Sean Carroll

It's more holistic than that.

So people like me, who are advocates of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, we have a very simple, straightforward way of talking about entanglement.

But there's other people out there who talk about it differently.

And, you know, that's great.

That's what academia and intellectual curiosity is all about.

When we teach undergraduates quantum mechanics, we say that a quantum system has two different ways of evolving.

There's one way it can evolve when you're not looking at it.

And that's what Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their friends figured out back in the day.

Yeah, it changes, it has its dynamics, whatever it's doing, whatever its behavior is.

But then there's a whole other way that we need to describe that behavior when we make a measurement, when we observe the system.

Famously in quantum mechanics, you can't predict

deterministically, precisely, with 100% confidence, what answer you're going to get.

You can predict a probability distribution over different possible answers.

I think it was Niels Bohr.

I think the better advice would be like, don't play dice against God.

You're not going to win.

There you go.

That makes sense.

So, what is this going on with this weird thing?

You don't expect measurements, observations, looking at things to be part of the fundamental nature of reality, right?