Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli

Robert McEachern Thank you for that comprehensive reply. I know where you are coming from.
Re metaphysical speculation. I 'd argue its more than speculation,. There is hard evidence ;

1. that objects emit what we call electromagnetic radiation, when illuminated. We can demonstrate it using a light meter.
2. Eye photoreceptors and device photo cells absorb and respond tot he absorbed EM radiation.
   Chemical change can be detected.
   3.Each observer receives a different subset of EM emitted or reflected into the environment by the object. Easily demonstrated using an object seen to be different colours.
   4.A device acting as observer. such as a digital camera can be shown to generate a semblance that corresponds to the input received. How the cameras work is technically understood by the manufacturers as well as experienced by people daily.
   5.To provide multiple views an object must exist not just as seen by one observer but as source of sensory stimuli allowing all possible views. So, space in which things exist rather than observation products are seen must be absolute not 3d, as all observation viewpoints are valid,
   6.it is reasonable that quantum objects, like macroscopic objects unseen have existence in the environment filling absolute space . The quantum objects become known by detection or measurement that forms a singular ,relative ' seen this way' outcome state product. The moon object exists even when an observation product isn't formed by a particular observer, so they don't see it.

Georgina Woodward

I'd argue its more than speculation

So would I.

But I would further argue, that the reason philosophers and physicists alike, have all failed to comprehend the true nature of reality, is because they all have assumed that the entire physical world (except perhaps for conscious beings), must be behaving physically, in response to any "observation products" or "Laws of Nature", rather than behaving symbolically.

But that assumption appears to be incorrect - not just for conscious beings, but even for elementary particles!

Because Shannon discovered that even inanimate objects, can be made to behave much less chaotically and much more deterministically, if they behave symbolically. And Mother Nature appears to have discovered that same principle of operation, eons before Shannon ever did.

But most interesting of all, Shannon realized that the symbolic "alphabet", that must be used to generate any truly-deterministic cause and effect behaviors, is an "alphabet" consisting entirely of "White Noise." - one of the very things that causes the "Measurement Problem." Fighting fire, with fire:

Pure Order, emerging from Pure Chaos! Who would have guessed?

Georgina Woodward
That is correct, as far as it goes. But it does not go nearly far enough: the "existing particles condition", at the heart of the problem, is a very specific condition, concerning exactly how "identical" the particle pairs really are. As it turns out, "identical" twins behave very differently than "fraternal" twins, in Bell Tests of the EPR Paradox; resulting in precisely the difference observed, between "classical" and "quantum" correlations.

Georgina Woodward

determining their absolute , unmeasured trajectories through absolute space

That is irrelevant to a Bell test. In a Bell test, the two basketballs would always be fired along the exact same, known trajectory, in exactly opposite directions.

The whole point of the tests, is that the two Basketballs are also spinning - in exactly opposite, but unknown, random orientations. Your job, is to determine the unknown orientation of each ball's spin axis (either "up" or "down"), in 3 dimensional space, and then correlate one ball's orientation measurements, against the other ball's orientation measurements. The whole point of the test, is to demonstrate that "quantum" objects, will not exhibit the same correlations, that basketballs do.

My point is: Basketballs are not the only type of "classical" objects existing in our universe. Coins also exist. And if some coins are "manufactured" in accordance with Shannon's peculiar recipe, for one single-bit-of-information, then unlike basketballs, those coins will exhibit the same correlations as "quantum" objects.

Georgina Woodward

I wasn't trying to replicate a Bell test.

And therein lies the problem. If you do not replicate the effect, observed in a Bell test, then you almost certainly have not replicated (or identified) the cause for the effect, either.

A certain gentleman always wears odd socks ,one blue one red...

Physicists already understand why Bertlmann’s socks "are necessarily correlated. But not entangled." Hence, they have no further interest in such experiments. But the correlations observed in Bell tests are different. The only question of any on-going interest is, why? What causes "quantum" objects to correlate in ways, that are totally unlike Bertlmann’s socks, or any other previously known, "classical" system?

And my answer is:
"it is easy to demonstrate that the cause of "Bell correlations" is entirely due to the "non-identicality" of the entangled pairs, rather than any supposed "non-locality" of the real world, in which those entangled pairs actually exist."

Georgina Woodward

It is the extra correlation that's interesting... Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation...

The "extra correlation" happens, precisely because of what is not "in common in pair formation."
Which would be a logical impossibility, if the pair actually were identical. But the assumption that they are actually identical (AKA indistinguishable), turns out to be false. That is the problem, that has befuddled physicists, for an entire century. The pair are similar (fraternal twins), but not identical (identical twins). A slightly different pattern of noise, on the surface of a pair of "blurry" coins, is all that it takes, to create the "extra correlation."

Georgina Woodward

why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves.

There is no assumption! That is the entire point, that you consistently fail to understand; In the purely classical experiment, the coins were constructed to have exactly that property - because that is what a bit of information is - a packet of noise, riding upon a carrier.

Just think of what determines the value of any actual coin - it is not the physical "stuff", the metal substance; the metal is just the carrier of the "information" being used to determine the coin's value - but the actual information itself, is encoded, entirely within the markings on the surface - the "noise."

Shannon's greatest discovery, was the realization, that in order to be reliably detected - for any completely deterministic behavior to ever emerge, in a noisy environment - the "information" must be encoded to have, the statistical properties of white noise! In other words, instead of a picture of an actual "Head" and "Tail", you must use two different patterns of white noise, to represent/encode the "Head" and Tail" - because the noise-like encodings can be much more reliably detected, than any actual picture!

Hence, your "extra correlation" arises entirely from the fact that the auto-correlation of noise-like sequences, generate more reliably detectable, large peaks, than any other known type of encoding. Which is why "Mother Nature" appears to use them, to generate deterministic behaviors; and She generates them, out of the very Chaos itself - the noise!

And it can be amazingly easy for deterministic behaviors to emerge from the Chaos; rather than wasting time searching for it; just create it yourself! (“You” being Mother Nature), out of pure noise!