entangled you, superposed me
I.Vecchi
Talk about entanglement relies almost invariably on an anthropomorphic
semantic construct, though few people will admit it.
We talk about Bob and Alice, instead of replacing them with "Device 1"
D1 and "Device 2" D2.
This is a convenient way to fudge and ignore the underlying conceptual
issue and its relational nature. If we formulate the problem in terms
of D1 and D2 it is clear that , under unitary evolution,
interaction/measurement of D1 and the electron results in a
superposition of "D1 measuring spin up" and "D1 measuring spin down".
Entanglement will then appear as a property of the interaction
/information-exchange between superposed D1 and D2 , when measurement
outcomes are matched/compared. In this setting nonlocality disappears,
together with the hidden assumptions that spawned it.
Essentially, talk of Alice and Bob is a rethorical artifice to
fudge/ignore the fact that, if electrons, SQUID currents, porphirine
moleculs, cats and measurement devices superpose, so do human bodies
(and minds ... whatever that means).
IV
--------------------------
"But it has a price, pretty boy, it has a price."
O.Wilde "The Fisherman and His Soul"