reasonable reply - not being snide - but there is a ton of stuff on the internet about it written for laymen like me. Worth an hour or two - also a pretty good NOVA special on it - maybe on you tube.

Cheers, I should probably take a look. Admittedly I find metaphysical stuff more fun.

then you should love this stuff. Leaving the real world for a second. Or better said maybe leaving the time line we are observing for a "second" . QM can make something like block time possible - If such a thing as block time is possible. Every argument becomes metaphysical, unless one describes the physics in use in the argument or limits it to a particular time-space plane, the science is as variable and possible as any other metaphysical argument.

Crazy stuff for sure.

The bottom line take away for me in all these possibilities around QM is that it is reminder of how little we may really know about - well anything really. We are so full of hubris and enamored with our "big" brains we are so darn sure what we know is real. And if history is any gauge we are probable wrong about a great deal of what we think we know.

Fair, I’ll take a look for sure. But actually it might be all the “we don’t know” that dampens my interest in these things - metaphysical arguments, it seems to me, can establish really strong grounds for believing something; but seems there might be arguments like that in QM, if it’s discussed on that sort of ground.

You can't show via an experiment that either something doesn't have a spatiotemporal location or that it doesn't exist prior to being seen.

"exist" as I used it above may be as precise as I need it to be. The electron my be "something" that can exist in all states and with all possible properties, can be some type of "wave" or "energy" - until observed, than it is what it is with some set of specific properties. The really weird thing is there can be two of them - acting in exactly the same way. That was the Eisenstein paradox that disproved QM, right up until the point it was shown by experiment - that Eisenstein was wrong.

This is weird stuff. The stuff being worked on now is this. A cat acts like a cat, and a sub atomic particle acts like they act by QM, where is the line where they cross. Think they have done some work where they have shown entanglement on some small but observable with a microscope diamonds.

just to get a little wielder - If nothing is what it is, or can be anything until it is observed. That could mean our entire reality is best explained as a movie screen - set in an infinity of space and time, with what we see as real only one possible projection.

this whole thread is turning into an acid test !!!! Call the house band.

If nothing is what it is, or can be anything until it is observed. — Rank Amateur

There's a huge problem with scientists saying stuff like this. That sort of nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with any experiment we can do.

there is about a 100 Pct chance that I may not be best person to explain Quantum Entanglement - but before you dismiss it - I would highly recommend a little independent research.

I'm not dismissing quantum entanglement per se. What I'm dismissing is that we can empirically observe something like "x can be anything until it is observed" or "x doesn't exist prior to being observed" or "x is both F and not-F prior to being observed."

That sort of stuff is at best about the mathematical formalisations used, where unfortunately, people have a tendency to reify something that's just an instrumental convention.

What I don't get is why you don't just have faith, like you do with God. Why do you bother studying and thinking things through at all when it comes to scientific matters? Why not simply jump straight into having faith that reality is just as it seems on the surface, for example?

that is pretty much what it says -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Reality isn't material.

(...except to a Materialist.)

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W04-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
Month 1 Week 4 Monday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
January 14th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 15th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
24 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)