Intelligent Design Philosophy Physics

Suarez: Quantum nonlocal correlations come from outside space-time

Spread the love
Antoine Suarez
Antoine Suarez

Philip Cunningham writes,

I just happened to check quantum physicist and philosopher Antoine Suarez‘s youtube channel. He loaded a new video a few months ago after being silent for a few years.

Quantum nonlocal correlations come from outside space-time, they cannot be explained exclusively by material links.

If the experimenter has free will, then there is free will behind the quantum phenomena.

The physical reality requires an author with free will.

The world is speakable because it is spoken.

Quantum physics: Accessing the invisible through the visible More.

Also by Suarez:

What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? – By Antoine Suarez – July 22, 2013

Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices.

To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time… Big Questions Online

Antoine Suarez “cites the Free Will Theorem of John Conway and Simon Kochen as making free will an axiom (within quantum mechanics), without which science itself could not proceed.” Information Philosopher

and relevant thinkers:

The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen…

Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements. Information Philosopher

“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)

See also: Twisted light can carry arbitrarily large amounts of information –a find friendly to theism?

3 Replies to “Suarez: Quantum nonlocal correlations come from outside space-time

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    It is often pointed out in “the hard problem” of consciousness,,,

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    ,,, that the specific mental attribute of qualia,,,

    “what it is like to taste a specific apple, this particular apple now”.
    Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.,,
    – pre wikipedia

    ,,, will forever be beyond any possible materialistic explanation and/or to any physical examination. That is to say that qualia will never be reducible to physical ‘brain states’.

    And whereas qualia will never lend itself to physical examination, on the other hand we find that ‘free will’ and “the experience of the now”, although being outside space-time, do lend themselves to physical examination.

    Specifically, we find that free will, as Suarez mentioned, figures centrally in the experimenter’s “choice of measurement.”

    And as Zeilinger commented, “we are not just passive observers”.

    Moreover, as Weinberg, an atheist, points out in the following article, having free will figure so centrally in quantum mechanics at such a deep level, undermines the Darwinian worldview from within in that instead of humans being the result of impersonal physical laws, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.” Specifically Weinberg states, “the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/article.....mechanics/

    But, besides free will, there is another quality of mind that lends itself to physical examination.

    This quality of mind has been termed “the now” and/or “the experience of the now” by philosophers.

    The simplest way to define “the now” and/or “the experience of the now” is to say that we have a unique mental perspective of being outside ‘space-time’ where we watch as time passes us by. That is to say, our perspective of being in “the now” is permanent whilst time is every changing.

    And as Antoine Suarez put it in the following video, “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”

    Have Krauss and Hawking misidentified what they are referring to as “nothing?”
    Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video (it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA

    In fact, this difference between ‘physical time’ and the “mental time” of “the now” is one of the primary reasons that Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity.

    Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – 24 June 2015
    Excerpt: ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’
    It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow.
    As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact.,,,
    Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity.
    Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the (Nobel) committee from awarding (Einstein) the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time.
    So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionat.....me/6539568

    The first part of the following video gives a deeper insight into that conflict between Einstein and the Philosophers:

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

    Years later in 1935, Einstein was specifically asked by another philosopher, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”

    “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
    – Rudolf Carnap

    And again, Einstein’s answer was categorical. Einstein answered: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”

    “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
    – Albert Einstein
    Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video.
    Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now”
    https://vimeo.com/10588094

    Moreover, the statement Einstein made to Carnap on the train, ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since ‘the now of the mind’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, undermined the space-time of Einstein’s General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality.

    For instance, as the following researcher stated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms –
    Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    And as Scott Aaronson stated in his following lecture notes on quantum computation, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”

    Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor (Quantum Computation)
    Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html

    i.e. ‘the Now’, as philosophers term it, and contrary to what Einstein (and Jaki) thought possible for experimental physics, and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher in this way:

    “It is impossible for the experience of ‘the now of the mind’ to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”
    – paraphrase

    In summation, the fact that both ‘the experience of ‘the now’ and ‘free will’, which are unique, and even defining, properties of the immaterial mind, figure so prominently in quantum mechanics tells us, fairly clearly, that, number one, the human mind is not reducible to material explanations and also tells us, number two, that the immaterial Mind of God must be primary to all of physical reality.

    Verses:

    Psalm 46:10
    He says, “Be still, and know that I am God”;,,

    2 Corinthians 4:18
    So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

    supplemental video:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Who or what came first, the observed or the observer?

    If nothing exists until it is being observed or measured, what is being observed in the first place?

    Does this mean that you do not exist unless someone is observing you?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    “Who or what came first, the observed or the observer?”

    Quantum Mechanics is clear. Several lines of empirical evidence all converge on the same conclusion that the infinite Mind of God precedes material reality:

    Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    – Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video
    https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE

    The double slit experiment by itself is enough to reach the conclusion that the infinite Mind of God must precede material reality:

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM

    “If nothing exists until it is being observed or measured, what is being observed in the first place?”

    Material “particles” do not exist until observed or measured. Prior to that, as mentioned in the preceding “Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics” video, the “particles” are defined as being in a “non-local” infinite dimensional/infinite information quantum wave state. The act of observation is said to ‘collapse’ this infinite dimensional/infinite information quantum wave state into a finite state of a single bit of information.

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    “Does this mean that you do not exist unless someone is observing you?”

    The infinite regress of the von Neumann chain is discussed at the 2:09 minute mark of the following video.

    The Measurement Problem – video
    https://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&t=129

    Which, simply put, means that God sustains all of creation, including ourselves, in existence:

    As the Bible states “in him we live and move and have our being”,,

    Acts 17:28
    ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.

    Of supplemental note:

    A Conversation with Henry Stapp, Ryan Cochrane – March 2014
    Excerpt: “I think von Neumann’s orthodox QM gives a good way to understand the nature of the universe: it is tightly tied to the practical test and uses of our basic physical theory, while also accounting for the details of the mind-brain connection in a way that is rationally concordant with both our conscious experiences, and experience of control, and the neuroscience data.”
    Henry Stapp
    http://social-epistemology.com.....-cochrane/

    The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon – video – 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4

    Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature – Bruce L. Gordon – 2017
    Excerpt page 295: When we consider the fact that the structure of reality in fundamental physical theory is merely phenomenological and that this structure itself is hollow and non-qualitative, whereas our experience is not, the metaphysical objectivity and epistemic intersubjectivity of the enstructured qualitative reality of our experience can be seen to be best explained by an occasionalist idealism of the sort advocated by George Berkeley (1685-1753) or Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). In the metaphysical context of this kind of theistic immaterialism, the vera causa that brings coherent closure to the phenomenological reality we inhabit is always and only agent causation. The necessity of causal sufficiency is met by divine action, for as Plantinga emphasizes:
    [T]he connection between God’s willing that there be light and there being light is necessary in the broadly logical sense: it is necessary in that sense that if God wills that p, p occurs. Insofar as we have a grasp of necessity (and we do have a grasp of necessity), we also have a grasp of causality when it is divine causality that is at issue. I take it this is a point in favor of occasionalism, and in fact it constitutes a very powerful advantage of occasionalism. 118
    http://jbtsonline.org/wp-conte.....ressed.pdf

Leave a Reply