Thanks for your response. However, I’m not sure, or maybe I am too dense to see it, that you answered my question. I, too, have been amazed by Bell’s Theorem for years. Can’t say I get all of it or all of its implications. And,
you’re 100% correct that the math is not difficult and is unassailable, which has irritated many physicists for years.
But, it just seems to me that taking Bell’s ideas and proof to a logical conclusion, and maybe, maybe, embellishing things a little bit, one can find support for a universal consciousness in his numbers and the ramifications they entail. This would tend to support the theory talked about in the article.
Help me here if you can. Thanks.
I’m not sure that for this type of event (ore better yet, describe it as a “cluster of hypotheticals”) that we need Bells theorem.
It is true, AFAIK, that Bell’s theorem has no specifics about just exactly “How much superluminal” we are talking about, in other words, just a tiny bit superluminal (meaning the “event” in space and time are close) or vastly superluminal (spanning distances across the whole universe, times going back to the big bang).
This whole deal might be explained with your ordinary run-of-the-nill uncertainty. The particle is not here (exactly) and it’s not there(exactly), but it’s at some kind of fuzzy place that has a little bit of “here” and a little bit of “there”.
Although derided by purists, I recommend “Quantum Mechanics and Experience” by David Z Albert.
It uses alot of practical, understandable, day to day type metaphors to explain what quantum mechanics DOES NOT DO to give the reader a feel of how weird it really is!