

May be commenting on the fact we can't know the actual true speed if light due to relative positioning.