Philosophy Now Forum

A recent study suggests that all particles in the Universe are entangled by their identical nature.


(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

Entanglement by kind would prove that non-locality is applicable to reality itself and since with non-locality there is no spatial and temporal distance, it implies that the Universe or reality cannot have a begin and that the origin of the Universe cannot be physical.

Recent scientific studies indicate that the observer precedes reality.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

(2021) Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
If it is proven that consciousness plays a causal role in the universe, it would have huge consequences for the scientific view of the world, said Kleiner. "It could lead to a scientific revolution on a par with the one initiated by Galileo Galilei," he said.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

Recent evidence shows that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.

(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html

The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following, which is essentially the idea that mind is necessarily 'caused' within the scope of physical reality.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Could they be right?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

As can be seen from the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.

debatingfreewill.com (2021, by professors Daniel C. Dennet and Gregg D. Caruso).

Scientific evidence for the idea "a primary role for mind in nature" is mounting from multiple angles. For example recent quantum physics studies have proven using experiments that the observer precedes reality (the scientific 'observer' = consciousness = mind).

(2019) Quantum physics: objective reality doesn't exist
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html

What is your opinion about the study?

Thank you for the interesting compilation of articles.

There are certain statements that can actually be proven by simply investigating ones own direct experience while others can not.

Take, for example, this one:
Non-locality is applicable to reality itself and since with non-locality there is no spatial and temporal distance, it implies that the Universe or reality cannot have a beginning and that the origin of the Universe cannot be physical

When investigating in the most "simplistic way" where locality, distance, time and duration actually "come from" - by actually investigating ones direct experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling (sense of touch) and thinking - one will find that none of the 5 senses actually deliver any information about locality, distance, time or duration. It is always thought - a conceptual interpretation - of raw sense-data which creates (the illusion of) locality, distance, time and duration.
No thought = no locality, no distance, no time, no duration
Its actually as simple as that.

I also agree with Bernardo Kastrup when he writes that “The everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed” - but where he gets it wrong is the idea that there has to be an actual "observer" separate from the observed, who is the "creator of reality".
Direct experience rather reveals, that the observation (the direct experience) and the observed are one whole - they cannot be separated, and any separation/split between the two is always only a conceptual interpretation.

Now, regarding the proof for "free will":
I guess the "proof" you are referring to is hidden in this statement: to be able to influence "it" (I guess you are referring to reality), and as such to have free will, one has to be able to stand apart from the "whole thing" (reality).
And I agree. For some entity to have free will it would actually have to be separate from whatever it would like to have free will over - but, and this is the conundrum, there is no such entity which could be separate from reality.
I guess you were "hoping" to find this elusive entity in the observer, but - at least according to ones own direct experience - there is no such entity (this entity is only a conceptual interpretation, an entity conjured up by thought, not more real than a Unicorn or any other imagined creature).

This leaves us with Einstein's quote: Free will is merely an "illusion", albeit a very persistent one (I know he was using the word "reality", but it works equally well with "free will")

By the way:
Just because free will is not actually real, this doesn't mean that people wouldn't be able to live and act as if it were (sorry, for stating the obvious).
Its how human life works - we believe in free will and control, we expect the egg to be perfect after boiling it for some 6mins... but just because reality seems to follow certain patterns, it doesn't mean that it can be controlled from the "outside" (yet, it is the prerequisite to imagine that it could be).

theory wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 4:10 pm...

It's mostly just circular reasoning:
- Quantum phenomena require conscious observers in interpretations of QM where quantum phenomena require conscious observers.
- Quantum phenomena don't require conscious observers in interpretations of QM where quantum phenomena don't require conscious observers.

This is a much, much deeper topic and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, on one hand, existence may be superdeterministic (no free will), and we only may experience a slice of an infinitely larger world (consciousness doesn't precede reality). On the other hand, something about the structure of standard human consciousness may have to do something with the structure of the world from our perspective, and in a sense be able to 'act' on it (in a sense there is some free will, but this is subsumed in the no free will of superdeterminism).

I don't see how entanglement by 'kind' would change this btw.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:06 am When investigating in the most "simplistic way" where locality, distance, time and duration actually "come from" - by actually investigating ones direct experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling (sense of touch) and thinking - one will find that none of the 5 senses actually deliver any information about locality, distance, time or duration. It is always thought - a conceptual interpretation - of raw sense-data which creates (the illusion of) locality, distance, time and duration.
No thought = no locality, no distance, no time, no duration
Its actually as simple as that.

No, it's not as simple as that, this is crazy.
Yes all human thought is human thought, but that doesn't mean that human thought and sense data don't give use a fairly good representation, description of the wider reality, the unknowable 'outside' universe we are part of. As such, locality, distance, time, or duration etc. are descriptions we use about the assumed wider reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:34 am As such, locality, distance, time, or duration etc. are descriptions we use about the assumed wider reality.

Yes, sure - they are assumptions about an assumed wider reality.
But this still doesn't mean this assumed reality is actually real - it simply is assumed / imagined.

For example:
One actually cannot directly experience any separate object at all. This means that any object actually existing as an independent thing, is also only assumed - and, in this case, conventionally believed to be true (people normally believe that the world is made of separate, independently existing physical objects etc etc).

The mind (our conventional beliefs) is full of assumptions about reality - but these assumptions are not reality itself.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:16 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:34 am As such, locality, distance, time, or duration etc. are descriptions we use about the assumed wider reality.

Yes, sure - they are assumptions about an assumed wider reality.
But this still doesn't mean this assumed reality is actually real - it simply is assumed / imagined.

For example:
One actually cannot directly experience any separate object at all. This means that any object actually existing as an independent thing, is also only assumed - and, in this case, conventionally believed to be true (people normally believe that the world is made of separate, independently existing physical objects etc etc).

The mind (our conventional beliefs) is full of assumptions about reality - but these assumptions are not reality itself.

If you don't assume a wider reality, then you can't assume a non-separate wider reality either. All that are left are the appearances.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:20 am

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:16 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:34 am As such, locality, distance, time, or duration etc. are descriptions we use about the assumed wider reality.

Yes, sure - they are assumptions about an assumed wider reality.
But this still doesn't mean this assumed reality is actually real - it simply is assumed / imagined.

For example:
One actually cannot directly experience any separate object at all. This means that any object actually existing as an independent thing, is also only assumed - and, in this case, conventionally believed to be true (people normally believe that the world is made of separate, independently existing physical objects etc etc).

The mind (our conventional beliefs) is full of assumptions about reality - but these assumptions are not reality itself.

If you don't assume a wider reality, then you can't assume a non-separate wider reality either. All that are left are the appearances.

Well, what is left is direct experience - colors, sounds, smells, tastes and the sensation of touch.
Non of these contain any borders. The "field" of color, for example, is a unified field without gaps or borders - yet, we identify a specific pattern and see an apple - we believe this pattern is separate from the background etc etc... but in reality is all just color (one color cannot separate color - its like saying seeing can separate seeing - its simply not how this works).

But yes, stating that this field of color isn't divided within itself is also only an interpretation - it is also an assumption.
Anything that can be said about directly experienced reality is really only an interpretation - but some seem to be closer to the "truth" than others.

Of course we could also say that:
There is neither separation nor non-separation (basically refuting all dualistic logic - as one really cannot say anything about reality that would be absolutely true). But this is maybe a step too far - and would be a bit off topic?

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:20 am

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:16 am
Yes, sure - they are assumptions about an assumed wider reality.
But this still doesn't mean this assumed reality is actually real - it simply is assumed / imagined.

For example:
One actually cannot directly experience any separate object at all. This means that any object actually existing as an independent thing, is also only assumed - and, in this case, conventionally believed to be true (people normally believe that the world is made of separate, independently existing physical objects etc etc).

The mind (our conventional beliefs) is full of assumptions about reality - but these assumptions are not reality itself.

If you don't assume a wider reality, then you can't assume a non-separate wider reality either. All that are left are the appearances.

Well, what is left is direct experience - colors, sounds, smells, tastes and the sensation of touch.
Non of these contain any borders. The "field" of color, for example, is a unified field without gaps or borders - yet, we identify a specific pattern and see an apple - we believe this pattern is separate from the background etc etc... but in reality is all just color (one color cannot separate color - its like saying seeing can separate seeing - its simply not how this works).

But yes, stating that this field of color isn't divided within itself is also only an interpretation - it is also an assumption.
Anything that can be said about directly experienced reality is really only an interpretation - but some seem to be closer to the "truth" than others.

Of course we could also say that:
There is neither separation nor non-separation (basically refuting all dualistic logic - as one really cannot say anything about reality that would be absolutely true). But this is maybe a step too far - and would be a bit off topic?

The topic was that if we assume a wider reality as we should, then we can also see non-locality as a feature of this wider reality. That's a very specific claim about the wider reality. Mind you entanglement is supposed to be "instantaneous"/"timeless", and has already been experimentally demonstrated to work at least many times "faster" than the speed of light.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:43 pm The topic was that if we assume a wider reality as we should, then we can also see non-locality as a feature of this wider reality. That's a very specific claim about the wider reality.

Well, if non-locality is a feature of directly experienced reality then it would most likely also be a feature of a wider reality - there is no actual reason for a wider reality to be any different to the reality that we experience, right?
I think the real question is: Is there such a thing as a wider reality at all? Or is non-locality actually based on reality always only being here/now and not out there/then.

If reality is in any way similar to the reality of a night time dream (or the simulated reality in, for example a massive multiplayer online game where each player occupies a first person perspective of a realty that actually only exists as the player's perspective) then the assumed, wider reality - eg the room beyond a closed door - is actually "not there" at all.
It only comes "into existence" once it is observed. If the observation (consciousness itself) is actually what makes reality "appear" or arise then there really is no wider reality at all... but, as I see it, one can always only observe the one reality that is here/now and all assumptions about a wider reality will just be that, assumptions.

AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:34 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:43 pm The topic was that if we assume a wider reality as we should, then we can also see non-locality as a feature of this wider reality. That's a very specific claim about the wider reality.

Well, if non-locality is a feature of directly experienced reality then it would most likely also be a feature of a wider reality - there is no actual reason for a wider reality to be any different to the reality that we experience, right?
I think the real question is: Is there such a thing as a wider reality at all? Or is non-locality actually based on reality always only being here/now and not out there/then.

If reality is in any way similar to the reality of a night time dream (or the simulated reality in, for example a massive multiplayer online game where each player occupies a first person perspective of a realty that actually only exists as the player's perspective) then the assumed, wider reality - eg the room beyond a closed door - is actually "not there" at all.
It only comes "into existence" once it is observed. If the observation (consciousness itself) is actually what makes reality "appear" or arise then there really is no wider reality at all... but, as I see it, one can always only observe the one reality that is here/now and all assumptions about a wider reality will just be that, assumptions.

Nonlocality means that ultimately there is neither such a thing as "in here" nor such a thing as "out there". There is just existence.

theory wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 4:10 pm A recent study suggests that all particles in the Universe are entangled by their identical nature.
[....]
(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

Entanglement by kind would prove that non-locality is applicable to reality itself and since with non-locality there is no spatial and temporal distance, it implies that the Universe or reality cannot have a begin and that the origin of the Universe cannot be physical.

Recent scientific studies indicate that the observer precedes reality.

[.............]

What is your opinion about the study?

Why such issues from the above are irresolvable is because of the conflation of the empirical with the transcendental.

Precise definition of the terms used is very critical.

What we have are the following;

A. Empirical
1. Empirical reality
2. Empirical Free-will

B. Transcendental [Metaphysical]
i. Transcendental reality
ii. Transcendental Free-will

All the above scientific studies are related to empirical reality, i.e. within actual experiences and possible experiences [possible to be experienced].
Within this domain, there is no issue with empirical free will, i.e. in the absence of external authoritative forces, one is 'free' to do what one want to do.

Transcendental Free will generally refer to some god-given-freewill which is in a way unconditional beyond the empirical thus transcendental, i.e. a transcendental idea which is illusory and never real.

As such one cannot equivocate from what is proven in the empirical to lead to the conclusion that is transcendental.

Reference: Note Kant's Antinomies.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:07 amNonlocality means that ultimately there is neither such a thing as "in here" nor such a thing as "out there". There is just existence.

Non-locality within a context of 'independent existence' may not be valid. Non-locality may merely be an indicator within the scope of physical reality (a contrast) which - by its apparent applicability - implies that on a fundamental level the origin of reality cannot be physical. As that would disprove determinism, it would provide prove for free will.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:16 amTranscendental Free will generally refer to some god-given-freewill which is in a way unconditional beyond the empirical thus transcendental, i.e. a transcendental idea which is illusory and never real.

As such one cannot equivocate from what is proven in the empirical to lead to the conclusion that is transcendental.

Reference: Note Kant's Antinomies.

When transcendental is considered as a priori or 'before value' and thus 'that what precedes empirical reality' the idea that transcendental lays 'beyond the empirical' would only be valid from the perspective of an individual while from a pure outside (fundamental) perspective it would concern what 'precedes an individual' (in a pure form).

When seen from an a priori perspective, the empirical would follow what is considered transcendental and when it is considered that the concept 'non-locality' is applicable to empirical reality itself, then that would enable theoretical examination of the transcendental.

Essentially, the origin of life is also its purpose or goal ('good' per se). What lays beyond life from the perspective of life lays before it on a fundamental level.

theory wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:16 amTranscendental Free will generally refer to some god-given-freewill which is in a way unconditional beyond the empirical thus transcendental, i.e. a transcendental idea which is illusory and never real.

As such one cannot equivocate from what is proven in the empirical to lead to the conclusion that is transcendental.

Reference: Note Kant's Antinomies.

When transcendental is considered as a priori or 'before value' and thus 'that what precedes empirical reality' the idea that transcendental lays 'beyond the empirical' would only be valid from the perspective of an individual while from a pure outside (fundamental) perspective it would concern what 'precedes an individual' (in a pure form).

When seen from an a priori perspective, the empirical would follow what is considered transcendental and when it is considered that the concept 'non-locality' is applicable to empirical reality itself, then that would enable theoretical examination of the transcendental.

Essentially, the origin of life is also its purpose or goal ('good' per se). What lays beyond life from the perspective of life lays before it on a fundamental level.

Reality can be viewed from two main perspectives, i.e.

• 1. Assuming the transcendental a priori exists thus it precede the empirical or
  
  2. Just accept the evident empirical [& all related variables] without any preceding transcendental.

From what you posted you seem to be stuck with position 1, i.e. your
i. "that what precedes empirical reality"
ii. "what 'precedes an individual' (in a pure form)"

Point is your i & ii can be valid in certain perspectives i.e. position 1 but ultimately they are illusory.
This is generally the philosophical realist stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Position 2 is most realistic since it is purely evident but that leave one suspended without any grounding.

For me, I agree with position 1 and 2 in their respective contexts.

It would appear you would not agree with position 2? do you?

theory wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:16 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:07 amNonlocality means that ultimately there is neither such a thing as "in here" nor such a thing as "out there". There is just existence.

Non-locality within a context of 'independent existence' may not be valid. Non-locality may merely be an indicator within the scope of physical reality (a contrast) which - by its apparent applicability - implies that on a fundamental level the origin of reality cannot be physical. As that would disprove determinism, it would provide prove for free will.

No, it just means that physical reality is non-local. It's compatible with determinism too (universal entanglement).