[fc417fc802]

> So, engage me on the substance.

He gave you constructive criticism about the form, specifically the ways in which your form makes it overly difficult to engage with you.

> I'm saying you don't need to classically move things in order to teleport information.

Generally for QM entanglement experiments you can't interpret the result without the measurements from both sides. So while you might be able to demonstrate after the fact that impacts on the state of the system propagated faster than light, you will not be able to make use of that FTL propagation in any directly useful manner.

[EGreg]

The point is whether we can use quantum error correction to bias the probabilities on one end, before the decoherence happens.

Modern quantum error correction techniques are dramatically improving:

Decoherence suppression: Extending coherence times of qubits.

Fault-tolerant quantum computing: Reducing errors in quantum state evolution.

Quantum memory storage: Holding quantum states stable for long durations.

So if decoherence is controllable, and if randomness is epistemic (not ontological), then this suggests we can gradually influence quantum measurement probabilities.

Look, here's what we can already do today:

Extend entanglement coherence times (already happening).

Control quantum noise with precision (e.g., superconducting qubits).

Perform weak measurements without full collapse (experimental quantum optics).

I agree that directly biasing entangled measurements nonlocally has not yet demonstrated today, but it could be in the near future, which is what I am predicting can unleash this FTL communication possibility!

Quantum error correction is already proving that decoherence isn’t truly random—it can be controlled. The interaction-free measurement paradox suggests that it’s possible to extract information without collapsing a wavefunction. Bohmian Mechanics & PWT are underexplored experimentally, and this would be a direct way to test them.

[fc417fc802]

This is a list of things rather than a concise statement of cause and effect followed by a proposed mechanism or other details. It's difficult for me to make sense of.

> bias the probabilities on one end, before the decoherence happens

Let's start there. What do you mean by that? What would this look like in concrete terms if I went and did it on the bench?

My understanding is that any measurement you take will appear random and uncorrelated until you have the data from the other side. At which point you can say "oh hey look, turns out it was actually correlated" but you can't demonstrate that fact until you have both sets of data in hand.

So in simple, concise, and concrete terms, what violation of the above are you proposing?