"i really like it when physics and philosophy intersect"

Erik: is there a way to see if something is in a superposition or not without changing its state?
me: if you don't know, it's in superposition
if you observe it at all, it's not
Erik: what if the particle is entangled and you measure the other particle which is a light year away
me: then instantly the first particle is also out of superposition
it's called nonlocality
Erik: so it changed something a light year away instantly?
me: ...yep
Erik: now is that change concrete?
or is it just in peoples heads?
for instance, a person can be popular or unpopular, and a person can be dead or alive
if you're in australia, and i decide that i don't like you, you instantly become unpopular, because that's not a physical change, it's a mental one
but i can't instantly make you dead
me: essentially, nothing has changed except our Bayesian knowledge of the particle
Erik: do you see the difference?
me: yeah
Erik: so its like popularity
?
me: well it's not; essentially you don't get to decide what the measurement will be
Erik: what do you mean?
me: it's as if it was predestined, but you have no way of knowing before you measure it
Erik: does the behavior of the particle a light year away change at all once the particle here is measured?
me: yes...there was an experiment...google entanglement polarization for details
Erik: wtf?
so that means the scientist on alpha centari knows the second that the fist particle is measured because he sees that the behavior of the particle changes?
wouldnt that be transference of information?
me: I know...I think it has something to do with the fact that whenever he measures, he destroys the entanglement
Erik: what does that have to do with it?
oh, so he would only be able to measure the particle once?
and then it would no longer be entangled?
me: right
Erik: but wouldnt you still know if the first particle had or had not been measured already?
me: research the experiment. this is about where my knowledge ends.
Erik: one last question
is this anything at all like if:
I have two boxes, a red ball is in one, a blue ball is in the other
i send one a light year away
i open the one i have left
i instantly know the color of the ball a light year away
?
me: yeah it's almost exactly like that
except there's one finding of the polarization experiment that makes it more interesting
Erik: what are the little details, because no one's suggesting that we can communicate faster than light using boxes
so im guessing the differences are important
me: but I don't remember what this finding is
yeah
Erik: doesnt that sort of prove that the mystery ball thats far away isnt a probability, and that it simply is one of the two options
like if you throw a dice, and close your eyes, once the dye (sp?) lands, even if you havent looked, it's no longer a probability it is one of the options
me: that's the Frequentist view...the Bayesian view (my view) is that probability is a measure of belief
Erik: this shouldnt be a matter of opinion, one of them is right, the other is wrong, which is it?
actually
you'd probably say that they're both right until we measure the experiment that will determine it, right?
me: yeah...this debate has been raging among probability theorists for hundreds of years
Erik: knowing you and me, i'm guessing you're right
but that adds to the world's wtf factor considerably
wait
if you measure the photon, you collapse its superposition, but if you don't tell me, and i go over, is it still in a superposition to me?
me: I don't know what a quantum physicist would say, but i'd say yes
Erik: do you, and more importantly the general consensus of physicists, believe that the universe is deterministic?
me: no
Erik: i really like it when physics and philosophy intersect
no
thats good
any proof?
me: nope
also human free will is unlikely
but I hope it exists
Erik: me too
i think that somehow a human brain isn't just clock work like a computer
it has inputs and outputs, but something strange happens in between
me: there's a definite possibility that that something is quantum in nature
Erik: so our brains are basically computers, but with a random function that's actually random?
me: potentially
essentially we have no idea
Erik: true
is there room for a soul to exist?
me: not really
depends on your definition
Erik: but those random values could be controlled by something separate from the physical universe, which would in essence let it impact or change the physical universe without breaking any laws of nature
that's basically the only way that i see that science and religion can both exist
me: right
that's a definite possibility; however we would probably notice patterns in the randomness
Erik: we're talking quantum scale stuff
if god wanted me to win a game of risk, i wouldnt roll all 6s, something tiny would be changed years before and butterfly effect to a point where i would win the game
me: you're probably right...but it would require a lot of computational power to create such an effect
Erik: well this is god we're talking about
me: and the world must be unable to be affected by humans
Erik: true
not necessarily
why do you think there's bad in the world?
something's gotta go wrong
me: because people have evolved sin?
because sin is evolutionarily advantageous in a world of altruists?
Erik: true
me: night
Erik: night