Has Science found evidence of the Mandela Effect?

a reply to: nemonimity

Well it is quite clear that this little cat in box experiment has produced two different realities for you and the one your arguing against.

I purpose we call those realities, opinions, possibly even view points, and move on. But only because I do not believe that both viewpoints are any vantage points in new insights.

Once again quantum theory strikes with deadly accuracy, producing two different interpretations or even outcomes, and possibly believes, from one singular event. Who would have known that a cat in a box could produce such outcome. And mess. Right?

Personally, I find it supremely ironic that someone promoting quantum theory as a possible explanation for different observed realities could be so rigidly unreceptive to different perspectives on the concept.

If this hypothesis is true, wouldn't it be possible for each of us to experience a different reality, with different events, histories and rules? Isn't that, after all, the essence of the Mandela Effect?

Are there many truths, or only one?

If there are many, then the Mandela Effect -- and just about anything else, including quantum theory -- might function differently in each of them, with none of them more true than any other, except perhaps in the minds of those who inhabit them. And yet somehow they interact in a way that allows each of us to relate our different, unique and potentially contradictory experiences across them.

But if there's only one, then the Mandela Effect is not explained by quantum theory, whether correctly or incorrectly conjectured, interpreted or applied.

When anything could be right, how can you know what's wrong?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: neoholographic


Qunatum Mechanics has got to be one of the dumbest theories man has come up with. We are going to look back on this time in 100 years and laugh at the stuff these Quantum Physicists believed. I am more a Bohmian Mechanics guy myself, it explains most of the qunatum phenomena observed using common sense. Quantum Physics is a pseudo science at best.

QM has some of THE most proven theories in the whole of science. Sometimes to an amazing level of accuracy. Just because you are too dumb to understand it or just haven't done your research.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Agreed, best to agree to disagree.

a reply to: Majic

You said:

If there are many, then the Mandela Effect -- and just about anything else, including quantum theory -- might function differently in each of them,

This is just not the case.

You're talking about a scientific myth that doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. Even Hawking talked about this myth in his last paper.

The myth is, that there's a multiverse with all of these different laws of physics. This is a pipe dream because Physicist can't explain why the universe is so fine tuned.

So you have things like the String Theory landscape with 10^500 false vacua.

These other timelines would exist in the same space as ours and therefore share the same physics that we do. Many of them will have different histories and different versions of us. Universal Consciousness can have an infinity of me experiences. If you want to know more check out my threads:

Entropy and the Conscious Universe
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Time isn't real so what does that mean?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hawking's paper on Parallel Universes proves my point
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So there's will be pocket universes that share the same space but we can't see them because of the speed of light. This can never be reduced to zero if QM is universal. Therefore, timelines from these different universes will interact on occasion.

This is the Mandela Effect and exactly what's being talked about in the thought experiment.

a reply to: neoholographic

I suppose a more direct way to put it would be to observe that presenting so much conjecture as if it's fact, then defending it with emphatic dismissals of alternative possibilities, isn't as persuasive a tactic as it might seem on the surface.

This is particularly so in the context of the Mandela Effect, the nature of which -- let alone the range of possible explanations -- is by no means a matter of universal agreement or in any way settled.

Could the Mandela Effect be a consequence of the fundamental nature of reality? Perhaps.

But it is far more likely a consequence of the well-established malleability and unreliability of subjective human memory. To postulate beyond that without eliminating it as a possible cause is to move firmly into the realm of speculation.

What explanatory role would quantum theory play if the "Mandela Effect" was nothing more than yet another among countless examples of human fallibility?

Given that the very nature of the phenomenon involves conflicting memories, and therefore relies entirely on reports that can't be independently verified, that would indeed be "talking about a scientific myth that doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it."

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

Quantum theory, along with its offshoots and variants, is a theory. It is an attempt to explain observed physical phenomena and is an evolving, and thus inherently changing, conceptual model. The fact that there are different interpretations of it, such as the Copenhagen interpretation in this case, speaks plainly enough to that.

As quantum theory has developed, it has become increasingly capable of predicting and agreeing with a remarkable range of experimental observations, but it doesn't explain everything, leaves a tremendous number of problems unsolved and does not drive any nails into the "coffin of objective reality." Rather, it offers plenty of room for improvement and eventual replacement with a more comprehensive theory, ideally one not confounded by paradoxes.

Thought experiments such as these are ways of challenging existing theories, identifying potential weaknesses in them and suggesting new lines of investigation. And that's how science works.

Which brings us back to my favorite subject, which is the Law of Irony. In this case, it is illustrated brilliantly by the last line of the source article (and mentioned earlier by a fellow ATSer):

"Most people claim that the experiment shows that their interpretation is the only one that is correct."

Talk about Q.E.D.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking nor would I in any way want to discourage speculation or conjecture. That is, after all, the overwhelming majority of what we do around here.

I fully and wholeheartedly respect your and anyone else's opinions on this and any subject, whether I might personally agree with them or not, and acknowledge that I most definitely could be wrong about this or anything.

I just think you would enjoy greater success if you were to do the same.

a reply to: Majic

A long winded post that says nothing. Your post has nothing to do with science or anything I've posted. You said:

Could the Mandela Effect be a consequence of the fundamental nature of reality? Perhaps.

But it is far more likely a consequence of the well-established malleability and unreliability of subjective human memory. To postulate beyond that without eliminating it as a possible cause is to move firmly into the realm of speculation.

Why is it far more likely? Please explain and do so with actual evidence not just hyperbole.

Secondly, of course some of these things could be examples of faulty memory but that doesn't mean they all are. This is the problem. You make a statement that's basically says nothing. We're in a Scientific forum and I made a specific argument based on current scientific understanding with links and quotes from respected Scientist. Your post is devoid of any science at all.

You said:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

Once again, no Science just vacuous opinion. How am I misinterpreting Frauchiger and Renner? I'll bet you have no clue as to what it means but you will make a statement in a vacuum that I'm misinterpreting it. I explained it step by step and with each step how it relates to the OP.

So, please explain how I misinterpreted it when one of the authors of the thought experiment says this:

Renner said. “In particular, we don’t know whether it extends to objects the size of humans and even lesser, [whether] it extends to objects the size of black holes.”

So the thought experiment isn't about theoretical inconsistencies. It's about what happens with QM as it relates to complex systems. So there's no inconsistencies with theories but assumption made about how QM should behave on a classical level if QM is universal.

You said:

I just think you would enjoy greater success if you were to do the same.

I would do the same but I'm not going to acknowledge a vacuous post devoid of Science when we're on a scientific forum. You offer no scientific evidence to support anything you're saying and no scientific evidence to refute anything that I've posted.

So please, in your next long winded post about nothing, try to explain step by step where I misinterpreted Frauchiger and Renner. This is a science debate not vacuous statements devoid of evidence. Again, you said:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect."

I thoroughly explained why I came to this conclusion based on the Scientist who authored the thought experiment. Please, refute what I'm saying based on Science not hyperbole and show me exactly where I misinterpreted what they were saying. Renner said this:

“So, both of them are talking about the past event, and they are both sure what it was, but their statements are exactly opposite,” Renner said. “And that’s the contradiction. That shows something must be wrong.”

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAULTY MEMORY!

Renner is saying, quite explicitly, That the two observers in the experiment are talking about a past event (Mandela leaving jail). One says, Mandela died in jail so he left jail dead, another is saying he got out of jail and was alive. Both observers are sure it happened the way they say that it happened but obviously what they're saying is a contradiction.

This isn't about faulty memory but it's saying if QM is universal then the two observers different outcomes for a singular measurement that's supposed to be certain. Now this is just based on assumption of QM that all measurements are supposed yield the same outcome for all observers and it shouldn't be a contradiction like one observer says it's heads but the other observer says it's tails. But again, this assumption has never been tested and it makes just as much sense to assume that on occasion observers to get contradictory results of a measurement.

It's an even stronger assumption based on the work of Frauchiger and Renner.

Please, no more vacuous post devoid of science. You stated I misinterpreted this, so step by step explain how and please use Science not vacuous nothingness!

Betteridge's Law Of Headlines

originally posted by: neoholographic
A long winded post that says nothing. Your post has nothing to do with science or anything I've posted.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And again with the irony, since this is probably the most succinct and accurate description of your own posts so far. It's projection writ large.

You are presenting your personal beliefs as "science" and dismissing anything that doesn't agree with them as "nothing to do with science". That's not how science works.

Science is a process of inquiry, not advocacy, and you are not its sole arbiter.

Wrapping unsubstantiated declarations of faith in a mantle of pseudoscience is not science, just a less honest version of theology wrapped in false claims of authority. Doing it over and over again using slightly rearranged versions of the same gobbledygook is tedious and pointless.

You're not actually arguing against me or anyone else. You're defending your own painfully obvious misconceptions by summarily dismissing any points of view that don't reinforce them with a remarkable degree of hostility.

Why would anyone want to play along with such nonsense?

If you don't agree with my or anyone else's opinions, that's fine, and it would be great to be able to talk about why. But your flat, unyielding and insulting misrepresentations of any opinion not your own amount to a form of insularity intractable enough to preclude discussion altogether.

a reply to: Majic

Just what I figured, a long winded post devoid of any science.

I have debated people throughout this thread and simply asked for someone to refute what I'm saying with science if they don't agree.

THIS IS THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORUM!

You made a specific accusation. You said:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

I said, point out how I'm misrepresenting the experiment based on Science.

What do you do? You provide another long post devoid of any science. You sound ridiculous. Of course I will debate other's opinions and I have been doing that since I've been on ATS.

What I will not do, is let people like you make these vacuous comments filled with nothing and devoid of Science go unchallenged.

Again, you made a specific claim that has to do with Science. You said:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

In a scientific debate, I asked you to show me exactly where I'm misrepresenting Frauchiger and Renner. So I ask again, please point out exactly where I'm making this misrepresentation.

I'm not asking for meaningless pontification like this:

Science is a process of inquiry, not advocacy, and you are not its sole arbiter. Wrapping unsubstantiated declarations of faith in a mantle of pseudoscience is not science, just a less honest version of theology wrapped in false claims of authority. Doing it over and over again using slightly rearranged versions of the same gobbledygook is tedious and pointless.

This is just utter nonsense to mask the fact that you don't have any idea about the science that's being discussed. You just saw the words Mandela Effect and blindly posted a bunch of nonsense.

I'm not asking for long speeches devoid of Science. You made a specific accusation that I misrepresented the Frauchiger and Renner.

Please provide a scientific explanation that points to the exact areas in my post where I made these misrepresentations.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Just what I figured, a long winded post devoid of any science.

Self-parody this profound can't be an accident.

If there is anything that is indisputable at this point, it's that you are not an authority on what constitutes science or what belongs in the Science & Technology forum.

Using such arguments in combination with insults in transparent attempts to shut down discussion borders on trolling, but I'm here to comment, not to moderate. Your own attempts to moderate are derailing your own thread, and I am not going to play along with them.

If you really want to discuss the Mandela Effect, that's fine, but if all you have to offer are egotistical assertions, gratuitous goalpost shifting and obnoxious dismissals of anything you don't agree with, which is our story so far, that's a price of admission no one should be expected to pay.

At the very least, please stop repetitively invoking "science" as if it's some sort of totem that gives you power. It's pathetic.

a reply to: Majic

LOL, you don't understand what's being said. You're the one that posted on this thread in the Science and Technology forum and made a specific scientific accusation. You said:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

I simply asked you to point out exactly where I was misrepresenting Frauchiger and Renner. A simple response to your accusation. For three post now, you haven't uttered a word of science. You're just pontificating that somehow I'm forcing my opinion on you because I asked you to back up your claim that I was misrepresenting Frauchiger and Renner.

Here's some more Science. This is from Frauchiger and Renner's published paper.

Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner.

It then posits this example in the conclusion:

Current interpretations of quantum theory do not agree on the origin of this contradiction (cf. Table 4). To compare the different views, it may therefore be useful to rephrase the experiment as a concrete game-theoretic decision problem. Suppose that a casino offers the following gambling game. One round of the experiment of Box 1 is played, with the gambler in the role of agent W, and the roles of F¯¯¯, F, and W¯¯¯¯¯ taken by employees of the casino. The casino promises to pay €1000 to the gambler if F’s random value was r = heads. Conversely, if r = tails, the gambler must pay €500 to the casino. It could now happen that, at the end of the game, w = ok and w¯¯¯¯=ok¯¯¯¯¯, and that a judge can convince herself of this outcome. The gambler and the casino are then likely to end up in a dispute, putting forward arguments taken from Table 3.

Gambler: “The outcome w = ok proves, due to (4), that S was not prepared in state ∣→⟩S. This means that r = heads and hence the casino must pay me €1000.”

Casino: “The outcome w¯¯¯¯=ok¯¯¯¯¯ implies, due to (6), that our employee observed z = + ½. This in turn proves that S was not prepared in state ∣↓⟩S. But this means that r = tails, so the gambler must pay us €500.”

How should the judge decide on this case? Could it even be that both assertions must be accepted as two “alternative facts” about what the value r was? We leave it as a task for further research to explore what the different interpretations of quantum mechanics have to say about this game.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

WOW! JUST WOW!!

This supports yet again, exactly what I've been saying.

You made a specific, scientific accusation. You said:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

I ask you for the umpteenth time, can you simply show me exactly where I'm making these misinterpretations.

Why is this so hard to respond to when you made the assertion?

I suspect it's because you don't understand the science behind what's being said but you want to pontificate with a bunch of nothing. How is it forcing my opinion on you when I ask you to explain your assertion that I misrepresented Frauchiger and Renner?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why is this so hard to respond to when you made the assertion?

The constant barrage of denigrating remarks and presumptuous, offhand insults make it hard.

Knock off the insults and snide ruminations about what I do or don't understand, and I'll be happy to discuss the subject.

a reply to: Majic

LOL, there's no denigrating remarks or insults. I've been on ATS since 2012 and sometimes debates get testy and I have been in many debates that are much worse than anything said in this thread.

At the end of the day, I asked you to simply explain your assertion that:

Likewise, I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect." Maybe, but probably not, since its intent is to examine theoretical inconsistencies.

You have spent 4 or 5 posts now doing everything but explaining where I misinterpreted Frauchiger and Renner.

If you knew this, you would have simply said 3 posts ago that you misrepresent them when you say A, B, C and D. Then we could have debated your response based on current scientific understanding.

Instead, you're talking about everything but science when I'm making a scientific argument. So could you please provide a scientific explanation as to why I'm misrepresenting Frauchiger and Renner and please include links to back up any of your assertions.

IS THIS TOO MUCH TO ASK IN A DEBATE IN THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORUM? SHEESH!!

multiple posts

multiple posts

a reply to: neoholographic

This is science talking about the Mandela Effect. It's saying when you apply Quantum Theory to complex systems, you have this effect where 2 observers can observe 2 different events on a singular timeline. This effect would be small but noticeable and WE HAVE NOTICED!

I was wondering about the "singular timeline" you refer to. The experimental procedure is a sequence of events as described in the paper (see Box 1 below). Each measurement is connected to the previous measurement via information which enable him/her to draw a conclusion or make a statement (see Table 3 below). I don't think the timeline has anything to do with the outcome. Whether the experiments were 1 minute apart or 5 hours apart, the experiment shows that QM may not be able to describe macroscopic complex systems without some modification (which hasn't been discovered yet). Table 4 below describes the various interpretations of QM and where each inconsistency lies for each interpretation.

Box 1


Table 2


Table 3


Table 4




The authors state:

In this work we propose a Gedankenexperiment that extends Wigner’s setup. It consists of agents who are using quantum theory to reason about other agents who are also using quantum theory. Our main finding is that such a self-referential use of the theory yields contradictory claims. This result can be phrased as a no-go theorem (Theorem 1). It asserts that three natural-sounding assumptions, (Q), (C), and (S), cannot all be valid. Assumption (Q) captures the universal validity of quantum theory (or, more specifically, that an agent can be certain that a given proposition holds whenever the quantum-mechanical Born rule assigns probability-1 to it). Assumption (C) demands consistency, in the sense that the different agents’ predictions are not contradictory. Finally, (S) is the requirement that, from the viewpoint of an agent who carries out a particular measurement, this measurement has one single outcome.The theorem itself is neutral in the sense that it does not tell us which of these three assumptions is wrong. However, it implies that any specific interpretation of quantum theory, when applied to the Gedankenexperiment, will necessarily conflict with at least one of them. This gives a way to test and categorise interpretations of quantum theory.

How does any of this relate to the Mandela Effect? I don't know much about it but from what I have read, it proposes that memories can somehow be "adjusted" to reflect a different set of events than what was originally recorded. The actual measurements carried out, as described in Table 2, simply show the relevant vectors for each segment of the experiment.

Where do the "memories" or events change which would influence the conclusions of the agents?

a reply to: Phantom423

You answered your own post. The authors are talking about specific assumptions made in QM.

This is why this is being hotly debated since it was published and in the discussion the authors talk about two observers or what they call agents getting 2 contradictory results from a single measurement.

This is impossible on a singular timeline. At least, this is an assumption of QM.

So the whole paper is about whether QM is universal. So if you apply QM to complex systems like humans you will get opposite results for a singular measurement.

This is the Mandela Effect. I'm saying there's no contradiction because QM is universal and on occasion there will be contradictory results for a single measurement. This is why the authors gave a pretty self explanatory explanation in the Discussion.

Current interpretations of quantum theory do not agree on the origin of this contradiction (cf. Table 4). To compare the different views, it may therefore be useful to rephrase the experiment as a concrete game-theoretic decision problem. Suppose that a casino offers the following gambling game. One round of the experiment of Box 1 is played, with the gambler in the role of agent W, and the roles of F¯¯¯, F, and W¯¯¯¯¯ taken by employees of the casino. The casino promises to pay €1000 to the gambler if F’s random value was r = heads. Conversely, if r = tails, the gambler must pay €500 to the casino. It could now happen that, at the end of the game, w = ok and w¯¯¯¯=ok¯¯¯¯¯, and that a judge can convince herself of this outcome. The gambler and the casino are then likely to end up in a dispute, putting forward arguments taken from Table 3.

Gambler: “The outcome w = ok proves, due to (4), that S was not prepared in state ∣→⟩S. This means that r = heads and hence the casino must pay me €1000.”

Casino: “The outcome w¯¯¯¯=ok¯¯¯¯¯ implies, due to (6), that our employee observed z = + ½. This in turn proves that S was not prepared in state ∣↓⟩S. But this means that r = tails, so the gambler must pay us €500.”

How should the judge decide on this case? Could it even be that both assertions must be accepted as two “alternative facts” about what the value r was? We leave it as a task for further research to explore what the different interpretations of quantum mechanics have to say about this game.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

They're simply saying that there result implies that 2 agents(observers) will see to different outcomes on occasion if QM is universal. They explain this in the abstract.

Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner.

Again, this is exactly what I've been saying.

1. THE EXPERIMENT SEEKS TO INVESTIGATE THE QUESTION, IS QM VALID UNIVERSALLY MEANING ON A MICRO AND MACRO LEVEL.

Here's the kicker that ties directly to the Mandela Effect. They say:

The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner.

Very important because the Authors are careful and they say INDICATES. This indication is just an assumption and they go over this assumption in the paper. The assumption is you can't have contradictory observations from different agents from a single measurement that should be certain.

originally posted by: neoholographic
LOL, there's no denigrating remarks or insults. I've been on ATS since 2012 and sometimes debates get testy and I have been in many debates that are much worse than anything said in this thread.

Yeah, I've been here for a while, too, and have definitely seen worse as well. I also know a thing or two about denigrating remarks and insults, and how some people think they're "flying below the radar" when in fact they are not.

So when you pepper your posts with derogatory comments, I know precisely what I'm seeing. Hopefully, I'm making it as clear as I possibly can that doing so is unacceptable, and I won't be letting it slide.

Of course, I've said some pretty derogatory things myself, for which I apologize, and I will endeavor to refrain from doing so going forward. If you're okay with that, and are willing to reciprocate, then let's try and move on.

...

I said I think you're misinterpreting the significance of Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment when you claim it's "science talking about the Mandela Effect."

You're the one talking about the Mandela Effect, and invoking "science" to make a connection between it and this thought experiment.

The experiment doesn't actually prove anything. Rather, it is an elaboration of the Schrödinger's Cat Paradox, which is a famous critique of the Copenhagen interpretation's indeterministic description of wave function collapse, to which he did not subscribe.

Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment further examines potential consequences of quantum indeterminacy by suggesting the Copenhagen interpretation is not internally consistent, and using multiple observers to illustrate the problem.

As with Schrödinger, they're describing problems with theory, not something expected in reality, which makes it an unlikely candidate for explaining the Mandela Effect.

You seem to disagree with Frauchiger and Renner's own conclusions regarding the applicability of the experiment to complex systems by replacing at least one of their assumptions with assumptions of your own, but in doing so, you're making assertions that are not supported by the experiment.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for the response. But I'm wondering about this:

systems like humans you will get opposite results for a singular measurement

Will you always get the opposite result or is it variable? If that were true, then it's a slam-dunk. The way I'm reading it |ok> can be true or false. In other words, there's no certainty about W's outcome. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me it's like a gate in a quantum computer that has no "structure" or a code with many variables. It's arbitrary (if that's possible). It doesn't say anything other than there's something missing. It's almost like the three body problem - Q, C and S must have hidden variables.

Another question I had was why does the experimental procedure need "r"? Suppose K(bar) decided the direction of polarisation on her own. Would it make a difference? Once K(bar) knows (or observes) the polarisation, the wave function should collapse. She passes a fixed "s" spin state on to K. When W(bar) makes his measurement of L(bar), "s" has moved to K. But his measurement doesn't care what's in the complex system - his measurement only cares about the outcome.

So when W finally makes his measurement, he can make all sorts of assumptions - but in fact, I don't think he knows anything about the macroscopic system he's measuring. He's measuring components which may or may not be there.

Crazy stuff. Good night. Thanks for bringing up that article.

a reply to: Majic

You said:

Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment further examines potential consequences of quantum indeterminacy by suggesting the Copenhagen interpretation is not internally consistent, and using multiple observers to illustrate the problem.

Specifically what they do is a common fallacy or what I called hubris of Scientist. He tried to refute one interpretation with another interpretation. Specifically, they used the Consistent histories interpretation in this instance. They realize what they're doing is wrong so they use all sorts of qualifiers in the paper.



Notice how they have an x under c for consistent histories and Copenhagen but they use consistent histories to refute Copenhagen. This is what they said under assumption C.

If a theory satisfies (Q) and (S) then, by Theorem 1, it must violate (C). This conclusion applies to a wide range of common readings of quantum mechanics, including most variants of the Copenhagen interpretation. One concrete example is the “consistent histories” (CH) formalism33–35, which is also similar to the “decoherent histories” approach36,37. Another class of examples are subjectivistic interpretations, which regard statements about outcomes of measurements as personal to an agent, such as “relational quantum mechanics”38, “QBism”39,40, or the approach proposed in ref. 9 (see Methods section for a discussion of the CH formalism as well as QBism).

Again they label this:

Theories that violate Assumption (C)

Again, it's an ASSUMPTION that CH formalism can refute Copenhagen because it says that their must be a consistent history for each event. Therefore observers should never see contradictory outcomes while observing the same event. This is just an assumption. They go on to say later in the paper, in a section called:

Analysis within the CH formalism

The CH formalism accounts for this disagreement by imposing the rule that logical reasoning must be constrained to histories that belong to a single framework

They're telling you that they're using consistent histories in their assumption C which makes no sense to me. I know why it makes sense to most Scientist though. It's because of hubris.

As I mentioned earlier, they have a smorgasbord of interpretations of QM because to them everything must be "logically consistent." In this case, "logically consistent" means you can't have what they call "alternative facts" for a single event.

They admit this is just an assumption and most Scientist accept this assumption and this hubris has led to all of these interpretations of QM. In this case, what's logically consistent is subjective as with all interpretations.

This is why proponents of each interpretation will claim they have evidence to support their interpretation. These interpretations are born out of the subjective hubris of Scientist. This hubris says that QM is too weird and therefore we need an interpretation to translate QM to the classical world.

I disagree VEHEMENTLY with this. All of these interpretations are false because they look to explain a problem created by the Scientist themselves because collectively they came to the subjective conclusion that QM needs an interpretation because it's too weird.

I look at QM as universal and therefore there's no need of an interpretation. I accept that what they call weirdness is subjective and it manifest itself in the classical world. They try to sweep under the rug and call it Paranormal and Psi, but as I have shown over the years in this forum and others there's a ton of evidence to support these things and you should see the Mandela Effect, other strange coincidences, Twin Telepathy and more. This is because QM is universal. This is why I reject all interpretations because all interpretations can provide evidence that their the one true interpretation which makes this interpretation game an exercise in futility. Here's one of my threads about Psi.

The Reality of Psi: Leading Journal Publishes Paper Revealing the Evidence

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You said:

As with Schrödinger, they're describing problems with theory, not something expected in reality, which makes it an unlikely candidate for explaining the Mandela Effect.

Not expected in reality by whom? Since I've been on ATS, I have pointed out a myriad of things that we should see manifest in the classical world that many, because of blind materialism, dismiss out of hand and the things I'm talking about have more evidence to support them then the evidence they have for their subjective interpretations of QM.

Entanglement wasn't expected in reality. This is why Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen came up with the thought experiment. This was to show that if QM was a correct description of reality, then you would have this "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it. This spooky action wasn't something expected to be in reality. Today, this "spooky action" has been confirmed over and over again in experiments and is now being connected to everything from the geometry of space-time to gravity.

What I'm saying, is Frauchinger's and Renners thought experiment doesn't show inconsistency but it validates that QM is universal. You can't use subjective interpretations to invalidate the universality of QM. If we just take QM for what it says and strip away these interpretations, it's plain to see QM is universal. When Scientist inject their need for an interpretation because QM is too weird, it just muddies everything and you have a smorgasbord of contradictory interpretations that just continue to grow.