Determinism, Speed of Light Take Back Seat

It is called Quantum Entanglement and it has just been proven more true, repeatable time and again with the same identical results (so far), and so must exist as a law, if not near-law, in Quantum Mechanics. The implications of this being law are massive!

Why massive? Let me first share what experiment just took place further proving the truth of quantum entanglement, or what Albert Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,” and what was done and what it means, then I will discuss the possible implications, particularly for ethics and morals.

Two Distant Separate Quasars Judge Proceedings

The old guard, i.e. classical physics and/or philosophy, hold that for an event or action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the perceived space between those points such as a field or unseen supreme being must arbitrate the action. To exert an influence or force, something, e.g. a wave, energy, or particle, must travel through the field between the two bodies, carrying the information/influence. Therefore, the principle of locality implies that an event/force at one point cannot cause an instantaneous, simultaneous result at another point. This also implies then that Quantum Mechanics violates either locality or realism, and models of Hard Determinism. More on this later.

What is undeniable and already happening is the dawn of Quantum Supremacy. What is Quantum Supremacy? Currently, and over the last decade or more, conventional supercomputers and microprocessors like the phone in your hand or laptop at your office do computations using bits-flipped like a coin with heads and tails; 1’s and 0’s and various binary combinations of those 1’s and 0’s. Polarity is another way of looking at it:  positive and negative combinations. The bigger the calculation, the more bits/coins (size and time) the microprocessor requires in today’s supercomputers. With quantum bits/processing (Qubits or Qb’s) they are a combination of 1’s and 0’s, or heads or tails as if the coin was constantly spinning on its axis showing both sides:  the more qubits, the greater the processing power.

quantum computer

A Quantum computer

What these calculating speeds mean is that Quantum Supremacy can make so many large, various calculations simultaneously that the number would exceed all the atoms in the entire observable Cosmos. The observable cosmos is currently measured at about 93-billion light-years in diameter. Try to imagine the number of atoms in that space. Quantum Supremacy is essentially reaching or is on the doorstep of consciousness. These quantum computers and quantum encryption rely on quantum entanglement being real, a law of nature!

Since the 1920’s and 1930’s Quantum physicists have theorized various forms and possible laws pertaining to the activity, behavior, and makeup of subatomic particles and their predicted or probable condition at any given time. However, old habits and stubborn ideologies and traditions die hard. Dare I say they sometimes appear immortal, divine, impervious, and immeasurable.

Not anymore, or not so much.

animated particlesMany scientific experiments have been made to test the veracity of quantum entanglement. All of them in their specific parameters have so far shown that quantum entanglement is real, but quite difficult to consistently explain. The nagging counter-argument has always been the freedom of choice loophole. This loophole basically means or purports that a hidden classical variable (God?) can or does influence (in degrees) how a curious experimenter/observer measures a subject, or in this case an entangled particle. Is that too confusing to wrap your head around? No worries. Here’s a tangible analogy.

Imagine the Universe as a bar-pub with 20 different beers listed above the bartender for you to drink. You think you can order any of the 20 beers, but then the manager from the back tells you, “We’re out of the lagers,” and so it turns out only thirteen of the beers are really on draft. You still have the freedom to choose from the remaining thirteen beers, but you were over-counting your degrees of freedom while unexpectedly reducing your chance of excessive inebriation! Woohoo! A good thing, right? Eh, depends on the size of the beer-drinker, his or her thirst, and the size of beer-glasses, and whether you have that much money to pay… or find your mouth by the time the 10th or 12th beer-glass is served and gravity kicks in like a MoFo! Get the loophole picture? God or gravity does not want you drinking so many good beers.

But in February 2018 our favorite pub-bar was completely redone, restaffed, restocked, and redefined. Sorry Jim, John Zande, and Arkenaten. Using the William Herschel Telescope in conjunction with the Galileo National Telescope—both a half-mile apart from each other—at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, in La Palma, Spain in the Canary Islands, a team of physicists led by Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna and David Kaiser of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, focused on two different High-Redshift quasars billions of light-years away (7.8 and 12.2) in order to determine whether the light-photons are more red or blue than a baseline. Since those photon-lights of the quasars being measured by the telescopes are actually over 7.8- and 12.2-billion years old, the likelihood that some classical mechanism, process, or loophole could intervene/interfere with their tests are precisely 10 ¯²°, or 1 in 100 billion billion. There is no conspiracy because the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. However, there are probabilities as tiny and as far into outer space as you could impossibly imagine!

detector schematic-entangled photons

D. Rauch (Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080403)

For the purpose of quantum entanglement, determinism, and the speed of light, what Zeilinger’s and Kaiser’s two 15-minute experiments—of over 17,000 and 12,000 pairs of entangled photons—showed was that the photon quasar pairs were indeed quantumly entangled even while located billions of light-years apart. Therefore, it is only a 1 in 100 billion billion chance that quantum entanglement does not exist. Like it or not, it is quite real and to Einstein’s chagrin, it is faster than the speed of light. Want a more layman’s description of that speed? If you could travel the speed of light, you could go around the entire Earth 7.5 times in one second. I’ll give you less than a minute to catch your breath.

The Ethical and Moral Implications of Quantum Entanglement

Earlier in this post I mentioned that Quantum Mechanics violates either locality or realism, and models of Hard Determinism. The origin of Determinism, and most certainly Hard Determinism can be found in several ancient Bronze and Iron Age, Classical Age, Post-Classical, and Early Modern civilizations and their histories. One of those civilizations or cultures that heavily influenced our Western Civilizations was ancient Judaism, Judaeo-Christianity, and Medieval-to-Modern Christianity. One consistent theme throughout all three of those aforementioned cultures was the implied and Scriptural sovereignty and foresight of their Judaeo-Christian God “YHWY” or Yahweh. In other words and for our identification and distinction here, God is causa sui, or a self-caused cause, timeless, the beginning of all beginnings in need of no cause to be. The overwhelming (canonical) Scriptural corroboration for this follows:

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14)

Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:2)

“For I, the Lord, do not change… (Malachi 3:6a)

O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
Even the darkness is not dark to You,
And the night is as bright as the day.
Darkness and light are alike to You.

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:1-13)

And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:13)

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… (Hebrews 1:3)

The Lord has established His throne in the heavens,
And His sovereignty rules over all. (Psalm 103:19)

Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. (Matt. 10:29-31)

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:14-15)

Also Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2:8; and 2 Timothy 1:9-10 and many more.

Clearly, according to the Jewish and Judaeo-Christian or Christian “God” of their canonical Bible there is no room for freedom of choice or free-will. This is also called Incompatibilism. No doubt, there will be thousands of other Christians, preachers and scholars alike (Wayne Jackson), screaming “foul, lies, and apostasy” at me. Yet, as shown by the above passages “God” is in complete and total control of everything and ultimately you. We are merely players acting out our preconceived programmes according to their Holy Scriptures and wildly enough, this is also believed and taught by some non-Christians. This thinking and imposed determinism (apostasy?) was further defined and defended by the creation of at least 10 classic dogmas, three that I emphasize deserve special attention:

  • Being – from Parmenides and Plato to Heidegger and Sartre, all Becoming and Time has been seen as a corrupt this-worldly illusion, preventing us from seeing the Great Chain of Being. All events are extratemporal and simultaneous in the eyes of God. Aquinas’ totem simul.
  • Necessity – Necessity is often opposed to chance. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated. Nothing is contingent. From Leucippus to the Stoics, Leibniz, and Spinoza.
  • Analysis – from Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid, Archimedes, and Galileo comes the powerful train of thought that everything can be explained by analytical mathematical functions. Newton’s mathematical laws of motion for celestial bodies was the crowning achievement for analysis. For William Blake, breaking things into their component parts to analyze their workings was “murder to dissect.”
  • Certainty – Descartes’ quest for an undeniable fact on which he could erect the Truth of Philosophy and the Christian Religion.
  • Logic – Logical determinism is the simple idea that events in the future must be as true or false today as they will be after they happen. Aristotle doubted this in his famous discussion of the Sea Battle.
  • Causality – Aristotle and the great Scholastic thinkers imagined a causal chain from the First Cause to the present moment. Although David Hume said we could not prove causality from mere appearances of Regularity, he nevertheless believed deeply in Necessity, above as the 2nd bullet-point.
  • Physical – The first great determinism was that of the earliest physicists and philosophers Leucippus and Democritus. For them there was nothing but atoms moving through a void. Later the Stoic physicists based physical determinism on the Laws of Nature or the Laws of God, since they identified Nature with God via General Revelation.
  • Mechanism – If classical mechanics could explain the motions of the heavens as the result of natural laws, the same laws might explain human beings, including the individual mind and society. Enlightenment philosophers wrote of “Man as Machine.” Planetary motions and mental processes were compared to mechanical clockworks.
  • Reasoning – The idea that the universe must be rational—because its designer was rational, because thought would not be possible without reason, because natural laws must be rational, etc.—convinced many thinkers that reason allows only one future, and only one possible choice for the rational will.
  • Truth – The idea that one man, one religion, or one state possesses the One Truth (Monisms like 1 Corinthians 1:10) has been one of the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought.
bible determinism

(Abaco Bum, Flikr, Public Domain)

Some of these past thinkers, reformers, revolutionaries, prophets, preachers, apostles, philosophers, patristic fathers and what have you, would turn these dogmas into indivisible, lowest common denominator fundamentals, or immutable laws that all knowledge, thought, or the best science could not exist without one or more of the ten being unequivocally “true.” Bold? Misguided? Ignorant?

As Quantum Physics, Mechanics, and Computing become more understood, more refined, and harnessed beyond the speed of light to the point of consciousness, it would be an understatement to say humanity is near or undoubtedly at an unprecedented place in history. With quantum entanglement and computing anything is or will be possible because observed measurements (moral/ethical judgments) can never be more than probabilities. Hard Determinism denies any randomness in the operation of the world. Old guard traditionalist and Monists deny chance. They turn their eyes away from the underlying chaos in the universe. Probabilities and subjectivism makes their stomachs ill and their skin crawl. As William James succinctly described, Determinists or if I may, Absolute Certainists(?), have antipathy to chance and adequate probability.

Quantum entanglement and supremacy forces them to see the magnificent kaleidoscope of ergodic, creative phenomena that can build adequately determined information-blueprints in spite of, and basically on top of, our perpetual chaos. Hah! Ergodic procedures control, contain, constrain, and co-opt entropic chaos, using it to their own teleonomic ends of biological creativity, and, in the case of animal intelligence, human freedom. In a few words, Monism or classic Determinism, especially hard determinism, or causality is just plain ignorance and there is now ample evidence proving it does not exist. But there will always be hard-line deniers of pluralism and uncertainty.

Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore,” Martin Luther believed. I guess then it follows Luther’s logic that Quantum Entanglement is God’s invigorating libertine, huh? Mmm. Oh the rampant debauchery of it! Be still my thumping heart and nether parts!


Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

79 thoughts on “Determinism, Speed of Light Take Back Seat

  1. I Like!

    It’s even stranger; it’s not just particles that can be entangled, but fields (such as electromagnetic) as well. The one certainty here is that reality is proving to be far crazier than anyone suspected.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Really cool! I love how you tied in both physics and religious history! I always find the idea of the Trinity similar to the triple point in science, where at the right temp. and pressure, all 3 states of matter can exist simultaneously! I think if a science-based culture of scientists were proselytized by missionaries, they’d see Christianity through a lens of science, and come up with some strange interpretations like I thought of to explain all the weirdness! I personally try to conceive of an idea of 3-in-1 like some quantum physics problem, like an atom can be in 2 spots at once in quantum entanglement!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Interesting LoR. I am always open to any theories, concepts, or hypotheses that aid in better, wiser intelligence. I have to ask. Are you advocating the existence of or authenticity of the Hellenistic Godhead represented in the 3rd- and 4th-century CE concept/defense of the Trinity?

      As some very brief historical context, the concept/theory of Trinitarianism is not the least bit Jewish, much less of Palestinian Judaism of which the sectarian Yeshua the Nasoraean/Nazarene is most assuredly associated? Historical and biblical scholars generally think it is a blend of Hellenic Mysticism and Gnostic concepts more agreeable to Gentile Romans. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • No!!! I’m just amused at the idea of what would a hypothetical culture based in science make of Judaeo Christian ideas 😂😂😂 Like the syncretism between pagan cultural concepts and Christianity or contemporary cultures like in Haiti or Africa or Latin America weaving their spirituality with Christianity….

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, I pretty much assumed you weren’t advocating any sort of a real Trinity, but felt for readers here clarification was needed. 🙂

          The mixing, blending, modifying, exchanging, tossing, etc, etc, between human cultures has most certainly been going on since the beginning of our human history some 300,000 – 400,000 years ago, no exceptions whatsoever, particularly inside the Roman Empire during the Iron Age in Syro-Palestine! Rome and her Hellenistic culture swallowed up most everybody and took what they liked and spit out what they didn’t. LOL 😛

          Liked by 1 person

            • LoR, you may or may not already be familiar with some of this history, but I’ll approach it the way I like and what my 28-years of study on the entire spectrum and time-window of the subject has shown me along with a plethora of scholars and experts. They’re the ones from which I needed much help, to say the least! Are you ready? LOL

              Hellenistic God-head.” Let’s first break it down word by word.

              Hellenism — Here’s a great initial introduction from Britannica Encyclopedia:

              The Hellenistic Age, in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE and the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 30 BCE. For some purposes the period is extended for a further three and a half centuries, to the move by Constantine the Great of his capital to Constantinople (Byzantium, modern day Istanbul) in 330 CE. From the breakup of Alexander’s empire there arose numerous realms, including the Macedonian, the Seleucid, and the Ptolemaic, that served as the framework for the spread of Greek (Hellenic) culture, the mixture of Greek with other populations, and the fusion of Greek and Eastern elements.


              Two of the aspects of this Age and its cultural impact are poorly understood (or not at all) by modern faith-followers of Christianity. They are 1) the military and sociopolitical power, penetration, and syncretism of the Greek Empire, and 2) the more amplified military and sociopolitical power, penetration, and syncretism of the Roman Empire compared to the Greek Empire — i.e. Rome wanted to do everything better than Alexander the Great. This is the backdrop to the roots and development of Trinitarianism or the God-head fought over and debated by the Apostolic/Patristic Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church, or the very first concepts of the Greco-Roman “Christ.”

              (Please take note that during the Golden Age (pinnacle, Pax Romana) of the Roman Empire to its early decline (c. 27 BCE – c. 180 CE), Hellenistic (pagan) Roman religious practices gradually distinguished themselves over 2-3 generations apart from conquered cultures: the Hebrews to name one, as if the conquered are inferior.)

              As the glory years of Pax Romana began to crumble and collapse for many reasons, new forms of socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and socioreligious concepts to cope were sought/developed with great fervor. Here’s a blog-post I wrote in April 2011 that covers this epoch in more detail:


              As human history amply shows us time and again, when civilizations are collapsing just about ANYTHING can get a foothold and become exploitative and abusive while disguised as “Dreams/Paths of Hope.” Human nature and Herd-Mentality.

              Enter the rising, powerful Apostolic/Patristic Fathers of the early Roman Catholic Church.

              One big reason why today’s Christian church is so divided, so fragmented (although they’ll all deny it! LOL) is because for some mind-boggling reason(s) the vast majority of proclaimed Christians today don’t want to wrestle with complex historical concepts the very FIRST Judeo-Christians — although they were actually just common Sectarian Jews around Jerusalem and in Palestine trying to sort out stuff as well due to then high Messianic fervor — wrestled with, but today they don’t understand in a span of 30-minutes. Lazy? Abso-freakin-lutely!!!

              All one has to do, if it is more truth they are actually seeking, is closely study and understand Palestinian Second Temple Judaism/Messianism (with great help from the Dead Sea Scrolls!) to see that with regard to Greco-Roman paganism and mysticism (strands of which leak in from Egypt’s and Hebrew religious ideas) during a volatile period of Roman Imperial history… the Apostolic/Patristic Fathers were attempting to combine oranges and tunafish eyeballs or crude oil with water. But Rome and human nature does have a fondness for orthodoxing things no matter HOW awkward, wrong, or impossible!

              Also, it’s noteworthy from a sociopolitical standpoint to compare/contrast the geopolitical influences of Trinitarianism’s foothold during this time-period. Here’s a map of this area of the Roman Empire and its provinces:

              Remember, the birth, heart and core of Hellenism is first Macedonia and Thracia, then the Roman Peninsula to the west and Anatolia/Asia Minor (Turkey) to the east. True, authentic Second Temple Judaism/Messianism is unequivocally in Syro-Palestine. In fact, most Jews in this Roman province looked down on or doubted, were suspicious of Overseas Jews as well as those with Herodian connections/blood in Jerusalem. Palestinian Jews (Yeshua/Jesus’ sects) usually felt Overseas Jews (or Hellenistic Jews) were corrupted and strayed away from Mosaic, pious, ascetic Hebrew traditions clearly represented by the Essenes (and other sects) of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Follow me here while keeping the map in mind…

              Though the demographic details/facts of these following men cannot be precisely verified, the primary players/imposers of Trinitarianism’s orthodoxy were Ignatius (of Antiochia), Justin Martyr (of Nablus-Samaria), Theophilus (of Antiochia), Tertullian (of Carthago), and Athanasius (of Alexandria). But their educational influences and exposure to foreign religious practices/concepts (Hebraic/Hebrew) CAN be inferred and deduced from writings of later Apostolic/Patristic Fathers. They were all in heavily Roman-Hellenic provincial cities at birth, adolescence, and young adulthood and those common Stoic/pagan philosophies. But why the mystery and uncertainty here? One simple answer: The Jewish-Roman War. The war demolished and obliterated in 66-74 CE Second Temple Palestinian Judaism/Messianism. Hence, the hiding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the first place.

              Now enter popular Greco-Roman practices of apotheosis.

              At the risk of noticeable oversimplification and brushing over important sociopolitical-socioreligious changes and movements of history in this epoch of Roman history, since the power of Imperial Rome and its emperors was crumbling, some form of authority/leadership, and thus hope, replaced an uncertain mortal figure with an immortal, incorruptible demi-god figure. Answer? An annoited King, Messiah, Christ. But then another problem (out of many) arose. If all mankind is Fallen and in a depraved state of irreversible Sin, then HOW can this Messiah-King-Christ be the one and only pure-blood Emperor/Son of God in step with cultural history!?

              Now the wild reconciliation, retro-fitting attempts of combining oil and water, or Greco-Roman Apotheosis with Second Temple Judaism/Messianism and their Hebrew prophecies and nature of their Savior/King into ONE Roman Gentile Emperor-version recognizable by the Hellenic masses everywhere in the remaining parts of the old Roman Empire! So begins the 3rd and 4th-century CE Creeds these above Apostolic/Patristic Fathers later devised in reaction to widespread disagreements over the nature of the Hebrewish God the Father, a Neo-Jesus Christ the Son, and the ether-like Holy Spirit between all of them, if that makes sense LoR. Obviously these controversies and force-fitted ideas took at least four long centuries to be orthodoxed… at least over in the Western Roman Empire. And if an intellectual-ontological method didn’t work, Rome still had efficient working Legions to make any doubters convert with total loyalty. 😉

              How’s that answer? 🤭

              Liked by 1 person

            • I love your points about the cultural revolution and the need for this new God Head. I’ve heard in a college class of mine, that much of the Jesus narrative is anti-Roman propaganda that subtly conveys that Jesus is the true “emperor” through similar events and symbolism to Roman emperors like Augustus.

              Did you mean to say in your initial comment, that the Hellenistic godhead is the traditional trinitarian view of God as 3 in 1? I assumed, but just wondering… So this Godhead is a Greco -Roman invention?

              Liked by 1 person

            • …that much of the Jesus narrative is anti-Roman propaganda that subtly conveys that Jesus is the true “emperor” through similar events and symbolism to Roman emperors like Augustus.

              The first point, a Jesus-narrative being anti-Roman… no surprise, is a fairly popular view from Jewish academia/scholarship schools of thought based on all extant non-Christian textual sources and evidence, particularly those originating in Palestine (Qumran, Judaea), Arabia-Petraea, and Upper Egypt (Aegyptus on the map). However, once Constantine the Great and his predecessors wanted to further detach from inadequate failed Palestinian Judaism/Messianism, the 2nd thru 4th-century Hellenic narratives became increasingly anti-Semitic, passing blame of Jesus’ crucifixion firmly onto the Jews in general. Therefore, Yeshua the Nasoraean/Nazarean morphs into the Imperial Roman Apotheosis Jesus Christ.

              [Is]…the Hellenistic godhead the traditional trinitarian view of God as 3 in 1? I assumed, but just wondering… So this Godhead is a Greco-Roman invention?

              Simply put, yes. I can certainly assure you that ANY Second Temple Palestinian Jew (if they were alive today) and most all Rabbinical Jews today would scream that the Trinitarian Godhead has no place whatsoever ANYWHERE, EVER in Judaism… from start to finish then or today! So… assuming for the sake of discussion here, if Jesus/Yeshua is indeed from the line of King David, and at least one of the possible Dual Messiahs (priestly & kingly) understood in Second Temple Judaism for God’s Kingdom on Earth as Israel, etc, WHERE did this bizarre Three-Gods come from? That’s a rhetorical question. 😉 And LoR, this is aside from the horrible distortion of the God of Israel/Judaea that “there should be no other gods before me“!!! LOL Most serious Jews today are deeply offended by this blatant defamation of their faith.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Yep, and I’d wager that most well-educated Muslims and well-educated Jews, even the HIGHLY educated, know their religious roots/history above and beyond most Fly-by-Night Christians, particularly Western Christians with their ancient Hellenistic DNA. 😉 😛

              Liked by 1 person

            • As an outsider to all this history, being that I have always been a non believer, it is extremely interesting from a historical point. My thoughts tell me the “fly by night” Christians here in the US don’t have a clue about any of this, but more importantly, they do not care. They have no desire to really research the history of their chosen beliefs, because it doesn’t matter to them. They don’t really want to know because it would interfere with their petty obsessions of anti abortion and anti homosexuality and in some cases, keeping America white. For them, it’s not about history or wanting to know their “roots”, it’s about telling you how you should believe.

              Liked by 1 person

  3. I was reading the other day (after watching a TED on this) that if you don’t quite understand how this is working, you pretty much get it! Now we have to measure by results without interpretation, apply those results to make data transfers using qubits at the speed of thought (post neuronal, of course) harness the result without explanation of how, we just do.

    There are many interesting parallels to draw from. The idea is so powerful that it’s hard to imagine what it would be used for. AI of course is a possibility (or seems like it). I think the processing is so fast that it will scour your answers by analysis before you can blink (hence the coin flip) and appear to read your thoughts. The quantum computers always win the coin flip! No more appearance of chance would be the pseudoscience apologetics dream.

    How do you slow the entangled process so a Christian can get it?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Hahahaha! That first paragraph of yours is excellent! 😄 Talk about the “purest” form of objectivity or impartiality, huh?

      Encryption of course is certainly one of the applications quantum computing will standardize. Psychic(?) AI is another. LOL That’s hilarious Jim. 😉 Nevertheless, I doubt that “chance” will ever completely disappear or go extinct. Along the lines of what John Z was saying above, we’re learning more and more that it is degrees of probability. Agree? Disagree? To be determined? 😉

      Liked by 3 people

      • It makes me want to revisit retrocausality. The idea of particles going back in time to change the outcome once the particle is “viewed” by a conscious observer would come in handy. I could edit all those WP comments I sent a click too early.

        Liked by 3 people

  4. Entanglement and non-locality is really hard to grasp because the quantum state is specified as a superposition of possible measurement outcomes. Whereas classical physics is a perfectly good model to use for almost every measurement for a particular causal outcome we need in our daily lives, quantum physics uses a different framework to explain ALL possible outcomes. In other words, classical physics is applicable when comparing the states of two separate things; quantum physics is applicable when grasping that everything is in one state… and everything in that single state is relative to everything else in that single state. That’s the mind twist because we don’t think this way in our daily lives.

    Because I’m a fan of NFL football, let me explain with this analogy: we can compare all kinds of stuff between the two teams and all the ‘states’ (the personnel) between them. That’s like classical physics. This causes that. We can measure this thing and that thing. We can compare and contrast.

    But when we change our framework to that of all possibilities (called the wave function, which is a mathematical way of expressing all possibilities), we can come up with some interesting and very accurate predictions. For example, we can say both teams are entangled when it comes to accurately predicting which team has possession of the ball. We can say with certainty that when Team A has possession of the ball, then Team B does not; that when Team B has possession of the ball, Team A does not. There is no magical connection between the two teams causing (that’s a classical physics term) the appearance or disappearance of the ball; we simply know that whenever we take a snapshot to determine which team is in possession of the ball (called the collapse of the wave function using quantum terminology), we know this means the other team does not.

    This is the way to understand what it means when ‘entangled’ photons are ‘captured’ in a snapshot moment (we do the wave calculation) and we find the spin direction or polarization of one; we immediately know the spin direction of the other regardless of distance between them. Using this One State framework, we can also find out other information with a very high degree of accuracy: locality, for example, can be captured but not velocity, or velocity can be captured but not location.

    This is where we get all kinds of claims for woo, using this notion of ‘spooky action at a distance’. The bottom line is that physical information still travels at sub-light speed but we make a mistake presuming entanglement means non-locality. In other words, we have to open the box to find out about the state of Schrödinger’s cat but doing so ‘eliminates’ all the other possibilities.

    To further explain the core of ergodic theory, a joke:

    Heisenberg and Schrödinger get pulled over for speeding. The cop asks Heisenberg “Do you know how fast you were going?” Heisenberg replies, “No, but we know exactly where we are!”

    The officer looks at him confused and says “you were going 108 miles per hour!”
    Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, “Great! Now we’re lost!”

    The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the two men have anything in the trunk.
    “A cat,” Schrödinger replies. The cop opens the trunk and yells “Hey! This cat is dead.” Schrödinger angrily replies, “Well he is now.”

    Liked by 6 people

    • I am still laughing at your Heisenberg/Schrödinger joke Tildeb! I think I pulled a muscle in my chest I laughed so hard! But I didn’t know it until I observed the pain. 😉

      This is beautifully explained:

      In other words, classical physics is applicable when comparing the states of two separate things; quantum physics is applicable when grasping that everything is in one state… and everything in that single state is relative to everything else in that single state. That’s the mind twist…

      Mind twist indeed! Sometimes in my case so much twisting and contorting I put Houdini to shame and BEG for EMT/Fire-n-Rescue with their Jaws of Life! Thank you! 😉

      After drafting/working on this blog-post for several days and 12-13 hours straight yesterday (to get it done!), I had to constantly pare it down primarily because of the subject matter and average attention-spans of social-media browsers. Hahaha. You have clarified and elaborated nicely Tildeb. I genuinely appreciate that.

      But when we change our framework to that of all possibilities (called the wave function, which is a mathematical way of expressing all possibilities), we can come up with some interesting and very accurate predictions.

      Isn’t that utterly fascinating and exciting!? Despite that Intellectualism is currently under attack in several parts of the world, I hope it presses ahead and onward in a healthy state/condition with thrilling predictions and probabilities! 😉 😛


      • A couple of things.

        First, my understanding is at best conditional – a passing grasp – at what is a really difficult subject to incorporate into the real world and so it could be wrong. I will gladly yield the floor to those who have a better understanding.

        Secondly, I apologize for not commenting on the substantive part of the post but the quantum entanglement portion I thought was problematic… if my understanding of the physics was correct (and this also usually causes me a problem when the Observer Effect is thrown in as if we alter the state of reality when we simply observe something. That’s not the case if what we’re doing is making the wave function collapse by capturing a moment (we didn’t kill the cat by opening the box)).

        Thirdly, by far and away the most mind blowing extraction from quantum physics is the suggestion that space is the construct (brought into consideration by the arrow of time, which we cannot know (time) if we are to measure location or, if we measure something like velocity we cannot know location). In other words, space itself may have no physical properties. This is so alien an idea to me that I cannot understand it except as a mathematical premise – similar to accepting that a circle is divided into 360 degrees without really understanding what a ‘degree’ really is. I’m still working away at trying to ‘see’ how this can be. I’m such a classical physics kind of person or, as a religious person might say, it’s part of my god-given nature (ie biology). How can distance just be a construct? If there’s only the Now in reality… ?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Your 1st paragraph:
          Hah! And I consider YOU to have a better grasp of this subject than I! 😄

          2nd paragraph:
          No apology necessary TD. I assume that is exactly why you did such a wonderful job of it in your first comment. You pickup on WHY it took me several laborious days to compose this post, I just felt the newest progress of Quantum Entanglement was too paramount — for the realities of existence — for me not to attempt to digest and regurgitate it (as poorly as I did) and put out there for WP readers/followers that have a better grasp than I do and thus help me grapple with it and learn! Thank you!

          3rd paragraph:
          I could not have described the conundrums and rethinking/tweaking of classic physics — or as Robert alluded to, further adding to older established laws and equations to improve them — any better than you did there. Then I ask myself, well… does this mean we should also reexamine, redefine Dark Matter/Energy in space? I most definitely reach the hard limits of MY astrophysics, cosmology, and all related fields of science here! I begin to feel like a 3rd grader. LOL

          Liked by 1 person

  5. The part I liked best was seeing my name and reading about Liverpool FC. Oh, no… there was nothing about LFC, that’s right!
    The rest went past me faster than the speed of light or a dead cat in the boot of a car.
    But I did read it. It made my eyes water.
    Maybe it would have made sense if there was something about Doctor Who or the Leclanche Cell – which is the extent of my physics knowledge.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hahahaha! ARK!!! But in another dimension of Quantum Superposition I DID write about how Liverpool FC was winning their fifth consecutive UEFA Champions League and eighth consecutive FIFA World Club trophy against any club out of Spain, and the new juggernaut country the great United States of America — only 2 players on the 23-man roster were actually of Anglo-Euro descent; 21 were Mexican-Latin American decent, who’s families easily climbed over, dug under, or went around the 21st century “Great American Wonder-Wall” of the Rio Grand River, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja states — those 2 players hailed from the long, long tradition of world-class U.S. goalkeepers! 😉

      Surely your small extent of physics knowledge caught that?

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Fascinating stuff. Before we start refuting Einstein, however, we first need to understand what quantum entanglement actually is… and, we definitely don’t know as of yet. The situation is similar to when Einstein’s General Relativity challenged Newtonian physics. It is incorrect, in hindsight, to say that Einstein refuted Newton because the older classical model still works to this day under ordinary circumstances. Only in cases of macro observation (i.e. relativity) or micro observation (i.e. quantum mechanics) does Newtonian physics fall short. So, it is accurate to say that Einstein added to Newton just as quantum mechanics is adding to Einstein now.

    Quantum computing and artificial intelligence? There’s a long, long way to go before these become reality.

    Can quantum entanglement observations be applied to the Determinism versus Free Will debate? Only for those who think that debate is relevant at all… which I don’t.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hah! I do appreciate your candor Robert. Thank you Sir. 😉

      Quantum computing and artificial intelligence? There’s a long, long way to go before these become reality.

      Perhaps. But according to Intel, Google, and China those computers have already been made and tested extensively… on 64 Qb (or less) processors. Kinks need ironing out apparently, but humanity is there… according to the news reports. 🙂

      Can quantum entanglement observations be applied to the Determinism versus Free Will debate? Only for those who think that debate is relevant at all… which I don’t.

      Hahahaha, can’t blame you Robert. But come stay with me here in Texas, talk to as many “strangers” as you possibly can for 3-4 months of mostly rural demographics or distant suburban demographics, and you’ll see whether you think it’s relevant or not, avoidable or not, and you my Northwesternly Brotha will be stunned and feel you are in a time-warp… BACKWARDS!!! 😄

      Liked by 1 person

      • In my recent post on A.I., I examined the 60 Minutes interview with a leading expert in the field. From:

        Scott Pelley: When will we know that a machine can actually think like a human?

        Kai-Fu Lee: Back when I was a grad student, people said, “If machine can drive a car by itself, that’s intelligence.” Now we say that’s not enough. So, the bar keeps moving higher. I think that’s, I guess, more motivation for us to work harder. But if you’re talking about AGI, artificial general intelligence, I would say not within the next 30 years, and possibly never.

        Oh, I’m sure rural Texans do see the Determinism versus Free Will debate as relevant. But, fortunately, I’m not at all like them – lol! I could assert both rational and empirical arguments against that debate as futile and meritless, but I’ll spare you. Doing so wouldn’t change the opinion of anyone who is preoccupied with it.

        Liked by 1 person

          • Yes, it isn’t free, but wills can be done cheaply. The forms can be downloaded from state agencies for free (depending on your state), or pre-printed forms can be purchased at “office” stores. Then, after filling them out, you’ll need witnesses and the signatures notarized.

            Or, you can do like I did and just tell your heirs to “eff off” – lol 😀

            Liked by 2 people

  7. Geez Louise! I’m only about 1/8 into this post and I’m lost!! I don’t consider myself THAT unknowledgeable, but I’m definitely having a problem keeping up. I shall continue and hope my comprehension improves. Perhaps it will once you begin the comparisons spoken of by the Lady of Reason. *sigh*

    I’ll be back.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Nope. Guess I must begrudgingly admit I’m not as smart as I think I am.

      Actually, I think if I spent some time (several hours??) with this, I’d probably be nodding my head as the light switched on. Then again, I might be doing the 🙄 thing. Either way, I doubt I’ll find out. (Sorry.)

      However, before departing, I do appreciate the time and effort you put into these deeeeeeep posts. There is undoubtedly some for whom this type of reasoning is what it takes to demonstrate (once again) the fallacy of the Christian perspective.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Awwww, thank you so much Nan first for taking the time to read, and second trying to discover how you can digest it comfortably and find life applications from it! ❤ 😄 And don't be hard on yourself. None of us can perfectly understand all sciences, their advances, etc, and precise meanings. I don't! I am just utterly fascinated by physics and Quantum Mechanics — I see a few crossovers into many aspects of daily basic life, but as Tildeb and Robert point out, doing so and explaining the why's and why nots can be a whole different ballgame. I am most definitely a novice at it so my apologies. 🙂

        There is undoubtedly some for whom this type of reasoning is what it takes to demonstrate (once again) the fallacy of the Christian perspective.

        Yes! And where I think I could’ve been more clear was how Causality/Hard Determinism — found all throughout Christian theology and canonical Scripture — simply falls behind further so fast and evaporates with time when (attempting to) cope with and address hardcore evidence/facts of reality and human existence. And now on the verge of Quantum Supremacy/Computing… it will barely show up as an insignificant spec of a particle brought up ONLY by those archaic traditionalists/theists. Would you agree? 😉

        Liked by 1 person

          • HAH!!! Yes, I sort of thought it rhetorical to ask, but I am fond of your subtle-to-cosmic humor on particular subjects… especially ones that originate in the Iron Age, and YET manage to enslave the natural genetic curiosity and exploratory nature of the primate Homo sapiens.

            SEE!!! Your quantum emoji-velocity is SPOT ON! Right down to the quark Madame! 😛

            Liked by 1 person

  8. Interesting stuff, but doesn’t determinism become a matter of scale. Like many things in physics, certain laws seem to work flawless on a certain scale but not so on others. It’s well known that at the quantum scale classical mechanics fails rather spectacularly and maybe this in some way explains why mutations might happen at the level of DNA, but which mutations are most advantageous in an environment are predictable.

    Ultimately I thought the main problem in physics still exists in which the macro scale physics seems to be different than the quantum scale. A problem string theory thought it was going to solve but seems to not be the answering. This problem would seem to give more meat to the theist looking to poke holes in the whole enterprise. Both macroscale and quantum physics seem wholly predictable for their scale, but the idea that there are scales in which physical laws don’t apply would seem to be problematic given that much of physics rests on the principle that the laws in operation today have always been in operation. If they are not universally applicable by scale the sophisticated apologist (and I say this with a great deal of chagrin) might well argue that there are no universals in time. Which is not to say that we have our laws correct, or there is truly a missing theory, like string theory which combines both quantum and macroscale physics together.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oooooo, wonderful comment Swarn! Thank you! 🙂

      Yes, as is usually the case in any life-system or cognitive paradigm, there are scales and degrees. This might be the fuzzy fluidity we’re finding on quantum levels. This is why I am so in love — and totally in bed with 😈 — probabilities and degrees of certainty. It allows for corrupted, hedonistic data and errors of measuring, experiments, playing, testing, and confirming true nature (of a subject/victim) while also happily allowing for potentials, possibilities, and climaxes yet realized!!! OMStars… don’t get me started down all those human experiences Swarn! 🤩

      If they are not universally applicable by scale the sophisticated apologist (and I say this with a great deal of chagrin) might well argue that there are no universals in time.

      But seriously, I had an inkling you’d raise that valid point. Applause to you Swarn. Yet, on the other side of that coin, it is no great revelation of truth or badge of merit for ANY world religion to proclaim degrees of uncertainty and/or ignorance. Isn’t that stating the obvious… if I may be a bit tongue-n-cheek… and claiming original ownership of “Hindsight is 20/20“… especially ours since we perfected it!? 😉 If I understand correctly what you’re implying and conveying, that sort of perception and analysis is like identifying the various animal-shapes and people-shapes that the clouds in the sky form — the only problem becomes the observer in Washington, PA clearly sees the Drake Equation built upon the Double Helix while the cowboy in Gun Barrel City or Woman Hollering Creek, Texas (yes, those ARE real town names) clearly sees Sasquatch running away with a 6-pack of Shiner-Bock.

      (spits his tobacco chew, wipes his chin and proudly says…)

      “Yep, ev’rythang down heee-re in Texas is BIGGER — even our John Deer abtractor thinkin’ that built our NASA Space Center in Austin!” 🤠

      Liked by 2 people

      • I am not saying that theist would still have a valid argument for inserting God in place of “I don’t know” as they often do. But Quantum Physics as tildeb points out, opens the door for a lot of woo. One of my favorite shows that ended up ending too early was Sense8. In it two characters that were matched was a nihilist and a person who had strong faith in the religion of hinduism and when the nihilist questions the hindu about how they can believe in God without evidence and then she starts talking about Quantum physics and particles that are there and not there and uses that as an argument for God.

        In fluid dynamics there is something called the Navier-Stokes equation that defines fluid flow. This equation has several terms that incorporate the fundamental forces that act on a fluid. Now in the atmosphere weather occurs across various scales, and so this equation can be applied to all scales of air flow in the atmosphere, but depending on what scale of weather phenomena you are talking about, like from the scale of a tornado to a low pressure system that might dump a lot of snow along the east coast of the U.S., there are certain terms in the equation that become more or less relevant depending on scale. Some become so small that maintaining them in calculations becomes meaningless and we usually don’t retain them. But of course we don’t go into the quantum scale. But at the quantum scale we find that the physics that we normally use to solve the problems we normally have to solve don’t even seem to apply. If the first law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to the quantum scale for example, then either it is incomplete, or we don’t quite understand what’s going on at the quantum scale. That’s likely what’s happening, but to the theist it makes them question the whole enterprise. Physical Laws don’t seem to apply across all scales of space, and perhaps therefore not time. The quantum scale seems to indicate uncertainty is almost a property of the universe, and that’s an entertaining open door to the theist.

        One day I do think we will see how it all connects. Perhaps there are extra terms to the first law of thermodynamics that only apply at very tiny spatial scales. We’ve never needed them before, so we never found them. Until that happens I think quantum physics will provide meat for the mystic. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        • About Sense8 and after…

          …the nihilist questions the hindu about how they can believe in God without evidence and then she starts talking about Quantum physics and particles that are there and not there and uses that as an argument for God.

          Yes, you are correct. Have you seen the exceptional 2015 film The Man Who Knew Infinity based on a true story and lives at the University of Cambridge, England in the early 1900’s? It stars Jeremy Irons as G.H. Hardy (the renown mathematician) and Dev Patel as Srinivasa Ramanujan (the equally renown mathematician with a penchant for unconventional methods of mathematical proofs). Are you familiar?

          Ramanujan, in real life, did not do well (at first) at Trinity College and Cambridge with the many Fellows of the Royal Society there not only because he was Indian during a period when British arrogance and racism was still common place, but also because Ramanujan, as Wikipedia correctly describes:

          A deeply religious Hindu, Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity, and stated that the mathematical knowledge he displayed was revealed to him by his family goddess. “An equation for me has no meaning,” he once said, “unless it expresses a thought of God.”

          Your elaboration on scales is excellent Swarn. Thank you. And I would have to agree with you because I do indeed understand and believe personally that on all levels and scales, from the atomic/molecular to the macro-Cosmic, the subatomic/particle/Quantum level is ever-present and quite fluid as you aptly put it and in motion even though our human senses or machines/devices may not observe the motion on the subatomic/Quantum scale. However, and I know you were not implying this either, to me this “woo action” of currently unknowns and little understoods does NOT mean a supreme divine force or entity is moderating/mediating it all just because we Quantum Physicists or Classic Physicists do not have adequate explanations. For me, rather than always having the tendencies to say “chalk it up to God’s mysteries and miraculous works and wonders,” I would simply admit humanity’s temporary limitations at any given time.

          As the last 80,000 years or more of human history has shown us is that the curious, fearless, courageous human minds and hearts together in collaboration and free, open analysis and scrutiny for continued progress and advancement… proves we eventually turn mysteries and unknowns into answers and knowns. As you stated:

          One day I do think we will see how it all connects.

          Or perhaps not “how it ALL connects” as one, but as an indivisible whole of parts/scales we better understand, can manage, and conserve as well as harness for the greater good. 🙂


        • Hey Swarn,

          Thanks to Mary (down below) introducing me to a YouTube Channel, “Closer To Truth,” I’ve stumbled upon one of Dr. Donald Hoffman’s discussion on the lines of physics, Quantum Mechanics, and their relationship to religion. Thought it worthy to include here. See what you think when you get a chance and if interested. 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          • Hey Professor. So I listened to a long interview with Donald Hoffman on this podcast called After On where he was talking about his theory of consciousness. Either he is the most brilliant man to have lived or he is out to lunch. Although I think both could be possible. Although this wasn’t focused on consciousness he argues that consciousness is a property of the universe. I guess I fail to see that given that in the absence of life, I don’t think consciousness exists, and the universe will one day be cold dark and lifeless. It seems like properties of the universe should remain properties for as long as the universe exists. And I’m always concerned about people who make the claims like well since evolution can say nothing about consciousness, then it never will and we need alternate explanations. I think we just don’t know enough about consciousness to have any good ways to explain it.

            Anyway, I do like what he says here at least about making sure as scientists we don’t overreach with any scientific fact. I think sort of what he is saying that it’s the totality of evidence that comes from a variety of fields which best argues against religion, rather than one single fact being the kryptonite.


  9. Esme, of course, knows all the answers, and has been there in every sense at every time to collect her data, but cannot say anything or it would have the effect of opening the car trunk (see Tildeb) for everyone.

    Well done Prof T, another scorcher.

    – Esme keeping it unreal upon the Cloud

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hahahaha! 🤣 Oh my, my, MY! My Lady, we CERTAINLY cannot have all that Esmedata running amok and soliciting all sorts of sparkling Cloudiness with spellbinding unrealness!!! Yes, please do keep your trunk key snug in that gorgeous bustier! Otherwise, chaos and screaming would fill my Convatorium here. I cannot have such noises about! 🤫😈


  10. I really wish I could grasp all this as I find it fascinating. I read a book years ago, which I still have called “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”, which touched on a lot of this concept, but not with computers. I was just looking and it mentions super determinism , symmetry and synchronicity. Seems as I remember when I read it, that the thought behind entanglement was that at one point back in time at the singularity , all this was very near and close, so the entanglement was there from the beginning or something like that. was written in 1979, so I can imagine what has been learned since.

    Another article…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mary, please know that you are in large company about this Quantum stuff! As Tildeb up above accurately described along with Swarn and others with above average or HIGH intelligence — higher than mine for sure! — they too struggle with this new frontier. I’m hoping, and perhaps for you too, that at some point in the future we “simple folk” 😉 will grasp some of the basics. LOL Be patient and always inquisitive. That’s the key I think. ❤

      Thank you so much for the articles. I'm still reading them. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

        • Now hang on a second or two: how can a person – a cognitive scientist and science writer and not any kind of expert on quantum mechanics – on the one hand talk about desiring/finding a “precise mathematical theory” while on the other saying this theory is to describe/define a nebulous term like ‘consciousness’? You simply cannot have it both ways.

          Also, listen to them talk about brains – neurons and dendrites and synapses – and the ‘collapse of the wave’ as if this is a physical and material event involving these things when in fact it’s not… a ‘wave’ is a mathematical term used in this case to define a class of signals (think of a bell curve, it looks like a wave and so probabilities plotted on a graph are presented in this visual ‘wave’ form).

          The collapse itself is not an event. The ‘wave’ term being bandied about defines in mathematical terms probabilities right here right now by making everything a single state right here right now. That’s why it’s called a wave function. The term ‘function’ in mathematical language means a special relationship where each input has a single output. That’s why the formula in quantum physics calculating these probabilities is called a wave function. Not an event. Not a thing. A function. It’s a mathematical formula that is being calculated using specific input to achieve specific output.

          Again, and I can’t emphasize this enough, the ‘collapse’ means specific values – meaning each input – are now inserted into the formula to arrive not at a wave but a single point, at a specific result of probability for the selected event – a single output. See why it’s called a ‘wave function’? For example, you plug in something like zero for velocity to determine a probability of location (you can’t define a specific location of a real thing when it’s moving; you have to select a specific time so that the real thing has to be in a specific location – and this is the probability being calculated – and where previous or later velocity makes no difference). Plugging in the input in effect ‘collapses the wave function’, which means we get a probability result… one that is disturbingly accurate.

          Not understanding what the terms in quantum mechanics mean (I, too, was introduced to the subject reading the Dancing Woo Li Masters and the play Copenhagen) opens the door to this kind of popular confusion a popular science writer might propagate about what ‘IT’ is we’re talking about. Into this confusion it’s easy to insert any element of woo and have most people – not wishing to say they don’t have a clue what the hell people are yammering on about – nod along as if this is perfectly reasonable when it’s not. Add to the discussion some terms that are fuzzy – terms like ‘consciousness’ – with this misunderstood wave function and then try to figure what the hell are we really talking about? Neurons? No. Synapses? No. Dendrites? No. But listening to the discussion one presumes that it sort of is, that it’s sort of mysterious, that it sort of makes room for woo, that consciousness is sort of outside the most ‘sophisticated’ physics we have at our disposal. All very mysterious, of course.

          Liked by 1 person

          • You’ve hit on a critical thing here: our language just isn’t built to describe QM. Even our artistic notions as to how an atom ‘looks’ (like a planetary system with neat orbits) is disasterously wrong. We need to sort all this out.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Oh, it’s very much a word issue because our language is built to address classical physics, which in turn is what shapes and frames how we think about reality (stuff like ’cause’ and effect’ for example that presumes an arrow of time).

              Quantum itself, for example, is a term that indicates quantity – dealing with vast quantities – and so in determining probabilities the greater the quantity of data, the greater the likelihood for precision. Yet we hear people speak all the time of the ‘quantum level’ as if this were a dimension of reality of really tiny things. Well, no… quantum can be about the very large or the very small not because it’s a place or plane of reality but because this is how we gather the greatest quantity of data upon which we can then exercise this statistical physics. And the most useful is applying this statistical means of determining probability to the massive quantities we find at the smallest levels. This is where we encounter how really small things seem to operate, the mechanics. But is this combination of refined probability from massive data points really what so many people talk about when they use the term ‘quantum mechanics’? Remember, this physics is about a single state of everything right here right now and calculating probabilities about what we should find right here right now; as soon as we include some notion of time or space/time we are shifting everything to a new single state and using the physics to try to figure out what has changed and how the state has gone from this to that. What we’re missing is the intervening physics, which is really what the ‘Theory of Everything’ is supposed to address: the bridge between classical and quantum physics to connect them and why quantum mechanics is really hard to grasp when we only can use the bookend results to try to figure out what lies between them.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Yes; single state framing. That’s why I say It’s a brain twist; we’re just not used to framing stuff this way but revert almost everything we hear about quantum physics and try to stick it into our classical physics framing.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Question is, how do we change the medium? What medium? Abstract seems to fail, as it did with atoms. My friend, you could change the world if you could solve this problem and present a new way of thinking.

              Liked by 1 person

            • To answer the question about what I think is the medium, I’m going to have write more than a sentence or two! Bear with me.

              I’ve understood from a young age that how we think determines very much what we think. That is far more profound an insight than most people realize and it’s a skill that can be taught to people – everyone – to be able to see problems in a variety of ways – by simplifying them and looking at them anew – that then allows us to discover/see solutions that otherwise evade us. I know that sounds somewhat flippant but I’ve had tremendous success teaching ‘problem’ students exactly this… to the point where the most common refrain I hear is, “Why in the world wasn’t I taught this earlier?” Imagine the boost to self esteem when the ‘stupidest’ student who has had massive experience of all manner of academic and personal failure finds him- or herself atop the honour roll in all the STEM courses and is widely viewed as ‘smart’ and treated with some deference and respect… yet knows that nothing has really changed except how he or she thinks about something and usually in a much easier way that produces useful results. That’s the power of epistemology over ontology. We shouldn’t forget that order.

              So far so good. But what does this have to do with quantum mechanics?

              Our greatest flexibility in creating connections and exercising neural shortcuts – what is commonly called being ‘creative’ – other than infancy where the entire neural net is exploding in growth is between about 16 to 28 years of age (most brains grow about 30% during this period). It should come as no surprise then that this is the time frame for the most productive period of those who have grasped real insight into reality and how it works. Achievements honoured by the Nobel Committee, for example, almost always recognize the cascading effect from these important insights and contributions decades later. (Still, it is well known in academia that if one hasn’t produced something insightful in one’s area of expertise by 30, it’s probably not going to happen.) The common thread between creative thinking and real insight is seeing what is before our eyes but in a new way, making connections between what appears to be either unrelated topics and/or disparate ideas. This is why creative and critical thinking go hand in hand, why these two elements are so closely twinned, why the arts and STEM subjects are directly linked, why the humanities and fiction, for example, yield such rich rewards to better understanding where we are, how we got here, what it means, and where we should head.

              Connecting classical physics with quantum physics – coming up with a ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the different framing of states – I think will require exactly this kind of linked insight, a third approach in how we understand states, in other words. I think of it as similar to changing how we think when, say, reading poetry… looking for and then recognizing that emotional bridge between the meaning of words and what they represent and personal meaning we gain from doing this exercising; or music, listening for that series of vibrations that emotionally speak to us – move us – is a new and meaningful way. I also know that what we get out of these different framings (I’m going to use that term in spite of it not being recognized by English dictionaries) depends entirely on what we bring to it – our understanding of the art or the math – so the depth of our understanding and appreciation for the creative genius – the simplistic beauty – is directly linked to what Plato referred to as form – the architecture of how we think about something. This is why art is so vital to neural development and how it’s an essential ingredient of critical thinking. This is where unique insight can be found, harnessing the bookends of form with function; what lies between is where we find meaning and this is as true in physics as it is literature. Change how we think – that’s the medium – and we change what we think, which then leads to insights that if accurate can then be applied to all kinds of function.

              So to answer your question, John, I think the medium is the new framing, and the new framing will come from critical and creative thinking within the discipline of mathematical form. The theory of everything I think will have to be a new form of physics derived from the key concepts of both classical and quantum physics – simplistically linking the Arrow of Time with the Now. And we’ll recognize it because it works beautifully to connect both.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Like reading poetry. I like that.

              Seriously, you should gather these thoughts, and way forward, and get an article out there, on Arvix and one of the online mags. I’ve had a few articles published, it’s really not that hard. Valerie can help. She knows one of the editors at Alternet.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I’ve understood from a young age that how we think determines very much what we think. That is far more profound an insight than most people realize and it’s a skill that can be taught to people – everyone – to be able to see problems in a variety of ways – by simplifying them and looking at them anew – that then allows us to discover/see solutions that otherwise evade us. I know that sounds somewhat flippant…

              I don’t think that is flippant at all TD. As a boy my Father taught me many valuable cognitive lessons. He’d often remind me that with any puzzle, problem, diagnosis/assessment of a situation or person, etc, you can usually ask at least five intial questions, and typically those answers or potential answers lead to more important questions. But… “DON’T STOP THERE!” he’d firmly encourage. “If you’re having difficulty with the initial questions, get help. Expert help.” Or to use your wording, “see problems in a variety of ways – by simplifying them and looking at them anew” through the eyes/lenses of another. He was a big fan of diverse Think Tanks.

              Most questions are NEVER stupid ones (really saying it isn’t about appearing stupid), and often not enough of them. He was also implying a pet-peeve of his: quiting. Or quiting too early because it’s difficult. Anyway, because of his cognitive lessons I’ve found in life that looking for the path of least resistance makes you overweight, slow, lazy, and closer to a paper-weight. Hahahaha.

              I find your insights and comments like gold-nuggets! Thank you. I’m going to continue digesting and processing the rest of this comment and may have more in response. 🙂


            • As usual, he shot down tildeb and made a point of saying he was no longer interested in such discussions. In reality, his “arguments” have no weight so all he can do to offset “negative” comments is go around in circles to make sure his followers don’t wise up.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Exactly. Not that I really ever had any serious interest in 98% of his Wild presuppositions and distorted tunnel-vision of life, humans, authentic history and obsession with divine delusions. But I’m going to introduce to him (and his wife? 😈) other forms of “love, beauty, art or awe” that are just as life-changing that he or his beloved could EVER possibly imagine. Hahahaha!

              Then I’ll go to his latest post and like Tildeb has already nailed, once again show alternative interpretations, views, postures, and truths that (no surprise) contradict his rose-colored glasses and selective hearing. 😉

              Liked by 1 person

            • Well, once again, another “Christian blogger” like WeeFleeFast Robertson who censors everything, INCLUDING “Liking” people’s comments!!!! Jebus H. Pagan Christmas! What are these guys so afraid of? LOL 😈🤭

              Liked by 2 people

  11. This is a little off topic, but I think you like this mind bending stuff (as do I) and I subscribe to Closer to the Truth on Utube and his particular man, Donald Hoffman is quite interesting. He is well credentialed.

    Liked by 1 person

Go Ahead, Start the Discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s