For consumer-market machines. :D Distributed supercomputers have been a thing for decades.
If your processor has multiple instruction pipelines, it does so. :p
It's real, but its not fundamental.
Talking about this coherently requires paying very careful attention to your abstractions and how they relate to each other.
Awareness of our environment exists because we receive data from our environment, process it, react to it, and remember it.
In physical terms, what that means is that...
If it was a mathematical certainty, it would be the case that it was somehow logically impossible for there to be only one inhabited planet in the universe. That's silly.
The cause in God's handwriting the maths - when two things get entangled, the terms describing them form a structure with specific properties.
I thought the solution was to rule out realism of observables.
The cause for the correlation is the entangling. No entangling = no correlation.
Bell's inequality only rules out local hidden variables. Entangling is not a local hidden variable, its a global one. (Because at the fundamental level, QM talks about global states of the universe and how they...
The local entanglement interaction isn't the thing that causes the state collapse. It's the thing that allows you to deduce that a state collapse happened at all.
Measuring an entangled system doesn't somehow "force" the other end of the system into any particular state. Instead, you are using...
I'm fairly sure its possible to prove that classical electromagnetism is local.
So why are you extrapolating from, "This is impractical to model" to, "This is ontologically not the case?"
But saying that "experience is a global concept and causes these changes in the micro-objects in the brain" contradicts the premise of reductionism: global concepts are actually built of local objects. There is surely no problem with local objects affecting each other, is there?
That second source seems to involve a type error: assuming that "experience" is somehow qualitively different than lots of small changes in the neurons.
AFAIK, there's nothing that prevents the universe from being closed in that manner, in which case yes, that would be the result.
Did you miss the post where I asked you to elaborate on why an infinite homgenous universe is impossible?