Maybe this is really just a fundamental challenge to our assumptions about motion of particles or information transfer in the universe. Isn't that interesting enough without these vague, human aggrandizing assertions about creating reality?
Maybe this is really just a fundamental challenge to our assumptions about motion of particles or information transfer in the universe. Isn't that interesting enough without these vague, human aggrandizing assertions about creating reality?
All this "weirdness" is the same old story of "Is it a particle or a wave?!," when in reality, we know its neither. Quantum objects are represented by wavefunctions, or vectors in a Hilbert space, to which "particle" and "wave" are intuitive approximations in certain regimes, that makes it easier for humans to talk about in natural, non-mathematical language.
All this experiment has shown is that a object that we expect to be described by quantum mechanics turns out to, indeed, be described by quantum mechanics.
Check out this TED talk on just that subject. http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as...
Here's the punch line, space, time and matter are components of a user interface produced through evolution. We don't take the desktop and icons of our computer UI literally and we shouldn't take our evolved UI literally either.
The philosophical question would be "what is the controller?"
> Perhaps humanity is the only species burdened with distinguishing the truth.
If I understand him correctly, he says we don't perceive brains as they really are and therefore brains are not a physical basis of consciousness. Whoa.