It wouldn't work, even in principle. They want to force you to live by their lunacy. It would be totally pointless if they couldn't exert power over the unwilling.
Wigners_friend
joined 1 month ago
Great answer, but it unfortunately is taken seriously. The reason is because it is an "end of the road" hypothesis. It tells you all the weirdness is fundamental and no further thought is required. Just like good old Copenhagen. The unfalsifiability is a virtue here, it's a complete explanatin without the messy testing. Now stop thinking, shut up, and calculate.
If we sufficiently torture the word "simplest".
It's stronger than a classical one, yes. But Einstein's description is mocking the idea of entanglement as an active link that allows distant states to be changed by local actions.
Deus ex human revolution: explores a meta narrative of how you use power in computer games. Your character has incredible capability. You could obliterate every enemy with ease. It's a completely different game if you try to avoid killing those who are just getting by (sure a security guard will shoot you, but they are expecting lethal terrorists). You use the power you have to avoid killing, not to make it easy.
I have never felt more autistic. Do people really need to lick fire to know it will hurt?
Positrons don't move backwards in time in any physical sense. Their mathematical representation is like an electron with a negative time coordinate but this is physically dubious because it fails in curved spacetimes. Electron-positron pairs are entangled because they are correlated by the process that created the pair. Entanglement is just a correlation, not some magical link.
The "solutions" are not out of reach. Just do the experiment more than once, like any statistical theory.
The moon thing: yes because it was hard to get to, not impossible in principle. If the moon was in a parallel universe your analogy wouldn't be irrelevant.