On 6/28/2012 5:50 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I'm not real sure I understand the "zero universes" statement he's
> trying to assert either. Is he trying to say there are no particles,
> only entanglements, or something?

(note, IANAP, so treat what follows as being written with a degree of 
awareness of the fallibility of my own assessments.)

 From what I can gather I think that's sort of what he's going for.  I'd 
phrase it as "classical reality is an illusion arising from the nature 
of entanglement."  I can't really give any more detail than this, and 
I'm not entirely sure that he could either, since at no point did I get 
the impression that he's particularly knowledgeable about what he's 
talking about.

His "grand conclusion" that measurement, if mathematically modeled in 
QM, creates an entanglement between the measured entity and the 
measuring device is a pretty well-known, so it's a bit baffling that he 
treats the philosophical conclusions he draws from it as so self-evident 
(unless or course he's just ignorant of the scientific and philosophical 
context).  Not that they're *necessarily* wrong mind you, but they're 
one of many ways of interpreting the mathematics.

Post a reply to this message