Posted on 05/25/2017 8:02:24 PM PDT by Ciaphas Cain
Perhaps one of the most intriguing and interesting phenomena in quantum physics is what Einstein referred to as a "spooky action at a distance" - also known as quantum entanglement.
This quantum effect is behind what makes quantum computers work, as quantum bits (qubits) generally rely on entanglement to process data and information. It's also the working theory behind the possibility of quantum teleportation.
The long and short of it is this: entangled particles affect one another regardless of distance, where a measurement of the state of one would instantly influence the state of the other.
However, it remains "spooky" because - despite following the laws of quantum physics - entanglement seems to reveal some deeper theory that's yet to be discovered.
A number of physicists have been working on determining this deeper theory, but so far nothing definitive has come out.
As for entanglement itself, a very famous test was developed by physicist John Bell in 1964 to determine whether particles do, in fact, influence one another in this way.
Simply put, the Bell test involves a pair of entangled particles: one is sent towards location A and the other to location B. At each of these points, a device measures the state of the particles.
The settings in the measuring devices are set at random, so that it's impossible for A to know the setting of B (and vice versa) at the time of measurement. Historically, the Bell test has supported the spooky theory.
Now, Lucien Hardy, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada, is suggesting that the measurements between A and B could be controlled by something that may potentially be separate from the material world: the human mind.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencealert.com ...
Quantum checksums.... hmmm....
Maybe we are all programs on god’s computer, anf let there be light was the power LED....
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Lol - that’s a funny one. Thanks!
There are some people who theorize that every event one is to experience in one’s lifetime exists all at once.>>>>>>>>
That’s exactly right. That’s what eternal life would do for you.
“... there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, but which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and cause serious diseases.”
— Marcus Terentius Varro, who died around 27 BC.
Twins have been studied extensively. How does a twin “just know” his/her twin is in trouble, or happy, or whatever, even though they are on opposites sides of the planet and have not been in communication for months?
Spooky action at a distance, indeed.
Entanglement comes about only under certain initial conditions: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Meaning_of_entanglement.
I guess the theory of germs has been around even longer than I had thought. I’m sure people accussed Marcus Varro of being a Sourcerer or agent of Satan.
It’s just shocking.
That’s the trouble with letting journalists cover science news.
Heinlein also wrote the best time-travel yarn ever: The Door Into Summer.
I saw what you did there...
He lived to a ripe old age. Maybe he invented Teflon, too! :)
Queue up Nancy Pelosi’s latest comments.
She defies physics!
We, OTOH, being limited to receiving our information being propagated at the speed of light, can only perceive that galaxy as it was a million years ago.
IOW, the principle of instantaneity is essential to the concept of Divine omnipotence.
Agreed on all points in general. The only question I have pertains to the need for God to intervene in Creation so as to "control" anything going on here post-Creation, owing to his character as divine omnipotence, to which you allude when you say he "examines and controls" things.
From the putative standpoint of God's Eternal Now there is nothing objectionable about this expectation. It seems to me the problem here is, usually human beings do not have a clue how to conceive of or describe God's Eternal Now.
And evidently, science cannot do this. Science is a human artifact or creature caught in the nexus of space and time: linear, serial, always future-oriented.
I have reliable sources that aver Sir Isaac Newton, a monotheist, believed that God would have to intervene in his creation from time to time because, on Newton's view, the universe is a mechanical system; and mechanical systems are subject to disorder and breakdown over time. It follows that God as eternal tinkerer would have to step in every now and then to set things aright again.
Of course, the primary assumption here is that the universe is a mechanical system. Science after Newton tended to be in agreement with this assessment. Especially after science dumped God as irrelevant to their problems (because science deals with direct observables, and God is definitely not such; and assumes everything in the universe finally reduces to a mysterious substance called "matter.")
I gather this is a prevalent idea, for scientists quoted in the lead article were speculating that "mind" was made of some different class of matter than the rest of the physical, natural world.
The point is, if it's not some species of "matter," it is outside scientific purview and methods. Yet we are constantly told that science is our most reliable way of knowing "all that there is." So mind must (on this view) be made up of some material "substance" that has thus far escaped human direct detection. But the fundamental assumption here is the mind is still ultimately material.
Yet as it seems to me FWIW: Materiality is the only category that science has, so they shoehorn everything that exists into this single category.
RE: Divine omnipotence, some thoughts from Alisdair McIntyre, Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University, in After Virtue [University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]:
...[O]mniscience excludes the making of decisions. If God knows everything that will occur, he confronts no as yet unmade decisions. He has a single will.... It is precisely insofar as we differ from God that unpredictability invades our lives.My take-away: Omniscience = Omnipotence = Instantiality [timelessness]. These are three differing views of One Who ultimately wills a universe into Being. According to His Logos, nurtured by His Spirit....
Anyhoot, the "character" of God is not available for scientific scrutiny. Indeed, He is prior to all scientific scrutiny, indeed happens to be the very foundation of logic and genius of mathematics.
Still, RE: Given the sublime qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and instantiality -- we now must speak of the Eternal Now and man's participation in it -- the divine LOGOS. We humans merely have the benefit of it, provided we accept the divine offer.
The divine qualities of Omniscience = Omnipotence = Instantiality [Timelessness] were not hatched here on earth, according to some kind of Darwinian evolutionary (read: random) process, nor out of manipulations of "matter" -- still a term in need of a definition these days. Along any timeline, such as humans experience habitually.
Must sign off for now. But not before saying that I have no "objections" to quantum theory. I find it positively enticing. But that's a subject for another time. Maybe.
Best wishes and prayers, dearest brother in Christ!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.