Genady

What is suggested to do about it?

Viruses are a good food for these bacteria: The consumption of viruses returns energy to food chains | PNAS

Yes: Amazon.com: The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Fundamental Theories of Physics, 185): 9783319412849: 't Hooft, Gerard: Books

Well, t' Hooft explained how they do not contradict each other.

There is a completely different possibility avoiding this apparent problem without going backwards in time or faster than light: nothing is in fact random. Not only the results of the measurements, but also the measurements themselves. All is completely determined, not just since the particles were prepared in the entangled state, but way before that, since these particles, or their ancestor particles, and the particles of Alice and Bob, and particles of the rest of the universe were "on top of each other" and interacted among themselves. It is pre-determined when and how the particles will be entangled and everything that happens to them, and to Alice and Bob, after that (I've learned this idea from 't Hooft.)

I don't think it can be done generally. The QM calculation for the states of spin-entangled electrons, for example, is just a vector algebra (in the 2D complex vector space). There is no time in this calculation at all. Nor space. However, it describes the entire phenomenon.

Not good enough. All other observers disagree about a speed with which the car is moving. An observer standing on the side will see one speed. An observer in another car passing the first one will see a different speed. An observer walking along the street will see yet a different speed. An observer on the Moon, on the Sun, in the center of the Milky Way, in Andromeda galaxy, ... they all see different speeds of the same car. Some very different. For example, the observer in the center of the Milky Way sees the car moving together with the whole Solar system with the speed 820 000 km/h. What is the car's speed "from a global observer point of view"?

Perhaps one could think about a "communication" going back and forth in time, just like one could think about positrons being electrons moving backwards in time. It might help one heuristically, albeit not adding anything to physics.

A ruler does not measure distance, a ruler is distance? A scale does not measure weight, a scale is weight? A thermometer does not measure temperature, a thermometer is temperature? A depth gage does not measure depth, a depth gage is depth? A pressure gage does not measure pressure, a pressure gage is pressure? A speedometer does not measure speed, a speedometer is speed? Etc.

Not only that seasons would not exist, but also a year would not have any meaning, except for a purely astronomical curiosity of repeating star patterns.

Ahh, me too.

Why would it be, if it to which you agreed.

Different observers, no contradictions. The crucial fact here is that Alice does not know the result of her measurement before she makes the measurement. Same with Bob.

No. Different observers can deduce different things. Especially, since wave function is not an observable.

Yes.

Professional psychotherapy?

Sorry, it should've appeared in my previous post.

I don't know how, but it does not mean that it is impossible. E.g., A. Zee mentioned such possibility here (just an illustration that it is not obvious that it is impossible):

There are many things in physics that exist without us being able to visualize them. Or did I misunderstand the question?

This is good enough to continue the analysis. The statement, does not affect this point:

1. Do you mean, if it cannot be measured it cannot change? I disagree. 2. Regardless of the 1 above, couldn't a measuring particle be attached to the changing particle? I.e., without a space.

Right, we've established already that a change is necessary for time to make sense. I don't see yet that change requires space. If there can be change without space, then there can be time without space.

I think, they all agree that particle falls through the horizon. They disagree only on the timing of this event: for one, it happens in a finite time, for the other - infinite.

Without space, wavelike characteristics wouldn't apply. Does it mean time wouldn't exist? Are the wavelike characteristics necessary for a change?

Why not? Some kind akin oscillating neutrinos?