But why is the quantum world thought spooky anyway?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 1, 2015

News, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet

It’s a bad day both for Albert Einstein and for hackers. The most rigorous test of quantum theory ever carried out has confirmed that the ‘spooky action at a distance’ that the German physicist famously hated — in which manipulating one object instantaneously seems to affect another, far away one — is an inherent part of the quantum world.

…

In quantum mechanics, objects can be in multiple states simultaneously: for example, an atom can be in two places, or spin in opposite directions, at once. Measuring an object forces it to snap into a well-defined state. Furthermore, the properties of different objects can become ‘entangled’, meaning that their states are linked: when a property of one such object is measured, the properties of all its entangled twins become set, too.

…

Zeilinger also notes that there remains one last, somewhat philosophical loophole, first identified by Bell himself: the possibility that hidden variables could somehow manipulate the experimenters’ choices of what properties to measure, tricking them into thinking quantum theory is correct.

That would be the evolutionary psychology version, right?: The physicists were naturally selected back on the African savannah to see things this way, to spread their selfish genes. There is no way for a hairless primate to know how things actually are.

Leifer is less troubled by this ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’, however. “It could be that there is some kind of superdeterminism, so that the choice of measurement settings was determined at the Big Bang,” he says. “We can never prove that is not the case, so I think it’s fair to say that most physicists don’t worry too much about this.” More.

Great physicists were often not even materialists. See what they have said about immateriality and consciousness

Our friendly local physicist Rob Sheldon notes,

Quantum spookiness is only spooky to materialists–like Einstein himself. For physicists like Aristotle, you would expect there to be purpose and order and long-distance correlations. For example, if you made a machine to observe at 500nm wavelength, it wouldn’t be spooky to find that there was a source of 500nm light nearby that illuminated the laboratory. They are both “entangled” by design.

Not to worry, an American circuit court is going to strike that down soon.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

daveS exactly to whom does this fictitious "I" refer to in your sentence? You really need to learn how to state your materialistic/atheistic position in purely atheistic/materialistic terms and stop stealing Theistic premises when you want to counter a Theistic position. For instance, the first part of your sentence,, "I had trouble believing,,," should be rewritten as such,,,
The illusion of me, which the neurons of my brain have created, has trouble believing a certain proposition is true.
But then again, since when you clearly state the atheistic position it is clear that it is patently absurd, I can see why the illusion of 'you' would want to dishonestly steal the concept of personhood, i.e. the concept of "I", from Theism. But alas that is not my problem. It is yours! Thus, for the sake of honesty and clarity, will you please stop referring to yourself as a real person and from now on start your sentences with the proper qualifiers such as the following,,
'the illusion of "I" has difficultly believing such and such"
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

The box also made of molecules... to be pedantic about it. Molecules all the way doon, upwards and sideways.Axel_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

BA77, I had trouble believing Dr Hunter would make such an absurd statement, but there it is, September 21 of last year. Madness.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

As to: "That’s just not how our minds work." correction: "That’s just not how ~~our minds~~ the randomly colliding particles of our material brains work." There all better!
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne Photo – an atheist contemplating his mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg " Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All (Stephen) Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God in order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter –
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Dr Sheldon,
Finally, I didn’t bring up the link between materialism and atheism, but since you did, let me apply Pascal’s wager to Einstein: if you are a materialist you are likely not to believe in heaven and eternal judgement. And if you do not believe in eternal judgement, you are likely to be untruthful about things that might advance your career–such as stating a belief in God. So why shouldn’t a materialist say whatever makes the best press? What does he lose that he hasn’t already lost?
Atheists generally don't find Pascal's wager at all convincing, to put it mildly. That's just not how our minds work. I doubt that any gods exist, and I don't attempt to force myself to somehow believe, so you could say I'm taking the "riskier" side of the bet because I think it's the truth. So I have serious doubts about any conclusions drawn by trying to apply a Pascal's wager argument to Einstein.daveS_{September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

I was asked to comment on Einstein's materialism, which was denied by Wikipedia, and as proof, the famous quote about Einstein believing in Spinoza's God. a) One can be a materialist and still believe in God. Sure, something has to give, but you'd be amazed at the contortions that are regularly on display in places like Biologos. So the quote from Einstein is nice, but in no way minimizes his commitment to materialism, which is why he had so much trouble with Bohr's dualism. b) Notice that Einstein said he believes in Spinoza's god. Well, did anyone look up Spinoza's god? Would it help if you knew that Spinoza was Jewish and was kicked out of his synagogue for being an atheist? Which may have been Einstein's point--if you knew enough about Spinoza to know his god, you probably thought Einstein clever. If you didn't know much, you thought him devout. c) Finally, I didn't bring up the link between materialism and atheism, but since you did, let me apply Pascal's wager to Einstein: if you are a materialist you are likely not to believe in heaven and eternal judgement. And if you do not believe in eternal judgement, you are likely to be untruthful about things that might advance your career--such as stating a belief in God. So why shouldn't a materialist say whatever makes the best press? What does he lose that he hasn't already lost? If you have the time to read a book, there's a newish biography of Einstein that talks about his attempt to be a devout Jew at age 11, and how he lost his faith at 12. It almost makes me weep.Robert Sheldon_{September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

The spooky action at a distance mimics to a large extent the common logic of choosing. There are not 2 particles, but there is 1 particle with a position parameter with 2 potential states to choose from. However in common discourse about how choosing works these alternatives are said to be in the future, while with quantum mechanics the 2 "particles" are said to be in the present.mohammadnursyamsu_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Einstein's spooky action at a distance is not a problem once one realizes that distance is an illusion. Distance is not needed to explain anything because it is abstractly derived from two positions. Only the positions are real. The universe is ONE and everything "sees" everything else. But everybody knows this. I think.Mapou_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Einstein did not like quantum mechanics (even though he helped in founding it) because he was what is known as a "localist". That is, he believed that no particle could influence another over distance. There had to be intermediary particles, he insisted. This is why he rejected Newton's nonlocal gravity theory. Newton assumed that gravity acted instantaneously everywhere in the universe while Einstein believed that gravity traveled at the speed of light. The success of Newton's theory forced the relativists to come up with all sorts of silly pseudoscientific magic to explain why gravity behaved as if it were instantaneous. But it gets worse. Einstein's local gravity requires the existence of massless intermediary particles or waves (e.g., gravitons) that travel between bodies in order to communicate the actions of gravity. The problem with this is that gravity affects all particles equally, even massless particles. This is something that Newton and Galileo understood way back when because they could observe different masses falling at the same velocity and acceleration. Why is this a problem? It is because the intermediary massless particles that communicate gravity are also affected by gravity, complicating things immensely to the point of silliness. One could conceivably solve the problem by insisting that the graviton is not affected by gravity but Einstein's own theory of spacetime curvature would not allow it. And neither does Newtonian gravity. General relativity is thus in limbo between a rock and a graviton. My opinion: Einstein was wrong and Newton was right. Gravity is a non-local quantum phenomenon.Mapou_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Thanks for all that, BA77. It got to be beyond my understanding, but I saw enough to feel pleased by your response. Thank you again. In fact, there are so many indicators pointing to theism, that only his determination to hold onto his world view, 'as was', until such time as he chose to allow it to be modified in a manner that suited him, can have prevented his being a theist, it seems to me. How a man of such intelligence and wisdom can have managed to blind himself to so many ineluctable implications of QM pointing to theism is itself a wonder - if of a disappointing kind. Although the likely trauma of the Nazi horrors, surely should not be underestimated, either in their effect on his own attitude towards 'organised religion' or on that of his egregiously brilliant, physicist-colleagues - not to speak of the rest of European Jewry. I think Einstein hated QM because he would immediately have seen its unequivocal, theistic implications.Axel_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Axel, I don't disagree with 'integrated and coordinated personal worlds'. In fact, I would hold it as a requirement to avoid solipsism.
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
as to
"Einstein is quoted somewhere early in the book as having said that people misunderstood the major breakthrough of his theory, in that it was actually that truth is, in a sense, a personal perception."
In that regards, here are a few notes of related interest: According to Einstein, choosing the reference frame that you decide to measure from is completely up to you. i.e. According to Einstein’s theories of relativity, there is no reason to give one frame of reference more consideration over another frame of reference: In fact, in regards to the Copernican Principle and how it relates to relativity, Einstein stated this very anti-Copernican principle fact:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
Fred Hoyle, discoverer of stellar nucleosynthesis, weighs in here:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
Moreover, contrary to the generalized form of the Copernican principle which holds that ‘humans are not privileged observers of the universe’, the ‘observer’ is, in fact, given a special frame of reference in Einstein’s relativity equations (given a special frame of reference in both special and general relativity):
Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (privileged frame of reference for the observer) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec
In fact, both of Einstein’s breakthrough insights for Special Relativity and for General Relativity came from Einstein giving the ‘observer’ a distinct frame of reference. As well, Einstein’s ‘happiest thought’ of his life was when he envisioned ‘an observer freely falling from the roof of a house’. Which is the thought experiment which gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into General Relativity:
The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
And in special relativity, moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2, (i.e. into special relativity).
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ – video (6:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jHnRqhnkyGs?t=364
Of related interest: When the observer, instead of looking backwards at the face of a clock as he accelerates to the speed of light, instead looks in his direction of travel as he accelerates towards the speed of light, something very interesting happens. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light,
Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 Of note: The preceding video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.
Thus it appears that Einstein's own theories were strongly pointing to agent causality but Einstein still tried to salvage a worldview in which an 'agent' was the result of physics instead of being the prerequisite for physics:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
bornagain77_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

BA77 #6 'The statement, ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make 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. But quantum mechanics surely corroborates my contention that we each live in a world of our own, seamlessly integrated and coordinated by God. In fact, though I have not yet been able to find the passage again in the book, Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, I believe Einstein is quoted somewhere early in the book as having said that people misunderstood the major breakthrough of his theory, in that it was actually that truth is, in a sense, a personal perception. If so, it accords with QM, like the quote from Max Planck below, accords with your rephrasing of the import of the latest QM findings: Paraphrase of BA77: “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.” Max Planck: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." Don't hesitate to just say: 'Wrong', if you thinks so, BA. I don't discount the possibility with regard to all but my contention of integrated and coordinated personal worlds. Which, of course, you may not be prepared to countenance.Axel_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

The statement, 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make 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.
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded 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. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit
i.e. 'the now of the mind', contrary to what Einstein 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."
Here are a few quotes testifying to that effect:
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/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms "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!" Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables -
Although to be fair, Einstein did state this following quote the month before he passed away:
“..the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however tenacious this illusion may be.” Albert Einstein – March 1955 (he passed away in April of that year)
Moreover, it is interesting to note how Einstein's relativity itself blends into 'the experience of the now'. Both special relativity and general relativity reveal a higher dimensional ‘eternal framework’:
“I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005 “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ – video (6:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jHnRqhnkyGs?t=364
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal frame of reference. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
Moreover, both the ‘eternal’ and tunnel aspects of special relativity are confirmed in NDE’s:
‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66DchGhhD0 ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’ Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – NDE Experiencer “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…” – Jeffrey Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively http://abcnews.go.com/Nightlin....._gydvW8jbI
Of related interest: Long before Einstein ever came along, Jesus implored us to store treasure up in the eternal realm rather than storing them in the temporal realm that we currently live in:
Matthew 6:19-21 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Luke 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Of supplemental note: hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time (as quantum entanglement/teleportation is), i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our temporal perspective. Yet, in quantum entanglement/teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal framework and the eternal speed of light framework, not just in, and to, the speed of light framework. Information entanglement/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us in this temporal framework.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ (in quantum experiments) is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, 'instantaneous information' is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, i.e. highest dimension, can be discerned).
"An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane Kramarik - Child Prodigy -
Verse and Music:
Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. Rich Mullins – Creed – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LR2hFP1yb4
bornagain77_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Einstein was far more of a materialist in his philosophy than many people realize. Here he states:
“I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is that … one has to find a possibility to avoid the continuum (together with space and time) altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory.” — Albert Einstein (1954) – Einstein from “B” to “Z” Springer, p. 151 – John Stachel Stated the year before he passed away after 3 decades of trying to find a way around quantum mechanics for a, in essence, ‘complete’ materialistic theory of everything. God Science: Episode One – The Simulation Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqVrIBkhqOo
As to the oft repeated 'Spinoza's God' quote which Theists use, Godel, Einstein's closest confidant at Princeton, stated this in regards to Einstein's Theistic beliefs:
The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
In fact, Einstein was so wedded to the materialistic view of reality that Einstein even went so far as to deny the reality of free will itself.
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
In other words, Einstein took the importance of mind (and free will), as to coherently explaining reality, far too lightly, since he himself would not have been able to deduce relativity unless he possessed faculties of mind that are not reducible to a material basis. That is to say that Einstein, like Dawkins and other present day materialists, denied the reality of agent causality.
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
In fact, Einstein went so far as to deny that consciousness, i.e. 'the experience of the now', could ever be 'turned into an object of physical measurement'. Einstein was once asked (by a philosopher):
"Can physics demonstrate the existence of 'the now' in order to make the notion of 'now' into a scientifically valid term?"
Einstein's answer was categorical, he said:
"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics."
Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video or can be read in full context in the article following the video:
Stanley L. Jaki: "The Mind and Its Now" https://vimeo.com/10588094 The Mind and Its Now - Stanley L. Jaki, July 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind's baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind's ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://www.saintcd.com/science-and-faith/277-the-mind-and-its-now.html?showall=1&limitstart=
bornagain77_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

More "spooky action at a distance" causality:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. -- Jesus Christ
awstar_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

What does the confirmed veracity of ‘spooky action at a distance’ mean for the mind-body causal interaction problem?
Bill Vallicella: One of the standard objections to substance dualism in the philosophy of mind is that the substance dualist cannot account for mind-body and body-mind causal interaction. (…) The issue for now is simply this: How can two things belonging to radically disjoint ontological categories be in causal contact? But here again, Churchland seems to be laboring under a false assumption, namely, that causation must involve contact between cause and effect. But why should we think that this 'billiards ball' model of causation fits every type of causation? Why must we think of causation as itself a physical process whereby a physical magnitude such as energy is transferred from one physical object to another? On regularity and counterfactual theories of causation there is no difficulty in principle with the notion of a causal relation obtaining between two events that do not make physical contact.
We can safely add ‘spooky action at a distance’ to the list of causality types that do not involve physical contact.Box_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

Thanks! We shall let Rob Sheldon know and ask for a response. Out of interest, to what do you attribute Einstein's dislike of quantum mechanics.News_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Einstein wasn't a materialist: https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_einstein
These quotes by Einstein from Wikiquote explain his beliefs:
I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ... My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.
This next quote shows that Einstein's beliefs were not merely based on faith but were shaped by his experiences working as a scientist.
On the other hand, however, every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
Did Einstein Believe in God? by John Marsh provides a very detailed discussion demonstrating the fact that Einstein believed in God. Marsh writes:
To sum up: Einstein was – like Newton before him – deeply religious and a firm believer in a transcendent God.

Jim Smith_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply