jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 22:45:42 -0700, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 21:01:19 -0700, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 17:12:52 -0500, WolfFan <
akwo...@zoho.com>
>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2022, Bob Casanova wrote
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 10:52:27 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by WolfFan<
akwo...@zoho.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New machine. Can I post? Testing, testing...
>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Took three tries before it went through.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, but do you know which one of the three went through?
>>>>
>>>> The wave functions of the other two collapsed when the one (/*The* One?/)
>>>> made it through. Perhaps checking the quantum time signature...
>>>
>>> Ah, but do you know which two collapsed?
>>
>> Yes, by having the Observer check the system logs and match sends with
>> receives ;)
>
> You comment above illustrates why quantum entanglement doesn't allow
> FTL transmission; no one observer has access to both send and receive
> logs untill the missing log is sent at ordinary lightspeed.
Wipe the logs after each transmission, both observer/receiver and
sender. If a receive log is created, you have a successful event.
>> (what, realities have logs? why not!)
>>
>>> As an Everettian, I would say there exist parallel realities where
>>> every combination did and did not get through. We just happen to live
>>> in this reality where just one went through...
>>>
>>> ... and we still don't know which one.
>>
>> I pick - THIS one
>
>
> Like they say, you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but
> you ought not pick your friend's nose.
>
Otto from A fish Called Wanda was ahead of the times, by asking
what was the middle one, he expected superpositioning. As in, both
states at the same time.