Uncovering a Simulation

My theory is that we're talking to a wall and that mentioning once again that QM no more undermines the reality of our macro world than atoms will continue to have no effect. For you responses are only useful because they have the little reply button for you to click.--Percy

I was commenting on your conclusion that QM undermines confidence in reality, and I predicted, correctly as it turns out, that you would again ignore any mention of the fact that QM no more has this effect than the earlier discovery of atoms.Misinterpreting Einstein and the Copenhagen Interpretation is not evidence that the universe is a simulation. Your basic argument is, "Hey, science could be wrong, so I'm free to make stuff up."--Percy

Well, it seems like you've never met a sentence you couldn't misunderstand, and since that seems likely to continue I'll try to provide as little additional fodder as possible.The topic of this thread, your thread, by the way, is that the evidence points toward the universe actually being "part of a simulation." Care to describe any of this evidence?--Percy

Information cannot be communicated using entanglement, and so there is no known method for information to travel faster than the speed of light.--Percy

Fox News and other news outlets at the time implied in their reporting that Dr. Nicolas Gisin and his team at the University of Geneva believe that entangled particles may actually "communicate" with each other not instantaneously, but just at speeds much greater than the speed of light.I don't know whether Gisin and his team actually believe this, or if it's just that the reporting is inaccurate, but by separating entangled particles by a greater distance than had ever been done before (seven miles) they were measuring the minimum speed that such "communication" must occur if it indeed does occur at a finite speed rather than instantaneously. The speed they measured turns out to equate to the accuracy with which their atomic clocks could be synchronized and their measurements made, and so the instantaneous "communication" postulated by quantum theory has not been overturned.Whether the collapse of the wave function of one entangle particle is followed by the collapse of the other's simultaneously or just very, very quickly cannot be uncovered by any experiment since the "communication" could always happen at speeds greater than any experimental error could rule out.I've been putting quotes around "communication" because the entangled particles do not actually communicate information. When one entangled particle's wave function collapses so does its partner's, but this phenomenon cannot be used to communicate information. This is because the state that a particle collapses to cannot be controlled.Imagine that you and a colleague agree upon a code whereby positive polarity means "1" and negative polarity means "0". You create an entangled particle pair and give one of the particles to your colleague, you keeping the other, then your colleague goes to the other side of the earth and awaits your message.You decide you want to send your colleague a "1". This means you have to send him positive polarity. Since the particles collapse with opposite polarity, you have to cause your particle to collapse with negative polarity. How do you observe your particle in such a way as to force it to collapse with negative polarity?If you can answer that question than you have solved the problem of faster than light communication, but as of yet no one's been able to supply an answer.Note that this is irrelevant to the question of whether the entangled particles collapse simultaneously or just nearly simultaneously. No matter which is the case, no information can be communicated.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, clarity.