compatibilism

[Martin Peter Clarke]

ChatGPT:

Conclusion:
The original EPR "experiment" was not empirical, but a philosophical and theoretical challenge to quantum theory. Only later were empirical experiments performed that addressed its implications.

Did you not see the TV programme about the EPR experiment? It was very well made.As I said I'm not a physicist but for an amateur like me the evidence as presented was irrefutable .
And yes, change is how we experience the world relative to the constraints of our senses. Spacetime is a function of change, so is force.
ChatGPT traced the TV programme about quantum entanglement:
Einstein’s Quantum Riddle (BBC Four / NOVA, 2019)
A feature-length documentary (~58 min) tracing the history of entanglement from Einstein's 1935 EPR paradox through Bell's inequality tests and Alain Aspect’s pivotal experiments
windfallfilms.com
+15
bbc.co.uk
+15
en.wikipedia.org
+15
.

Includes modern developments like Marissa Giustina’s quantum chip and space-to-ground quantum communication
bbc.co.uk
.


Streaming & On-Demand Options
Prime Video (UK & US): Available to rent (approx. £3.49 / $3.99) or buy HD (≈£7.99 / $19.99)
yidio.com
+15
amazon.co.uk
+15
youtube.com
+15
.

Apple TV: Also available to purchase digitally in the UK .

PBS/NOVA Website: Frequently shown on the PBS NOVA official site—you can watch it free there if the episode is available
youtube.com
+4
tpt.org
+4
yidio.com
+4

In any case, my main point was that my hermeneutic was determined largely by my residence in Edinburgh , a city with an old , well -endowed, university tradition where the university had and maybe still has a strong extramural department. This fact linking to my choice of hermeneutic is largely an effect of my residence in Edinburgh , combined with an unusual OU undergraduate module I did during the 70s.

Each of us chooses according to a hermeneutic, which is a fancy word for how each of interprets reality. Dasein.


Comparing interpretations of reality is why I visit Philosophy Now. You?

Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) & Secure Communications
What it is:
Using entangled photon pairs, two parties can create shared encryption keys that are provably secure. Any eavesdropping disrupts entanglement, alerting users.
quantinuum.com
+15
en.wikipedia.org
+15
weta.org
+15

Key developments:

In April 2025, Toshiba Europe conducted QKD over a 254 km commercial fibre network in Germany, using only standard telecom equipment—marking a major step toward widespread deployment
arxiv.org
+2
ft.com
+2
arxiv.org
+2
.

Switzerland’s ID Quantique pioneered QKD commercially in 2004, supplying systems still used today by banks and governments
spinquanta.com
+7
en.wikipedia.org
+7
en.wikipedia.org
+7
.

Additional players include MagiQ (from 2003), QNu Labs, QuintessenceLabs and more
en.wikipedia.org
+1
en.wikipedia.org
+1
.

2. Quantum-Secure Networking & Infrastructure
Cisco (May 2025): unveiled a prototype quantum networking chip using entangled photons to interconnect quantum systems—and useful right away for precise time-sync in finance and geophysics
ft.com
+6
reuters.com
+6
ventureradar.com
+6
.

Aliro Quantum & Nu Quantum:

Aliro offers tools to build entanglement-based quantum networks, aiming for secure communications and clustered quantum compute
enterprise.cam.ac.uk
+3
ventureradar.com
+3
aliroquantum.com
+3
.

Nu Quantum (Cambridge-based) recently raised £7 million to build the physical “entanglement fabric” for scalable quantum networks
enterprise.cam.ac.uk
.

3. Quantum Cryptographic Services (“Quantum Origin”)
Quantinuum’s Quantum Origin platform generates quantum-strong cryptographic keys—offering services via cloud, hardware modules, even smart meters. This is the first commercial product using quantum entanglement directly for cybersecurity . Partners include PureVPN, Mitsui, Eaglys, and Honeywell.

4. Entangled Photons for Research & Sensing
Quantum Computing Inc. (QCi): markets an “Entanglement Source” device producing broadband entangled photons in telecom bands—useful for sensors, communications, and more
ft.com
+2
en.wikipedia.org
+2
ventureradar.com
+2
quantumcomputinginc.com
+1
arxiv.org
+1
.

Various quantum hubs (e.g., UK’s £100 million investment from 2024) are exploring entanglement-based sensors for blood diagnostics, gravity sensing, gas detection, and infrastructure monitoring
theguardian.com
.

5. Cloud-Based Quantum Computing
Entanglement plays a key role in quantum computing platforms:

Microsoft Azure Quantum, IBM Quantum, IonQ, Rigetti, Quantinuum, etc., offer cloud access to entanglement-enabled processors
wsj.com
+4
en.wikipedia.org
+4
investors.com
+4
.

Quantinuum, for instance, is commercializing error-corrected hardware and networked cryptographic services .

So in summary
QKD is now moving from lab to real-world networks (standard fiber over hundreds of km).

Quantum networking hardware (chips and infrastructure) is being built for secure, distributed systems.

Cryptographic services now include quantum-generated keys for enhanced security.

Entangled photon sources enable applied sensing and future quantum internet development.

Quantum cloud services depend on entanglement to perform computations and support cryptography.

What’s next?
Scaling QKD across national/international networks.

Deploying entanglement-based sensors in real-world industries.

Building the foundational “quantum internet” with secure entangled links.

Integrating quantum cryptography into consumer and IoT systems.

Final Thought
The Nova documentary captured the turning point—from theoretical curiosity to real-world applications. Today, quantum entanglement is already being used commercially in secure communications, cryptography services, networking hardware, sensing platforms, and cloud computation.

If you want to explore specific companies (like Cisco’s chip, Quantinuum’s Quantum Origin, etc.), or the technical mechanisms of QKD, I can dive deeper into any of those.

Chat GPT

There's enough commercial "common sense , above, for anyone. The documentary 'Einstein's Quantum Riddle' includes commercial applications.












Sources

Sorry?

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you might be retarded @biggy

There's nothing to compare, you quoted text and then didn't even begin to reply at all to what it said.

Nobody knows what Rummys Rule is you fucking retard. Speak normal English.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think you might be retarded @biggy

There's nothing to compare, you quoted text and then didn't even begin to reply at all to what it said.

Nobody knows what Rummys Rule is you fucking retard. Speak normal English.

Is that really called for? No matter how right you are rationally? I can't be arsed to establish that. I fail to be kind here, but you make me look good.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you might be retarded @biggy

There's nothing to compare, you quoted text and then didn't even begin to reply at all to what it said.

Nobody knows what Rummys Rule is you fucking retard. Speak normal English.

Is that really called for? No matter how right you are rationally? I can't be arsed to establish that. I fail to be kind here, but you make me look good.

Do you know what rummy's rule is?

I don't think biggy realizes how incomprehensible it is when he leans that deep into idiosyncrasy. He seems to be convinced he has good ideas and he communicates them well, and if we were smarter we would agree with him or at least have productive conversations with him. But he genuinely spends most of his words saying absolute tripe, and someone has to tell him.

[iambiguous]

Sigh...

ME:

Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.



Click.

So you say "click" to transition between states of mind, right, or perspectives? Like you click between determinist and free will perspectives, or something like that? We've asked you what click means before, and you said something along those lines. So why does this paragraph make you "click"? What's there to "click" about in the quoted text?

Again: 

I use "click" because I'm the first to admit that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, what are the odds that my own assessment of the human brain "here and now" is the correct one?

Or, for that matter, yours or anyone else's here.

From my frame of mind, It's the equivalent of taking an existential leap of faith to God. In other words, given that scientists, philosophers and theologians have yet to reach a consensus regarding the existence of free will [going back thousands of years now], a click on my part here is only me acknowledging this.

Maybe we are posting autonomously here and maybe we're not. So, by all means, if anyone here is convinced they've found an argument that establishes this one way or the other, please link me to it.

And from my own perspective, the business of philosophers is to take what they construe theoretically...in a world of words by and large...to be logical and epistemologically sound and note how for all practical purposes their assessment is applicable given their own moral, political and spiritual interactions with others.

What does that have to do with the text you quoted?

Which particular text? And, by all means, note the parts I got wrong by providing me with what you construe to be the one and only correct understanding.
 
Given a particular set of circumstances pertaining to your own interactions with others.

And again, in particular, those interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

And again, in particular, what does this have to do with the text you quoted?

Again, which particular parts did I get wrong?

You don't seem to ever really respond to the things you read. It's almost like the words in these articles are just there for you to quote and ignore. What's up with that? What's the point of quoting stuff that you're not even going to try to understand and reply to?

Click.

Then -- click -- just skip my posts.  

Either that or, as I noted with iwannaplato, at least make an effort to compare and contrast my own  misunderstandings with your own corrections. 

HIM:

I think you might be retarded @biggy

There's nothing to compare, you quoted text and then didn't even begin to reply at all to what it said.

Nobody knows what Rummys Rule is you fucking retard. Speak normal English.

Enough said?

As for Rummy's Rule...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones"

How on Earth could this not be applicable to the human brain and autonomy?!

Again, when people react to me in this manner I suspect that their outrage may well revolve around the fact that bit by bit by bit my arguments are starting to sink in...and to the point where [if only subconsciously] they are beginning to worry that they may well come to grasp someday that my points are applicable to them too.

I still recall when it all began to sink in for me some ago. Over time I came to think myself into believing...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

All I can do "here and Now" is to search for arguments [here and elsewhere] able perhaps to convince me that these assumptions are wrong.

Then the part where, if particular hard determinists are correct, neither one of us is able to post freely here of our own volition anyway. So, that lets both of us off the hook.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think you might be retarded @biggy

There's nothing to compare, you quoted text and then didn't even begin to reply at all to what it said.

Nobody knows what Rummys Rule is you fucking retard. Speak normal English.

Is that really called for? No matter how right you are rationally? I can't be arsed to establish that. I fail to be kind here, but you make me look good.

Do you know what rummy's rule is?

I don't think biggy realizes how incomprehensible it is when he leans that deep into idiosyncrasy. He seems to be convinced he has good ideas and he communicates them well, and if we were smarter we would agree with him or at least have productive conversations with him. But he genuinely spends most of his words saying absolute tripe, and someone has to tell him.

Google hasn't the faintest idea, which is impressive. And unless someone is seriously neurodivergent, they know, they realize. What you describe sounds like idiosyncratic speech associated with autism spectrum disorder. There again it could be a borderline trollism. Your abuse feeds that, as abuse is better than neglect. Many here, my good self included, have complex neurodivergence. ADHD, OCD, ETC. Intrusive thinking, rumination, neuroticism, pathological shame; all externally shallow end, most of the time, in my case. Internally... So I tend to identify with fucking retards. Not those who witlessly project being such...

If people cannot engage, I Foe them.

AHHH! Rumsfeld! Still don't know about The Gap. Could it be the gap in research of known unknowns if that isn't systematized?

Reading @biggy's latest post above, he's no fucking retard. He's a blind man - seeing is believing - looking for a shadow of doubt. A tad gnomically. Which I feel I got previously.

I tend to soft determinism with a very constrained view of free will, like Schopenhauer's '"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills", but if push comes to shove I can't disagree with Inwagen, 'If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequence of laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it's not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequence_argument. I am too thick - which is deterministic - to see how Kant's is/ought refutes compatibilism. By analogy with the relativity of simultaneity necessitating eternalism, the B-theory of time, B for Block Time, Block Universe and Bollocks,

[iambiguous]

 Still don't know about The Gap.  Could it be the gap in research of known unknowns if that isn't systematized?[/b]

For many here, The Gap and Rummy's Rule are something they often come across in my posts. And all anyone who is not familiar with them needs to do is to ask me to explain them.
 
The Gap revolves around the assumption [my own] that 1] there's what you think you know about the things we discuss here [pertaining in particular to value judgments and conflicting goods] and 2] there's the gap between this and all that there is to know about them going back to...to what exactly? to Pantheism? to the Big Bang? to God? to the multiverse?

Or going even further out on the metaphysical limb, to a sim world? to a dream world? to something out of the Matrix? to solipsism? 

Reading @biggy's latest post above, he's no fucking retard.  He's a blind man - seeing is believing - looking for a shadow of doubt.  A tad gnomically.  Which I think I got previously.

What on Earth does that mean?

How about this...

When -- click -- I think of compatibilism, I always come back around to Mary above [or any woman confronting an unwanted pregnancy] who is told that she was never able not to have the abortion, but that she is still morally responsible for it.

What say you?

As for being called a blind man, I have come to encounter reactions of this sort many times over the years. And I have come to conclude, in turn, that for many, what this really means is that I don't think like they do about something.

Exactly, for example. 

It's just that some here level particularly caustic and declamatory accusations regarding what I post.

The irony then being that I really do wish I could figure out a way not to think as I do!!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Chill, Win-ston (said with a Jamaican accent). We are engaging. It'll take me a while to formulate a response. Being old, and sodding dim with a capital B, and surrounded by you clever, quick thinking young folk. But I am also sodding dogged!

[Flannel Jesus]

 Still don't know about The Gap.  Could it be the gap in research of known unknowns if that isn't systematized?[/b]

For many here, The Gap and Rummy's Rule are something they often come across in my posts. And all anyone who is not familiar with them needs to do is to ask me to explain them.
 
The Gap revolves around the assumption [my own] that 1] there's what you think you know about the things we discuss here [pertaining in particular to value judgments and conflicting goods] and 2] there's the gap between this and all that there is to know about them going back to...to what exactly? to Pantheism? to the Big Bang? to God? to the multiverse?

Is this supposed to be an explanation of what it means? You didn't explain shit. What the fuck are you talking about? Don't say what the gap "revolves around", say what it fucking means. You don't even know how to tell people what something means. You still haven't said what click means. You still haven't said what rummy's rule means. Saying what something "revolves around" isn't saying what it means. You're such a wishy washy little weasel with how you explain things.

Instead of littering your posts with words you know nobody else knows what they mean because you invented them, and hoping they ask you, you could just speak fucking english you fucking attention-starved narcissist.

You're genuinely such a dumbass for thinking that's a thing you should do. Invent words and beg people to ask you about them.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

 Still don't know about The Gap.  Could it be the gap in research of known unknowns if that isn't systematized?[/b]

For many here, The Gap and Rummy's Rule are something they often come across in my posts. And all anyone who is not familiar with them needs to do is to ask me to explain them.
 
The Gap revolves around the assumption [my own] that 1] there's what you think you know about the things we discuss here [pertaining in particular to value judgments and conflicting goods] and 2] there's the gap between this and all that there is to know about them going back to...to what exactly? to Pantheism? to the Big Bang? to God? to the multiverse?

Is this supposed to be an explanation of what it means? You didn't explain shit. What the fuck are you talking about? Don't say what the gap "revolves around", say what it fucking means. You don't even know how to tell people what something means. You still haven't said what click means. You still haven't said what rummy's rule means. Saying what something "revolves around" isn't saying what it means. You're such a wishy washy little weasel with how you explain things.

Instead of littering your posts with words you know nobody else knows what they mean because you invented them, and hoping they ask you, you could just speak fucking english you fucking attention-starved narcissist.

You're genuinely such a dumbass for thinking that's a thing you should do. Invent words and beg people to ask you about them.

I feel your pain, you remind me of the Dood, particularly at the end of The Big Lebowski. Let's see what good cop, bad cop can achieve. Did you notice that my gnomicism, gnomicisity?, exceeded @biggy's? He has to express himself playfully, idiosyncratically, and yes, we have to ask, but that is not our lack; it's his. I recognize the type. In myself. In part I feel it's a way of putting stuff out there, here, tentatively. Protecting the ego. Masking ideas that feel vulnerable, insouciantly, puckishly. Lazily. Way back, days, weeks ago, I recall reacting to him (the testosterone is awash round here) somewhere (must plough through my posts) as I will again; his vulnerability is in his hopeless desire to be wrong.

[Flannel Jesus]

Did you notice that my gnomicism, gnomicisity?, exceeded @biggy's?

I don't know what you mean by this, so this is the perfect opportunity to show biggy an example of what a real explanation looks like. What do you mean when you say your gnomicism, gnomicisity exceeds his?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Did you notice that my gnomicism, gnomicisity?, exceeded @biggy's?

I don't know what you mean by this, so this is the perfect opportunity to show biggy an example of what a real explanation looks like. What do you mean when you say your gnomicism, gnomicisity exceeds his?

Gnomic: difficult to understand because enigmatic or ambiguous.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:46 pm
Reading @biggy's latest post above, he's no fucking retard. He's a blind man - seeing is believing - looking for a shadow of doubt. A tad gnomically. Which I think I got previously.
biggy wrote: What on Earth does that mean?

I am unpacking.

As well as protecting the ego, it's bloody lazy and self-indulgent. I should know...

[Flannel Jesus]

Did you notice that my gnomicism, gnomicisity?, exceeded @biggy's?

I don't know what you mean by this, so this is the perfect opportunity to show biggy an example of what a real explanation looks like. What do you mean when you say your gnomicism, gnomicisity exceeds his?

Gnomic: difficult to understand because enigmatic or ambiguous.

And you think you're more difficult to understand than Biggy?

[FlashDangerpants]

So this whole Rummys Rule thing is just a reference to Donald Rumsfeld and the problem of unknown answers to unknown questions?

TIL, if you find some way to see past his towering self-regard, apparently the inner biggy is just a heroic everyman dying of fractured clicks for your sins.

[Flannel Jesus]

So this whole Rummys Rule thing is just a reference to Donald Rumsfeld and the problem of unknown answers to unknown questions?

Nobody knows. Biggy seems incapable of saying what he means. He'll never tell you what Rummys Rule means, at best he might vaguely tell you what it "revolves around", as if that's helpful.