Theories of Consciousness

[Atla]

False dichotomy. Idealism is a non-dualistic stance.

Monistic, and according to the imo really incompetent Western philosophers who pretend that idealism and materialism aren't subtle dualisms. But they are based on the original mental/material split hence dualistic.

How do the two differ? I mean, often the philosophical one stands opposed to the special case of mind-dependent reality, while QM gets far more general and specific and nails it down to two systems interacting in any way that entangles their states. But fundamentally, they're both the same thing IMO.

Philosophical anti-realism says that there is no mind-independent, objective external world. That already means that there can be no two objectively existing physical systems that can interact.

Then I find the view that QM can be explained by interacting systems to be a non-serious attempt. The universe isn't made up of interacting systems. The universe is one "system", and the concept of "interaction" is just handwaving that can't ultimately explain anything.

Main point still stands: One cannot have philosophical realism without accepting retro-causal physics. Most philosophers don't know their physics and ignore that, which is why I took it upon myself to learn enough physics to put all these old views to the test.

It might be normal to take those two stances, but I find that the statement boils down to it being normal to hold self-inconsistent views. I do it myself, so I agree on the normality of it.

And I disagree with that, I think we just need to extend determinism to all things quantum. Take Wheeler's cosmic delayed-choice thought experiment for example. One way to look at it is that we cause the past to be a certain way, from the present. Another way to look at it is that the universe is deterministic (and nonlocal), including quantum behaviour, so Wheeler couldn't have made any other choice.

QM does say though imo that time doesn't really exist. It's more like an emergent property but not fundamental.

Unless what I'm saying is inconsistent, then explain how.

[Noax]

But they are based on the original mental/material split hence dualistic.

You'll have to explain how say materialism is dualistic. Its history of being essentially a denial of the dualism split does not make it based on that split.

How do the two [philosophical vs quantum realism] differ?

Philosophical anti-realism says that there is no mind-independent, objective external world. That already means that there can be no two objectively existing physical systems that can interact.[/quote]That isn't a distinction, since quantum anti-realism (denial of PoCD) says the same thing.

Then I find the view that QM can be explained by interacting systems to be a non-serious attempt. The universe isn't made up of interacting systems.

Says an alta system.

I think we just need to extend determinism to all things quantum. Take Wheeler's cosmic delayed-choice thought experiment for example. One way to look at it is that we cause the past to be a certain way, from the present. Another way to look at it is that the universe is deterministic (and nonlocal), including quantum behaviour, so Wheeler couldn't have made any other choice.

Most local interpretations, even the non-deterministic ones, don't require any reverse causality to explain such experiments.
For the record, the experiment is named after Wheeler, but no human does any choosing in it. What you are describing is not determinism, but superdeterminism. Yes, that's a possibility, but so outrageous that it isn't even listed as a valid interpretation since it (like a few other views) renders all empirical evidence invalid.

QM does say though imo that time doesn't really exist.

New we're dragging that in? What are clocks measuring if not time? I suspect it is a different definition of time that you suggest doesn't exist, but then it needs to be spelled out. Otherwise it is similar to saying that length doesn't exist despite my tape measure suggesting otherwise.

I don't think any part of quantum theory or interpretation depends on one's stance on the existence or nonexistence of time.

[Atla]

You'll have to explain how say materialism is dualistic. Its history of being essentially a denial of the dualism split does not make it based on that split.

They split reality into the mental and the material, and then decided that there is only the material but not the mental. For centuries Western philosophers were too incompetent to realize that this kept the split, it's just so deeply embedded in our thinking that we no longer notice it.

Why do you think they completely failed to solve the (hard) problem of consciousness for centuries?

I'm a non-Western nondualist which truly does away with this split and automatically solves the (hard) problem of consciousness.

That isn't a distinction, since quantum anti-realism (denial of PoCD) says the same thing.

What's PoCD? Quantum anti-realism allows for the objectively existing reality, we just always see our measurement-dependent part of it. Philosophical anti-realism denies the objectively existing reality altogether.

Says an alta system.

There is no Atla system obviously, Atla is continuous with his environment.

Most local interpretations, even the non-deterministic ones, don't require any reverse causality to explain such experiments.
For the record, the experiment is named after Wheeler, but no human does any choosing in it. What you are describing is not determinism, but superdeterminism. Yes, that's a possibility, but so outrageous that it isn't even listed as a valid interpretation since it (like a few other views) renders all empirical evidence invalid.

Superdeterminism is the default best view of our nonlocal universe. I don't see why it would render all empirical evidence invalid. (I don't care if physicists whine about an infinitesimal dent in statistical independence or whatever. What is outrageous imo is that people don't want to accept the universal implications of nonlocality. Even though nonlocality was experimentally confirmed, and that also implies that at least the entire observable universe must be nonlocally entangled.)

[Noax]

They split reality into the mental and the material, and then decided that there is only the material but not the mental. For centuries Western philosophers were too incompetent to realize that this kept the split, it's just so deeply embedded in our thinking that we no longer notice it.

This seems to be your opinion and seems completely contrary to descriptions of materialism I've seen. The view denies any split. Any mental process supervenes on material, very similar to information processing done on silicon.

Why do you think they completely failed to solve the (hard) problem of consciousness for centuries?

That is only a problem for the dualists since it's a dualist problem. I never saw a problem to solve, and I'm not even a materialist.

I'm a non-Western nondualist which truly does away with this split and automatically solves the (hard) problem of consciousness.

Sounds reasonable, at least until phenomena and noumena are the same thing, similar to equating local measurement to a thing that isn't local.

What's PoCD?

Sorry. Principle of Counterfactual Definiteness. That''s the more official term for quantum realism. It stands opposed to the Principle of Locality, PoL, or just 'local'. No valid interpretation can hold both to be true, and several deny both of them. They're both true only in classical physics.

Quantum anti-realism allows for the objectively existing reality, we just always see our measurement-dependent part of it. Philosophical anti-realism denies the objectively existing reality altogether.

I think part of the problem is you're reaching for a distinction between the two anti-realisms. Point sort of taken though. An interpretation that denies PoCD might assert some kind of philosophical realism. It seems that any of them might do that, so in that sense, the two are distinct. MWI for instance denies a meaningful state of a system not measured, and yet asserts the universal wave function to be real in the philosophical sense. That's a distinction. I do not see why the latter assertion is necessary, but that's me. Earth is not objectively real, but a universe that has a finite probability of collapsing to one with an Earth is objectively real. Go figure.

Says an alta system.

There is no Atla system obviously, Atla is continuous with his environment.[/quote]I didn't say 'isolated system'. As for where the system boundaries are, that's an abstraction. I find there to be nothing physical about it, so in that sense, there is just an environment and the alta-part is whatever something abstracts it to be. Some things really are ideals, even if ideals are not fundamental.

Superdeterminism is the default best view of our nonlocal universe.

It isn't a view at all. Default throwing your hands in the air maybe.

I don't see why it would render all empirical evidence invalid.

Then you don't know superdeterminism. It says that there are monsters everywhere and there is an active deterministic conspiracy that prevents you from ever by chance looking in the right direction to see one. You are always compelled to make exactly the wrong choices in any experiment. All empirical knowledge is forfeit since the conspiracy feeds you lies. It's much like BiV in that respect.

What is outrageous imo is that people don't want to accept the universal implications of nonlocality.

Plenty accept those implications. That's what Bohmian mechanics is for, a reasonably well populated bandwagon. My beef with it is the stupid complexity required compared to the raw simplicity of some of the local ones. Occam would not have jumped on with Bohm.

Even though nonlocality was experimentally confirmed

Izzat a fact? So every local interpretation has been falsified. News to me.
Oh, I'm sure somebody published such a claim, just like the occasional claim to have proven any pair of mutually contradictory philosophical stances. The proofs never turn out to be valid. Even an armchair idiot like me manages to find the flaw in most of them.

[Atla]

This seems to be your opinion and seems completely contrary to descriptions of materialism I've seen. The view denies any split. Any mental process supervenes on material, very similar to information processing done on silicon.

Exactly, imo literally all descriptons of materialism are wrong, Western philosophy is that wrong on this. Billions of Westerners are living their entire lives in dualistic delusion, I was too.

When we say that it "supervenes", we are actually talking about a subtle form of dualism that we automatically sweep under the rug without realizing. "Supervenes" is a fiction, it doesn't mean anything fundamentally.

When we say "information processing done on silicon", we are actually talking about a subtle form of dualism that we automatically sweep under the rug without realizing. "Information" doesn't mean anything fundamentally, it's just abstract handwaving. Of course those who manufacture computer hardware know this, but most other people don't.

I didn't say 'isolated system'. As for where the system boundaries are, that's an abstraction. I find there to be nothing physical about it, so in that sense, there is just an environment and the alta-part is whatever something abstracts it to be. Some things really are ideals, even if ideals are not fundamental.

That was my point: we arbitrarily choose where a system is, where its bounderies are. So imo a system's boundaries can't have fundamental explanatory power in QM, the world is continuous in that sense. Measurement-dependence is a far far deeper problem than that.

Then you don't know superdeterminism. It says that there are monsters everywhere and there is an active deterministic conspiracy that prevents you from ever by chance looking in the right direction to see one. You are always compelled to make exactly the wrong choices in any experiment. All empirical knowledge is forfeit since the conspiracy feeds you lies. It's much like BiV in that respect.

I heard this a few times before and as someone who thinks the universe is nonlocal and deterministic, I have no idea what it means. That's why I'm not sure what superdeterminism means exactly. It seems to say what I'm saying but it's supposed to be full of monsters. What monsters? What conspiracy? What wrong choices?

Izzat a fact? So every local interpretation has been falsified. News to me.
Oh, I'm sure somebody published such a claim, just like the occasional claim to have proven any pair of mutually contradictory philosophical stances. The proofs never turn out to be valid. Even an armchair idiot like me manages to find the flaw in most of them.

? Yes quantum nonlocality has been robustly confirmed in experiments.. Of course local interpretations have been falsified..

What do you mean? They haven't been?

[Noax]

Exactly, imo literally all descriptons of materialism are wrong, Western philosophy is that wrong on this. Billions of Westerners are living their entire lives in dualistic delusion, I was too.

Sorry, I don't get you. I say materialism is a denial of dualism, and you say 'Exactly', and then you say it is a dualistic delusion. Why not take the view for what it actually says?

When we say that it "supervenes", we are actually talking about a subtle form of dualism

Nonsense. There is no second fundamental thing at all. That's what the word means. If you find it to be a fiction, fine, don't accept the view. I don't. But don't accuse it of something it isn't positing.

It isn't dualism to acknowledge that there is candle, but there is also combustion.

That was my point: we arbitrarily choose where a system is, where its bounderies are.

Agree with that. There's no physical test for it.

So imo a system's boundaries can't have fundamental explanatory power in QM

Sure it can if it works no matter where the boundaries are assigned.

as someone who thinks the universe is nonlocal and deterministic

There are two interpretations listed on wiki that meet this criteria, Bohmian being the more well known. Do you accept something like that interpretation, or do you just make up some other belief? I must admit that I kind of edit one of the interpretations, without any quantum differences, but using different definitions of what a thing is and what 'exists'. For instance, one can still buy into MWI without accepting the objective reality of the universal wave function that Everett suggests.

That's why I'm not sure what superdeterminism means exactly. It seems to say what I'm saying but it's supposed to be full of monsters. What monsters? What conspiracy? What wrong choices?

The monsters are an analogy. The monster is actually the truth, and the conspiracy is to prevent you from any measurement that will give clue as to how physics really works. All that we measure is always the exact thing to make some alternate story look like the truth. An analogy is that our will is coerced to always choose to look at a coin flip only when it comes up heads so we never can know there is a tails side. That's superdeterminism. It's not something to be plausibly believed in because it means all empirical evidence is lies, choices forced on us to only view what is consistent with some story that makes quantum theory look true when in fact it is totally fiction.

? Yes quantum nonlocality has been robustly confirmed in experiments.. Of course local interpretations have been falsified.

[Citation needed] I think it would have made the news if this were the case. Kindly back your claim with this breakthrough nobody has ever heard of. Your merely asserting it just doesn't do it for me. Remember not to presume PoCD (also known as CFD) since none of the local interpretations presume it.
So take for instance simultaneous measurement of a pair of entangled particles a light-minute apart. I do my measurement here. At that point I know what I will measure a minute from now when I learn of what my buddy measured, but that's local knowledge. Presuming that he has in fact already measured a correlated thing is a counterfactual, the meaningful conclusion about a measurement (by me of my buddy) that has yet taken place, very much like presuming the cat to be one specific state instead of a superposition of dead and alive.

[Atla]

Sorry, I don't get you. I say materialism is a denial of dualism, and you say 'Exactly', and then you say it is a dualistic delusion. Why not take the view for what it actually says?

Again, because it doesn't actually say what it claims it says.

Nonsense. There is no second fundamental thing at all. That's what the word means. If you find it to be a fiction, fine, don't accept the view. I don't. But don't accuse it of something it isn't positing.

It isn't dualism to acknowledge that there is candle, but there is also combustion.

Then supervenience doesn't mean anything.

Sure it can if it works no matter where the boundaries are assigned.

Yeah and arbitrary boundaries can't explain measurement-dependence at all, so what's your point?

The monsters are an analogy. The monster is actually the truth, and the conspiracy is to prevent you from any measurement that will give clue as to how physics really works. All that we measure is always the exact thing to make some alternate story look like the truth. An analogy is that our will is coerced to always choose to look at a coin flip only when it comes up heads so we never can know there is a tails side. That's superdeterminism. It's not something to be plausibly believed in because it means all empirical evidence is lies, choices forced on us to only view what is consistent with some story that makes quantum theory look true when in fact it is totally fiction.

Can you explain how they derived the above complete hogwash from determinism + nonlocality?

[Citation needed] I think it would have made the news if this were the case. Kindly back your claim with this breakthrough nobody has ever heard of. Your merely asserting it just doesn't do it for me.

Umm they even handed out the 2022 physics Nobel for it..

[Atla]

Remember not to presume PoCD (also known as CFD) since none of the local interpretations presume it.
So take for instance simultaneous measurement of a pair of entangled particles a light-minute apart. I do my measurement here. At that point I know what I will measure a minute from now when I learn of what my buddy measured, but that's local knowledge. Presuming that he has in fact already measured a correlated thing is a counterfactual, the meaningful conclusion about a measurement (by me of my buddy) that has yet taken place, very much like presuming the cat to be one specific state instead of a superposition of dead and alive.

I'm not sure what to say. Is this a solipsistic line of reasoning? My perspective and my friend's perspective should be equal, are they equal here? If yes then I don't understand what the above says.

[Noax]

Again, because it doesn't actually say what it claims it says.

Unacceptable answer. Tautologically, it says what it says. You cannot assert that it says something other than what it says.

Then supervenience doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does. If I say combustion supervenes on material, that means it is a material process, and it does not mean that combustion is a 2nd kind of fundamental magic, which seems to be what you suggest that supervenience means t you.

Can you explain how they derived the above complete hogwash from determinism + nonlocality?

It's not derived from determinism. Bell's theorem (which has nothing to do with determinism or lack of it) says that classical physics (both locality and CFD) cannot be the case. It is a proof, but superdeterminism is a loophole in the proof. Only under superdeterminism, where all empirical evidence is lies, might Bell's theorem not hold.20

Umm they even handed out the 2022 physics Nobel for it..

Ah, that. They demonstrated that "the universe is not locally real" (a pop headline), which is what Bell already demonstrated 60 years ago. His theorem says that one of locality or CFD (being real in the quantum sense) cannot both be true. That in no way falsifies local interpretations, it just falsifies any interpretation where both locality and reality were true. You choose CFD over locality. That's fine, but it those that choose locality must deny CFD.

Reading up on it, they performed some improved practical Bell-type experiment that closed a potential loophole (not the superdeterminism one I think). It was essentially an improvement in experimental sophistication and techniques, especially in the area of entanglement.

No falsification of locality is mentioned anywhere in the work.

Remember not to presume PoCD

I'm not sure what to say.

Oh, I just said that in case you provided some link to some crackpot argument that makes such assumptions when declaring locality to be bunk. You didn't. You referenced a valid work, but not one that in any way claimed to falsify any interpretation.

[Atla]

Unacceptable answer. Tautologically, it says what it says. You cannot assert that it says something other than what it says.

Okay whatever, then it says what it says and it's irreparably incoherent.

Yes it does. If I say combustion supervenes on material, that means it is a material process, and it does not mean that combustion is a 2nd kind of fundamental magic, which seems to be what you suggest that supervenience means t you.

Supervenience didn't mean anything in the above sentence.

It's not derived from determinism. Bell's theorem (which has nothing to do with determinism or lack of it) says that classical physics (both locality and CFD) cannot be the case. It is a proof, but superdeterminism is a loophole in the proof. Only under superdeterminism, where all empirical evidence is lies, might Bell's theorem not hold.20

It 100% does not follow that under superdeterminism all empirical evidence is lies. I can't believe people actually buy into this.

Ah, that. They demonstrated that "the universe is not locally real" (a pop headline), which is what Bell already demonstrated 60 years ago. His theorem says that one of locality or CFD (being real in the quantum sense) cannot both be true. That in no way falsifies local interpretations, it just falsifies any interpretation where both locality and reality were true. You choose CFD over locality. That's fine, but it those that choose locality must deny CFD.

Reading up on it, they performed some improved practical Bell-type experiment that closed a potential loophole (not the superdeterminism one I think). It was essentially an improvement in experimental sophistication and techniques, especially in the area of entanglement.

No falsification of locality is mentioned anywhere in the work.

Oh, I just said that in case you provided some link to some crackpot argument that makes such assumptions when declaring locality to be bunk. You didn't. You referenced a valid work, but not one that in any way claimed to falsify any interpretation.

Of course locality is bunk, and as I said it's been experimentally proven. Are we really pretending now that solipsism + denial of CFD is a serious option?

The two remaining contenders are nonlocality + CFD and nonlocality + no CFD. Solipsism is always a no-go in any area of philosophy imo. If you're not talking about solipsism then explain how.

[Noax]

Okay whatever, then it says what it says and it's irreparably incoherent.

Irreparably incoherent I can handle. You need to demonstrate that, but yes, showing self inconsistency is a favored way of debunking some view. I personally reject materialism since no matter how close one looks, no actual material has ever, um, 'materialized'. How can it be fundamental if they can't find any of it?

It 100% does not follow that under superdeterminism all empirical evidence is lies. I can't believe people actually buy into this.

Nobody buys into it. I never said they did. I just said it was a loophole in the proof. The theorem is based on empirical evidence, statistics and such from countless experiments. The proof becomes invalid precisely because the empirical evidence is rigged, completely untrustworthy, if there's some malevolent conspiracy preventing unbiased data from being measured.

Of course locality is bunk

Your opinion. Not mine. Neither constitutes evidence one way or the other.

Are we really pretending now that solipsism + denial of CFD is a serious option?

Only Wigner's interpretation leads to solipsism like that, a fact that made Wigner himself abandon it. I actually don't know how ontic Copenhagen describes it. Copenhagen was developed as an epistemological interpretation, which is completely local since the wave function reflects what one knows, not what actually is. The interpretation is not clearly defined.
Something like MWI is local and explains it nicely. No, I'm not an MWI proponent either, but I admire it nonetheless. It wins for simplicity.

Meanwhile, I take more of a relational approach, that what exists (say some remote system state event X) exists relative to some measurement event Y, which is necessarily subsequent to event X. There is no absolute state, so no need to suggest CFD.

[Atla]

Okay whatever, then it says what it says and it's irreparably incoherent.

Irreparably incoherent I can handle. You need to demonstrate that, but yes, showing self inconsistency is a favored way of debunking some view. I personally reject materialism since no matter how close one looks, no actual material has ever, um, 'materialized'. How can it be fundamental if they can't find any of it?

It 100% does not follow that under superdeterminism all empirical evidence is lies. I can't believe people actually buy into this.

Nobody buys into it. I never said they did. I just said it was a loophole in the proof. The theorem is based on empirical evidence, statistics and such from countless experiments. The proof becomes invalid precisely because the empirical evidence is rigged, completely untrustworthy, if there's some malevolent conspiracy preventing unbiased data from being measured.

Of course locality is bunk

Your opinion. Not mine. Neither constitutes evidence one way or the other.

Are we really pretending now that solipsism + denial of CFD is a serious option?

Only Wigner's interpretation leads to solipsism like that, a fact that made Wigner himself abandon it. I actually don't know how ontic Copenhagen describes it. Copenhagen was developed as an epistemological interpretation, which is completely local since the wave function reflects what one knows, not what actually is. The interpretation is not clearly defined.
Something like MWI is local and explains it nicely. No, I'm not an MWI proponent either, but I admire it nonetheless. It wins for simplicity.

Meanwhile, I take more of a relational approach, that what exists (say some remote system state event X) exists relative to some measurement event Y, which is necessarily subsequent to event X. There is no absolute state, so no need to suggest CFD.

If you're not trying to make sense of QM (and even ignore the consistent empirical evidence for nonlocality) then why bother? What are we even talking about? Why not just admit that you want to be a solipsist and try to find something that supports it?

Meanwhile in the real world nonlocality is becoming a cornerstone of quantum computing but whatever, it's just an opinion.

[Noax]

If you're not trying to make sense of QM (and even ignore the consistent empirical evidence for nonlocality) then why bother?

There is no empirical evidence of nonlocality. I do agree that Copenhagen has a hard time framing what happens in a local way. It seems to be a collection of ideas rather than one coherent interpretation. The other ones do better.

There's also 'consistent histories' and 'Qbism', neither of which I'm in any position to explain, but they are valid local interpretations. None of them in any way violates empirical evidence. You need to understand that, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Why not just admit that you want to be a solipsist and try to find something that supports it?

Solipsism is a mind-primary position, and with the one exception, none of the interpretations have anything to do with some sort of supernatural solipsistic mind.

Nonlocality cannot be a cornerstone of quantum computing since it makes no predictions differing from quantum theory.

[Atla]

If you're not trying to make sense of QM (and even ignore the consistent empirical evidence for nonlocality) then why bother?

There is no empirical evidence of nonlocality. I do agree that Copenhagen has a hard time framing what happens in a local way. It seems to be a collection of ideas rather than one coherent interpretation. The other ones do better.

There's also 'consistent histories' and 'Qbism', neither of which I'm in any position to explain, but they are valid local interpretations. None of them in any way violates empirical evidence. You need to understand that, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Why not just admit that you want to be a solipsist and try to find something that supports it?

Solipsism is a mind-primary position, and with the one exception, none of the interpretations have anything to do with some sort of supernatural solipsistic mind.

Nonlocality cannot be a cornerstone of quantum computing since it makes no predictions differing from quantum theory.

Then there is no empirical evidence for anything ever. I can come up with a million interpretations that explain why apples don't actually fall and why the sky isn't actually blue, they just appear to be. Whatever.

Quantum nonlocality, a foundational concept in quantum mechanics, suggests that particles can exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by classical local hidden variable theories. Several key experiments provide strong evidence for quantum nonlocality. Below is an overview of the main experimental evidences:

1. Bell Test Experiments
Bell test experiments are designed to test the predictions of Bell's theorem, which demonstrates that certain quantum correlations cannot be explained by local realism.

Key Experiments:

Freedman-Clauser Experiment (1972): One of the earliest experiments to test Bell inequalities using entangled photons. It showed violations consistent with quantum mechanics.
Aspect Experiment (1981-1982): Alain Aspect and colleagues performed a series of experiments with entangled photons, introducing time-varying analyzers to close the locality loophole. Their results provided strong evidence against local hidden variable theories.
Weihs et al. Experiment (1998): Used high-efficiency detectors and separated measurement stations, further closing the locality loophole.
Significance: These experiments repeatedly showed violations of Bell inequalities, supporting quantum mechanics over local hidden variable theories.

2. Loophole-Free Bell Tests
To eliminate potential weaknesses in earlier experiments, physicists have conducted loophole-free Bell tests, addressing the two main loopholes:

Locality loophole: Ensures measurement settings are spacelike separated.

Detection loophole: Ensures high-efficiency detectors to account for all entangled particles.

Notable Experiments:

Hensen et al. (2015): Used entangled electron spins in nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, achieving the first loophole-free Bell test.
Shalm et al. (2015) and Giustina et al. (2015): Independently conducted loophole-free Bell tests using entangled photons with high-efficiency detectors. Both experiments confirmed violations of Bell inequalities.
Significance: These experiments closed major loopholes and provided robust evidence for quantum nonlocality.

3. Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiments
Experiments inspired by Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment tested whether measurement choices can retroactively affect quantum states.

Example:
A 2012 experiment by Kaiser et al. used entangled photons and delayed the choice of measurement settings until after the photons were emitted. The results supported quantum nonlocality and quantum contextuality.

4. Experimental Violations of the CHSH Inequality
The CHSH (Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt) inequality is a specific form of Bell's inequality. Numerous experiments have shown violations of the CHSH inequality, confirming quantum nonlocality.

5. Quantum Entanglement in Cosmic Tests
Experiments have used cosmic photons to set measurement settings, reducing the possibility of human or local influences.

Example:
A 2018 experiment by Handsteiner et al. used starlight from distant stars to determine measurement settings for a Bell test, closing the "freedom-of-choice" loophole.

6. Recent Advances in Quantum Communication
Experiments demonstrating quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols like BB84 and Ekert's protocol rely on quantum nonlocality. The practical success of these protocols indirectly supports quantum nonlocality.

----------------------------

The consistent histories interpretation (also known as the decoherent histories interpretation) of quantum mechanics challenges the notion of a single, objective reality.

In QBism, quantum nonlocality is not a feature of the world itself but a reflection of how agents use quantum mechanics to manage their expectations about experiences.

lol

You asked what my current interpretation was, it's sort of a mixture of MWI and Copenhagen and absolute circular symmetry. Standard MWI is not a serious attempt as long it pretends to be local, ignoring that its branches have to be nonlocally correlated. It's also asymmetric in time and ultimately doesn't solve the measurement problem.

[Noax]

Then there is no empirical evidence for anything ever.

For interpretations, yes. That's why they're called interpretations and not theories.
Actual theories do make predictions and empirical evidence supports them or not.

You asked what my current interpretation was, it's sort of a mixture of MWI and Copenhagen and absolute circular symmetry. Standard MWI is not a serious attempt as long it pretends to be local, ignoring that its branches have to be nonlocally correlated. It's also asymmetric in time and ultimately doesn't solve the measurement problem.

It is actually time symmetric since the Schrodinger equation is linear and can evolve in either direction, and the sole premise of the interpretation is that a closed system evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. Still, entropy still defines the arrow of time, as it does in any interpretation. I think one of its major issues was that it does not derive the Born rule.