TA/LOG001 - Magic and Quantum mechanics Relationships : >>>
Any relation established between these two extremely abstract concepts would appear to match the obscurity with the uncertainty, like making assumptions about two concepts about which we do not know anything definite. The first and foremost reason why they remain abstract for me is that we do not have the opportunity to test them over and over again. Even if I speak under general conditions, it seems that even if I speak to repeat or test, no concrete reflection or observation can be reached about it. A scientist acting with concrete evidence and logic will be somehow caught in the veil of obscurity, which seems to be the end of the story where everything becomes meaningless and complicated. i plays a great role in the understanding of the abstract concept. In fact, there is an aspect of the existence of the unknown and chaos that helps to make sense of these abstract concepts.
Today, according to quantum physics, the idea that a substance can exist in more than one place simultaneously at the same time seems abstract to us, but it has been observed with concrete evidence. But this observation can only be made as a result of a data transfer using other intermediaries. Even if we are exposed in every moment, quantum oddities or values are not recognized and made sense in our thoughts under normal circumstances. According to what I'm going to tell, the most important reason behind this seems like a weird puzzle like "knowing too much to grasp the unknown (knowing too much prevents the grasping of the unknown)". Just as we play toss and coin here, each of us has a 50% chance of winning, the probability of a quantum computer winning this game is over 90%. The remaining minor illusions are caused by errors in our systems. How could a quantum oddity be able to overcome what we call "luck" or "randomness"? Now imagine that you also have this feature that quantum computer can do using abstract thought. That you left by winning 50% or less of everything you had. Other people would call it magic or trickery, but it would be nothing more than the operation of an obscure natural phenomenon, yet it would not lose anything in its impressive and surprising, or the feelings it evoked in the people who experienced it. (I say this to explain why we call a complex quantum phenomenon magic. )
If a person could witness how this kind of mechanics works, he would feel like an inventor trying to understand a law of physics by watching its reflection in nature, and at the same time like a magician who can access unimaginable information. Can we really observe this mechanic? The answer to that is "yes!" I think it is. In order to explain this, I have to give more information about what we need to observe.
We make our observations at the extreme points of the diagram above. An object standing in front of us is either there (1) or not there (0) for us, whether an object is there or not at the same time is not an observable situation for us. Therefore, in a simple game of chance, the quantum computer will always prevail over us. The reason for this is that this system can observe the transition moment between (0) and (1) as in the circle in the middle of the diagram and use it as a different concept. Just as precise judgments disappear and an object that exists and does not exist at the same time can be observed.
So how is it that although I tell you where to look, we cannot create an image, a feeling or even an imagination in our minds like the quantum computer where it is (1) and (0) at the same time? At the beginning of what I told, I said something like "knowing too much in order to comprehend the uncertainty (knowing too much prevents the grasping of the unknown)". Whenever we observers make definite judgments about the transition in the middle, the way of thinking we follow becomes the way of thinking that gives us a 50% chance. However, if we could see the unknown in the transition like quantum computers. In order to call our luck "luck", it would have lost all its qualities. Being able to observe the unknown seems to be a way of understanding what will be certain. However, there is a very important point to understand and not to be confused: the difference between observing the unknown and not knowing anything, or in other words, between observing thoughtlessness and not thinking. When you try to observe randomness or chaos, you will feel like thinking too much while doing so.