Theories of Consciousness

[Atla]

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.

And your argument is that you never draw the line, there are no theories only interpretations. Apples don't fall, there is no gravity. That's just an interpretation. Empirical evidence can never exist for gravity. Another interpretation is that apples move randomly, we just happen to be in a place where they happened to fall. Another interpretation is that they keep falling in your perspective because you subconsciously expect them to, but you could also expect them to float and then they would float. And so on.

Imo today we can fairly confidently say that if gravity is theory and not interpretation, then so is quantum nonlocality.

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.

Imo a better theory would be truly symmetric where branching doesn't only happen in one direction and then remains permanent. But we already went over the circular dimensions idea.

[Noax]

And your argument is that you never draw the line, there are no theories only interpretations.

I never said any such thing. There's empirical evidence of apples falling. Sure, gravity, but Einstein defined gravity very differently than the force that Newton envisioned. He could have named it something other than the same word that Newton used. Anyway, both are theories because they both make (different) predictions.

Imo a better theory would be truly symmetric where branching doesn't only happen in one direction and then remains permanent.

Remember that MWI does not posit branching. It was DeWitt that popularized that image, and who also coined the MWI acronym. With Everett's paper, there is but the one universe, one wave function, and only decoherence calculations can tell us when it is a good approximation to treat two terms as non-interacting.

I suspect that many of the local interpretations, including RQM, are fundamentally similar, but with differing definitions about ontology of the various terms.

[Atla]

And your argument is that you never draw the line, there are no theories only interpretations.

I never said any such thing. There's empirical evidence of apples falling. Sure, gravity, but Einstein defined gravity very differently than the force that Newton envisioned. He could have named it something other than the same word that Newton used. Anyway, both are theories because they both make (different) predictions.

Imo a better theory would be truly symmetric where branching doesn't only happen in one direction and then remains permanent.

Remember that MWI does not posit branching. It was DeWitt that popularized that image, and who also coined the MWI acronym. With Everett's paper, there is but the one universe, one wave function, and only decoherence calculations can tell us when it is a good approximation to treat two terms as non-interacting.

I suspect that many of the local interpretations, including RQM, are fundamentally similar, but with differing definitions about ontology of the various terms.

Explain how this isn't empirical evidence.

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.

[Noax]

Explain how this isn't empirical evidence.

Every bit of that is empirical evidence, all supporting quantum theory.

Every interpretation predicts the same results as those, so, lacking a distinction, none of the evidence listed falsifies any of the interpretations. Yet again, this is why they're called interpretations.

[Atla]

Explain how this isn't empirical evidence.

Every bit of that is empirical evidence, all supporting quantum theory.

Every interpretation predicts the same results as those, so, lacking a distinction, none of the evidence listed falsifies any of the interpretations. Yet again, this is why they're called interpretations.

Do you understand that nonlocality is not an interpretation yes or no?

[Noax]

Do you understand that nonlocality is not an interpretation yes or no?

It is a feature of several interpretations, but it is not an interpretation in itself, no.
CFD is also a feature of some (far fewer) interpretations, neither Copenhagen nor MWI being on that list, which makes it kind of ironic that you suggest "a mixture of MWI and Copenhagen and absolute circular symmetry". You seem to hold CFD with a deathgrip.

[Atla]

Do you understand that nonlocality is not an interpretation yes or no?

It is a feature of several interpretations, but it is not an interpretation in itself, no.
CFD is also a feature of some (far fewer) interpretations, neither Copenhagen nor MWI being on that list, which makes it kind of ironic that you suggest "a mixture of MWI and Copenhagen and absolute circular symmetry". You seem to hold CFD with a deathgrip.

I'm not talking about CFD, I'm talking about nonlocality.

Yes if you deny quantum realism and also get into all sorts of abstract explanations about knowledge that don't mean anything, then you can explain that what looks like nonlocality in every shape way and form, is actually locality and that makes total sense.

Just like how we can explain that gravity is actually repulsion, or explain that there is no gravity at all, we just have to explain how there seems to be gravity but there isn't any.

Why explain that up is down, forward is backward, black is white?

[Noax]

I'm not talking about CFD, I'm talking about nonlocality.

Sorry, my comment was about locality, not nonlocality. Read it too quick.

Not sure what you mean by it. SImply denial of locality, or (probably not) some sort of assertion that everything is not all in the same place, or something else. Anyway, part of what I said stands. Some interpretations deny locality. Of the list on wiki, 5 local, 5 nonlocal, 2 agnostic. Nonlocality is not an interpretation of its own. There's not one listed by that name.

Yes if you deny quantum realism and also get into all sorts of abstract explanations about knowledge

Careful. Only the original Copenhagen is about knowledge. That original form was the only epistemological interpretation. The rest are metaphysical interpretations where knowledge plays no role in what actually is.

then you can explain that what looks like nonlocality

Not sure what you mean by this. One cannot sense anything non-local, so I have no idea what 'looks like nonlocality' is supposed to mean. All measurements are by definition local.

Nonlocality is not something that can be measured, but rather is a conclusion one draws from local measurements by making say counterfactual presumptions. If you want to falsify locality, then you need to do so without presuming CFD.

Just like how we can explain that gravity is actually repulsion

Hey, if it still predicts the rock appearing to fall, that's a valid explanation.

or explain that there is no gravity at all, we just have to explain how there seems to be gravity but there isn't any.

Kind of like Einstein did, yea, except the predictions differed in more extreme cases. He said it is an illusion that the rock falls. Rather, it is the ground accelerating up to the rock. Both explanations make the same prediction about the rock. Nice example though.

[Atla]

I'm not talking about CFD, I'm talking about nonlocality.

Sorry, my comment was about locality, not nonlocality. Read it too quick.

Not sure what you mean by it. SImply denial of locality, or (probably not) some sort of assertion that everything is not all in the same place, or something else. Anyway, part of what I said stands. Some interpretations deny locality. Of the list on wiki, 5 local, 5 nonlocal, 2 agnostic. Nonlocality is not an interpretation of its own. There's not one listed by that name.

Yes if you deny quantum realism and also get into all sorts of abstract explanations about knowledge

Careful. Only the original Copenhagen is about knowledge. That original form was the only epistemological interpretation. The rest are metaphysical interpretations where knowledge plays no role in what actually is.

then you can explain that what looks like nonlocality

Not sure what you mean by this. One cannot sense anything non-local, so I have no idea what 'looks like nonlocality' is supposed to mean. All measurements are by definition local.

Nonlocality is not something that can be measured, but rather is a conclusion one draws from local measurements by making say counterfactual presumptions. If you want to falsify locality, then you need to do so without presuming CFD.

Just like how we can explain that gravity is actually repulsion

Hey, if it still predicts the rock appearing to fall, that's a valid explanation.

or explain that there is no gravity at all, we just have to explain how there seems to be gravity but there isn't any.

Kind of like Einstein did, yea, except the predictions differed in more extreme cases. He said it is an illusion that the rock falls. Rather, it is the ground accelerating up to the rock. Both explanations make the same prediction about the rock. Nice example though.

Presuming or not presuming CFD makes no difference since the correlations always hold.

Yes there are interpretations that try to explain the inherently nonlocal QM nonlocally and there are interpretations that try to explain the inherently nonlocal QM locally and there are agnostic ones.

[Noax]

Presuming or not presuming CFD makes no difference since the correlations always hold.

Yes, the correlations are part of theory. Every interpretation predicts them.

[Atla]

Presuming or not presuming CFD makes no difference since the correlations always hold.

Yes, the correlations are part of theory. Every interpretation predicts them.

Yes in other words the real world is for all practical purposes nonlocal. At least partially, arguably completely. So we then have to use mental gymnastics to make the real world go away and become solipsists or whatever to make it local again.

[Noax]

Yes in other words the real world is for all practical purposes nonlocal.

There's no test that shows that. For practical purposes, the world is classical, and classical is local.
They put men on the moon using classical physics, totally ignoring relativity and quantum theory that had been around half a century already.

Only one interpretation is solipsistic, and that one is non-local.

[Atla]

Yes in other words the real world is for all practical purposes nonlocal.

There's no test that shows that. For practical purposes, the world is classical, and classical is local.
They put men on the moon using classical physics, totally ignoring relativity and quantum theory that had been around half a century already.

Only one interpretation is solipsistic, and that one is non-local.

Quantum entanglement was confirmed in every test = the world is nonlocal.

[Noax]

Quantum entanglement was confirmed in every test = the world is nonlocal.

Quantum entanglement does not demonstrate nonlocality

[Atla]

Quantum entanglement was confirmed in every test = the world is nonlocal.

Quantum entanglement does not demonstrate nonlocality

They are the same thing. Nonlocal correlations. Spooky actions I mean correlations at a distance. The world is nonlocal as confirmed by every experiment ever. Unless we use some interpretation that pretends it away.