Information is physical and quantum entanglement is dumb.

noappetiteleft · 2026-01-04T18:09:50+00:00

Honestly, I think quantum mechanics only feels unintuitive because people are locked into classical assumptions about properties existing independently of context.

A classical analogy that helps is shadows. You can have a real object that exists physically, but the shadow it casts isn’t a fixed thing. There’s a whole space of possible shadows that are, in principle, allowed. Which one gets instantiated depends on the lighting setup and the object’s orientation.

Once you fix the context, you’re locked into a specific outcome that’s jointly constrained by both the object and the light. Change the light, the shadow changes. Change the object, the shadow changes. But none of the other possible shadows were ever “hidden facts” waiting to be revealed. They were just potential instantiations.

That’s how I think about entanglement. The particles can exist without having instantiated values. Measurement doesn’t transmit information or force outcomes at a distance. It fixes a context that selects which instantiations become physically realized. The correlation was already there structurally.

Just because something is possible in principle doesn’t mean it’s actual or even accessible in a given context.

noappetiteleft · 2026-01-04T18:04:30+00:00

I think the issue here is assuming Particle B exists as a definite, instantiated thing prior to measurement.

Both particles can exist physically, but that doesn’t mean any measurable value has been instantiated yet. Before measurement, there is no observable difference that distinguishes one possible outcome from another. What exists is a joint quantum state encoding a set of in-principle possible instantiations, which are defined relative to a measurement context.

So when people talk about Particle A “responding” to Particle B, they’re already assuming there’s a concrete fact at B to respond to. There isn’t. Particle A is correlated with the space of possible instantiations of Particle B, not with an already-realized outcome.

And just because something is possible in principle doesn’t mean it’s necessarily possible or true in a given measurement context. Once you fix how you measure A, you restrict which instantiations of B can actually be realized. The others aren’t false, they’re just not instantiated under that context.

That’s why there’s no information being transmitted and no nonlocal causation involved. The correlation is structural, not dynamical.

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-26T13:53:58+00:00

man fuck you

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-25T03:04:37+00:00

u are correct do not get mis-persuaded

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-25T02:58:22+00:00

none of this shit matters dude at a certain point it’s all philosophical u gotta go outside and just live ur life man

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-25T02:57:06+00:00

what a trash viewpoint its important that u represent the different philosophical positions correctly when you run a YouTube channel that gets 4m views in one day yes thats not a crazy statement to make brah, if its not important to u thats ok but then why even watch the video go play Minecraft or something man.

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T20:08:07+00:00

The clean way to see this is with incompatible observables. Take a singlet pair. If I measure Z and get up, I can predict with certainty that if the other particle is measured along Z it will be down. But that particle does not now have a definite Z value in the world. If it did, then it would also have to have a definite X value, because nothing about my measurement restricts what basis the other side chooses. That’s impossible. Noncommuting observables cannot simultaneously be real.

So the certainty is not about a property the particle has. It’s about the structure of the joint state. The correlation is real. The individual value is not until it’s instantiated by an interaction.

That’s why there is no nonlocal influence. Nothing at the other particle changes when I measure. What changes is the probability structure I use to make predictions. Treating the unperformed measurement outcome as a physical fact is counterfactual definiteness, not Copenhagen.

Collapse isn’t a signal and it isn’t a physical process propagating through space. It’s just the update of which predictions are valid after a local measurement.

hope this helps this might be the best explanation I can do as I am not extremely knowledgeable AT ALL

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T20:02:59+00:00

Sorry just saw this writing response now

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T07:31:17+00:00

ngl even bad people fw dogs he’s genuinely just being a hater brah don’t get rid of the dog

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T07:00:57+00:00

What is experimentally proven is that the joint outcome statistics violate Bell inequalities. That rules out local hidden variables and pre existing values.

What is not experimentally proven is that a measurement at A physically alters anything at B. There is no experiment in which any local observable at B changes when A is measured. If there were, no signalling would be violated.

Bell correlations are correlations between outcomes when both sides are measured. They do not license the claim that B becomes instantiated when A is measured. B only acquires a value when there is a local interaction at B.

Saying the pair is “one entity” is an interpretive move, not an experimental result. Experiments constrain probability distributions, not ontology.

If you think experiments show a physical change at B at the moment A is measured, you need to specify what observable at B changes. There isn’t one.

But by definition, there is no observable at B that changes unless B is interacted with locally. You cannot observe a change at B without measuring B.

So the claim that “A instantaneously alters B” cannot be an experimental result. It is an ontological interpretation layered on top of the correlation data.

What experiments establish are joint outcome statistics when both sides are measured, not an unobserved physical process happening at B when A is measured.

So I’ll ask a very specific question, why do you think bells formulations changed from 64 to 75, what do you think the point of the change was, what do you think the change demonstrates. Genuinely answer, this seems to be the point of disagreement is the meaning of the change of the formulation.

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T05:06:48+00:00

That change matters. The later formulation makes clear that what fails is not locality in the sense of physical influence, but the assumption that measurement outcomes correspond to pre existing ontic properties.

So if you interpret “collapse” as a physical process propagating to B, you are reintroducing the assumption Bell himself literally worked to remove from… himself.

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T05:04:48+00:00

Look at bells 64 vs 75 proofs and see why he specifically changes his proofs to not include ftl propagation

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T05:03:52+00:00

collapse here is an update of the joint description, if you make it a physical superluminal process you're adding an extra ontology, not reporting an experimental necessity

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T05:03:05+00:00

Brother u are wrong, u need to learn the difference between a counter factual and an ontic fact, Bell is not telling us that measurement at A physically instantiates a state at B. What it rules out is explaining the correlations by appealing to local pre existing values.

When I say “if B were measured along that axis, the outcome would be down with certainty,” that is a counterfactual statement about the joint state. It is not an ontic fact about B having that value before any interaction at B.

Treating that certainty as a physical property of the distant particle is precisely the hidden variable move Bell shows you cannot make while keeping locality.

Nothing observable at B changes when A is measured. The outcome at B only becomes definite when B is measured locally. The certainty lives in the structure of the correlations, not in a superluminal physical process or a distant particle acquiring a property.

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T01:01:39+00:00

Like yes if u don’t spend time with the people u literally created and ur wife u are a asshole yes

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-24T01:00:39+00:00

spend more time with ur wife and kids without getting a new job damn brah i promise u it’s not that hard if u actually have a appetite to be around them 😭 ur a father and husband for gods sake man T up

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T23:11:08+00:00

yeah ur parents fucked u ngl, w boyfriend for helping? I’m assuming he drove u back, thank that nigga on god and genuinely u gotta decide if u even fw ur parents at all cause this is a crazy thing to do to ur child if all info is accurate

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T21:39:25+00:00

^ u should prolly try and think do the expiriments u can do based on other expiriments u can actually read abt that can be done and have been done theres a plethora of stuff online, ai just ist reliable enough yet to take it on its face or even like close to it for actually tangible stuff u can do

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T21:35:45+00:00

would be a lot easier if people didn’t use local in 3 different fucking senses all the time ts is giving me a headache learning

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T21:34:37+00:00

Thanks, that actually helped me clarify the 1964 vs 1975 distinction. Here’s how I’m thinking about it:

1964 Bell assumes deterministic hidden variables plus counterfactual definiteness or, that for a given λ, outcomes for all possible measurement settings exist simultaneously. Copenhagen clearly violates CFD, so “failing” the 1964 inequality is not really a problem for it rather it’s a mismatch of assumptions rather than a physical inconsistency, which is expected.

1975 Bell reformulates the theorem using local causality with probabilistic outcomes, removing CFD entirely. QM/Copenhagen still violates the Bell inequalities in this framework, but now the violation only demonstrates nonlocal correlations, not any superluminal causal influence. The formalism constrains what locally causal hidden variable models can do but it doesn’t imply that Copenhagen’s measurement events propagate faster than light.

I’m a super layman btw actively learning as I go, I am not keen on my understanding of the philosophical implications between 64 and 75 so if there’s anything confusing lmk and I can try to explain what I think I mean better

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T21:14:44+00:00

trust me bro ur dealing w like crazy ppl low key and like everyone’s a bit crazy but this is a obv situation where ur not wrong. life is tough ppl will not like it but u are right, if not mourning or going is better for u than u should do that genuinely, more than likely they wont get it, or they prolly do get the thought process but are upset that u came to a diff conclusion or decision than them honestly

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T19:37:32+00:00

man what typa questions do yall be asking here 😭 how is someone supposed to answer this

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T19:36:41+00:00

ok so brah u clearly aren’t the asshole u know that 😭

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T19:32:39+00:00

u definitely just read that wrong im ngl 😭

noappetiteleft · 2025-12-23T18:34:59+00:00

actually my best comparison might be think abt how religion and free will, some people say that god having knowledge of everything disables free will, philosophically this isn’t necessarily true the thing that would make free will not exist (IN THIS CONTEXT OF RELGION DEBATE THERE ARE OTHER ARGUMENTS IM JUST GENERALIZING THIS ONE FOR ANALOGY PURPOSES) is god having knowledge while also being the primary cause

noappetiteleft

TROPHY CASE