This article claims something even more radical, it attributes some sort of "inner life", whatever that means, to elementary particles. This doesn't have any basis, and is, strictly speaking, impossible, as an electron having an "inner life" implies the existence of some local hidden variable(s) that explains the electron's behavior, and that was proved impossible more than 5 decades ago.
This article claims something even more radical, it attributes some sort of "inner life", whatever that means, to elementary particles. This doesn't have any basis, and is, strictly speaking, impossible, as an electron having an "inner life" implies the existence of some local hidden variable(s) that explains the electron's behavior, and that was proved impossible more than 5 decades ago.
Bell's theorem? Not quite. There's still the possibility of super-determinism.
If many particles are entangled that would give us a computer powerful enough to have consciousness.
Superdeterminism is possible, but I'd much rather it not be true.