There is evidence demonstrating a "violation of causality." It's easy to skip the violation part of the phrase.
Now I understand what you meant. But I did not skip the word 'violation'. Instead, I misunderstood what you meant with "the concept". I thought you meant the concept of the violation of causality. But you meant the concept of (inviolable) causality itself.
However, I think that if quantum mechanics entails violations of causality, and if there is evidence for it, then scientists will not hang on to causality no matter what. They will go where the evidence leads them.
There does seem to have to be somewhere, even in the future or background, an observer or potential observer, but I agree that there does not have to be a measurement by a conscious observer in the present to cause the particle to take on discrete and specific form
I think there doesn't have to be a
conscious observer at all. After all, we've only been in the universe a fraction of a second on a twenty-four hour scale. What happened to all those undetermined states before consciousness arose in the universe? Did they remain undetermined for aeons and aeons, waiting to be observed until we came along?
The words 'observation' and 'measurement' have connotations with consciousness, but that's just language. I think an observation, or a measurement, can just as easily be constituted by any form of interaction that demands that the wave function collapses. If a particle flies through space without interacting with anything, it may stay undetermined. But as soon as it interacts with something, be it a photon, another particle, or whatever, the interaction causes the wave function to collapse.
What do you mean by "subluminal"?
I mean the opposite of superluminal. Subluminal may or may not be a word, but I just mean all the universe that exists under the speed of light (and really need to qualify that to include the universe at the speed of light as well). In other words, I think there are dimensions of reality, whether one wants to call them spiritual or extra dimensions within string theory or whatever, but they are non-observed, at least directly, and perhaps we should separate the universe within and at the speed of light that we can observe from the other parts of the universe.
I see. But in my opinion you don't need to pose extra dimensions for that purpose. Whatever part of space is so far away that its light can never overtake the expansion of the universe, such part can never be observed by us. But logically and mathematically, it's the same kind of space as our own part of the universe, and has the same kind of dimensions.
At least, that's what I think.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.