Just going to repeat from the HN thread a few days ago[0]
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975
Here's Scott Aaronson arguing that the theoretical work underpinning this experiment is flawed.
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975
Here's Scott Aaronson arguing that the theoretical work underpinning this experiment is flawed.
This paper about the experiment is trivially true, there were no surprises regarding to what QM predicts.
Here is a direct quote from Scott: >My comments about the Frauchiger-Renner paper never doubted for a second the result predicted by QM. So an “experimental demonstration” of their setup—by which one really means an experimental demonstration of Hardy’s experiment, since the Frauchiger-Renner one would require superposed conscious observers (!)—has zero effect on any of those comments.
And here is a prescient direct quote from Craig Gidney: >I wonder how long it will be until someone 1) executes the circuit from Hardy’s paradox (which has very few qubits and very few gates, so you could run it on a NISQ machine), 2) confirms that of course the results match the predictions of quantum mechanics, 3) frames the result in terms of Frauchiger et al’s variant, and 4) journalists telephone-game it into something like “quantum researchers prove decisions aren’t real”.
Please see also the relevant discussion in comments here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4147
My point in linking the original article was that the media discussion of this (in part driven by the paper's own framing) as disproving objective reality is wrong, something Scott clearly agrees with.
Reflecting on this a second time, I wonder whether it is possible to interpret this as the universe not caring until the information interacting actually matters. For example, if someone tells me that they have measured a value, they could very well be lying, and until I say "prove it, what value did you measure?" the underlying implementation of the universe is in a superposition where they both did and didn't measure the value (where the friend is telling the truth vs lying).
If they generated a random bit and lied depending on that value, then it would be.
It reminds me how sometimes converse is confused with contrapostive.