What exactly is "spin"?

[Sauwelios]

What they are doing is proclaiming that the observation of one item caused the other item to become identical (or reversed, depending). But it is just a mind game. In the rational world, both entities were whatever they were regardless of any observations or assessments and the discovery of one doesn't alter what they other always was, but rather allows for a double discovery because they are known to be similar (or opposite).

No James, the observation affects the quantum state of the "two items". There can be no immaculate perception, no pure mind, no ghost that sees and yet moves through things, leaving them unaffected. "Both entities" share a single quantum state, and this is changed as a whole when one observes (e.g., fires light) at one side of it, no matter the distance thereof from the opposite side.

[James S Saint]

What they are doing is proclaiming that the observation of one item caused the other item to become identical (or reversed, depending). But it is just a mind game. In the rational world, both entities were whatever they were regardless of any observations or assessments and the discovery of one doesn't alter what they other always was, but rather allows for a double discovery because they are known to be similar (or opposite).

No James, the observation affects the quantum state of the "two items". There can be no immaculate perception, no pure mind, no ghost that sees and yet moves through things, leaving them unaffected. "Both entities" share a single quantum state, and this is changed as a whole when one observes (e.g., fires light) at one side of it, no matter the distance thereof from the opposite side.

No Sauwelios, Observation changes nothing but what you believe, your internal "equation", not what is there. Existence does not depend upon your illusions, quite the opposite. Your dreams are real, but not reality.

[Sauwelios]

What they are doing is proclaiming that the observation of one item caused the other item to become identical (or reversed, depending). But it is just a mind game. In the rational world, both entities were whatever they were regardless of any observations or assessments and the discovery of one doesn't alter what they other always was, but rather allows for a double discovery because they are known to be similar (or opposite).

No James, the observation affects the quantum state of the "two items". There can be no immaculate perception, no pure mind, no ghost that sees and yet moves through things, leaving them unaffected. "Both entities" share a single quantum state, and this is changed as a whole when one observes (e.g., fires light) at one side of it, no matter the distance thereof from the opposite side.

No Sauwelios, Observation changes nothing but what you believe, your internal "equation", not what is there. Existence does not depend upon your illusions, quite the opposite. Your dreams are real, but not reality.

Dear James, of course the act of observation changes the object of observation. In order for us to see something, for example, light needs to reflect from it into our eyes. If the object of observation is something sub-atomic, like light itself, that collision ("reflection") will have a significant impact on it. (Of course, in that case we cannot see it with our naked eyes. This doesn't affect the logic of what I just said in the slightest.)

[James S Saint]

In order for us to see something, for example, light needs to reflect from it into our eyes. If the object of observation is something sub-atomic, like light itself, that collision ("reflection") will have a significant impact on it. (Of course, in that case we cannot see it with our naked eyes. This doesn't affect the logic of what I just said in the slightest.)

And if our eyes were not there, the same light would have reflected off of it anyway. What happened to the light after it left the object, certainly doesn't change the object. Or do you believe in reverse time causation? What happens tomorrow is what causes today?

[Sauwelios]

In order for us to see something, for example, light needs to reflect from it into our eyes. If the object of observation is something sub-atomic, like light itself, that collision ("reflection") will have a significant impact on it. (Of course, in that case we cannot see it with our naked eyes. This doesn't affect the logic of what I just said in the slightest.)

And if our eyes were not there, the same light would have reflected off of it anyway. What happened to the light after it left the object, certainly doesn't change the object. Or do you believe in reverse time causation? What happens tomorrow is what causes today?

Sure, if our eyes were not there, the same light would have reflected off the object anyway--unless we shone the light on it in order to see it with our eyes. I never claimed that what happens to the light after it leaves the object changes the object. What I said was that the object's collision with the light changes the object, if only on a quantum level.

A visual observation requires that light be reflected or emitted by an object. That reflection or emission is part of the observation: for our eyes can detect only light, not the (indirect) sources of that light. A refrigerator, for instance, does not fit into our eyes, and yet we can see it!