For the first time, it is possible to see the quantum world from multiple points of view at once. This hints at something very strange – that reality only takes shape when we interact with each other
Big claims inbound. Quantum computing challenging reality as we know it.
Sorry, when I opened the article I could read it (I don’t pay NewScientist), maybe I’ll try to copy paste it. It’s not about conscious experience, but from quantum interaction. Like when particles entangle with each other.
It’s a big mistery why those entangled particles decohere, and people have been trying to find answers. So, what they’re going for here is the obvious: “obviously those particles decohere because they’re decohering into a greater state of interaction”. It’s not about consciousness.
Last part of the article talks about trying to mathematically fix the communication of qubits, which, if it can be done, would support this claim that everything is constantly interacting.
@jazzjfes posted a full link so we’re good. I was able to look further down the article, and I think there’s some meat there to the QC stuff that is independent of the framing that starts at the beginning of the article.
It’s not about conscious experience, but from quantum interaction
The problem is that the article repeatedly flies very very close to the sun with all kinds of phrasing implying “perspectives” of individuals (e.g. consciousness).
In physics, as in life, it is important to view things from more than one perspective
lengths of space and durations of time vary depending on who is looking.
It seemed to show that by measuring things, we play a part in determining their properties
A century later, many physicists question whether a single objective reality, shared by all observers, exists at all.
For the first time, we can jump from one quantum perspective to another.
At a bare minimum it’s definitely equivocating between “perspective” in the sense of human perspective and perspective in the sense of frames of reference as it pertains to physics. And the article title is “do we create space-time”? Why even bother using open-ended phrasing that flirts with that possibility in the first place? We have so much misinformation that comes from people playing with meaning about the relation between quantum and conscious things that using paraphys upon paragraphs of phrasing that veers into and then out of that implication conveys the same impression as stating it outright.
Sorry, when I opened the article I could read it (I don’t pay NewScientist), maybe I’ll try to copy paste it. It’s not about conscious experience, but from quantum interaction. Like when particles entangle with each other.
It’s a big mistery why those entangled particles decohere, and people have been trying to find answers. So, what they’re going for here is the obvious: “obviously those particles decohere because they’re decohering into a greater state of interaction”. It’s not about consciousness.
Last part of the article talks about trying to mathematically fix the communication of qubits, which, if it can be done, would support this claim that everything is constantly interacting.
@jazzjfes posted a full link so we’re good. I was able to look further down the article, and I think there’s some meat there to the QC stuff that is independent of the framing that starts at the beginning of the article.
The problem is that the article repeatedly flies very very close to the sun with all kinds of phrasing implying “perspectives” of individuals (e.g. consciousness).
At a bare minimum it’s definitely equivocating between “perspective” in the sense of human perspective and perspective in the sense of frames of reference as it pertains to physics. And the article title is “do we create space-time”? Why even bother using open-ended phrasing that flirts with that possibility in the first place? We have so much misinformation that comes from people playing with meaning about the relation between quantum and conscious things that using paraphys upon paragraphs of phrasing that veers into and then out of that implication conveys the same impression as stating it outright.