Seth Lloyd has been saying a variation of this for years and years now so it is nothing new. You take some quantum phenomena, which has a bunch of ways to interpret it and choose one that that is convoluted enough that you can say "backward in time" or some other nonsense, when some other straightforward explanation would work even better.
Sabine has a nice debunk of this (see link below). She is actually nicer than I would be. She points out the math is right but the framing is bs. My issue is that people like Seth always go out their way to pick the most contrived framework to make it sound more profound than it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZrHrw1ubqs
In any case if this was correct Seth could have sent a message to his past self to not go to Epstein Island. (Yes look up Seth Lloyd and Jeffrey Epstein)
3 comments:
No they did not.
There are now attempts to commercialize this
https://americanelectrodynamics.com/#applications
"The Result
High-probability generation of previously unknown information — predictive signals, binary Q&A, or secure cryptographic communication."
"Sending messages to the past"
Seth Lloyd has been saying a variation of this for years and years now so it is nothing new. You take some quantum phenomena, which has a bunch of ways to interpret it and choose one that that is convoluted enough that you can say "backward in time" or some other nonsense, when some other straightforward explanation would work even better.
Sabine has a nice debunk of this (see link below). She is actually nicer than I would be. She points out the math is right but the framing is bs. My issue is that people like Seth always go out their way to pick the most contrived framework to make it sound more profound than it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZrHrw1ubqs
In any case if this was correct Seth could have sent a message to his past self to not go to Epstein Island. (Yes look up Seth Lloyd and Jeffrey Epstein)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/us/jeffrey-epstein-mit-professor-donation
Post a Comment