Philosophy Discussion Forums

JackDaydream wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 1:59 pm This may mean that there is an underlying issue of logical and symbolic truth, and it may be difficult to overcome this because aspects of life, and ideas, may not be fitted into different ways of knowing, especially the division between reason and intuition.

The indicated issue would be that the origin of logic is the truth that is sought within it.

Is the concept of eternity logically possible?

Maybe, depending on the nature of the context in which it is seen - The fact that the question can be asked shows it is possible.

“Eternity is said not to be an extension of time but an absence of time, and sometimes it seemed to me that her abandonment touched that strange mathematical point of endlessness, a point with no width, occupying no space.”
― Graham Greene

“I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
― Ptolemy, Ptolemy's Almagest

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 20th, 2022, 1:41 pmI've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations.

What that is that breathes fire into the equations can be seen in the concept potential infinity. It is the mathematician (human mind) that introduces a begin by which an endless type of infinity of mathematical logic reveals itself to him or her.

There are two types of infinity:

1. mathematical potential infinity that is dependent on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician and that therefore cannot possibly be applicable to reality.
2. true ∞ Infinity that is beginning-less of nature, which idea originates from the ability to count but that non-the-less cannot be counted.

The concepts eternity and eternal are similarly divisible in the types beginning-less and endless (potential eternity and true ∞ Eternity).

The following quote from a Bible scholar shows how the use of the term can differ.

Everlasting life has a beginning but no end, while eternal life has no beginning and no end. Only God has eternal (beginning-less) life. Christians have everlasting life, which lasts for the rest of eternity (endless).

The endless type of eternity is a reference to the endless type of infinity within the context of time. The question in the OP would in that case ask: can a potential infinity be fulfilled in time?

The idea of endless eternity is as illogical as potential infinity when it concerns applicability to reality. The concept endless eternity demands the same a priori potential for a begin and that means that the concept endless eternity, like potential infinity, cannot stand on its own and thus 'cannot be fulfilled' as seen from within a subjective perspective. It is the human mind that provides the begin by which the idea of endless eternity is possible.

The concept endless eternity is dependent on a human mind (a subjective perspective) i.e. that which breathes fire into the equations.

That which precedes a begin fundamentally cannot have a begin. Therefore the origin of the human mind (a subjective perspective) is both beginning-less and endless of nature and that means that the idea of endless eternity in time gives plausibly rise to the idea of true ∞ Eternity that is beginning-less of nature.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 20th, 2022, 6:08 pm Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.

Gee wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 12:34 pmI don't always agree with Sculptor, but I have to here.

Is the concept of eternity logically possible? No. Is the concept of eternity logically impossible? No. Why? Because the concept of eternity is not logically discernable. Logic is the wrong tool to answer that question.

The logic in my previous post would make it evident that infinity and eternity are plausible concepts and that applicability to reality of the potential type/variant is merely impossible by the fundamental requirement of a begin that is provided for by the mind (a subjective perspective) while the origin of the a priori potential for a begin cannot logically have a begin and therefore must be beginning-less of nature.

The logic would prove that the concept true ∞ Eternity is valid.

It would be nonsensical in my opinion to consider finite nature - that which has a begin - to stand apart from a subjective perspective. It is the subjective perspective that fundamentally provides the a priori potential for a begin.

Therefore, the subjective perspective is primary and the origin of a subjective perspective must be beginning-less of nature.

True ∞ Eternity, plausibly derived from endless eternity in time, involves a concept beyond time (that precedes time from a fundamental perspective).

Albert Einstein once wrote the following prophecy:

“Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space."

It involves a meaning 'beyond' space and time (i.e. a meaning that 'precedes' space from a fundamental philosophical perspective).

“Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things. "

The supposed meaning 'beyond space' is referenced by both the concepts true ∞ Infinity and true ∞ Eternity.

Whatever precedes a subjective perspective fundamentally is the only possible ground for significance within that subjective perspective. Therefore the origin of a subjective perspective lays beyond it from within that perspective. This explains the existence of the concepts potential infinity and endless eternity - an endless infinite potential from within a subjective perspective that has only its beginning-less origin as possible ground for significance.

When one looks out into the world (the Universe) one looks into the origin of the Universe, fundamentally so.

The question what lays 'beyond space' would fundamentally be equal to asking what 'precedes space'.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 20th, 2022, 1:41 pmI've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations.

When one is to explore the meaning that underlays space and time fundamentally, i.e. what 'breath's fire into the Hawking equations', one is to start with a concept that is beginning-less of nature (true ∞ Infinity and true ∞ Eternity).

Non-locality is a concept that addresses the concept from a physical perspective. When you would stripe away the reference 'locality' (space and time) what would be left is 'non' and from a physical perspective there would be not much more to say about it (Albert Einstein: "At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.").

From a philosophical perspective it concerns a meaning of a different type than knowledge.

Can it be said that that indicated meaning - that 'beyond space' - is Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 20th, 2022, 1:41 pmThus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

In my opinion the origin of matter and mind are the same and conscious awareness (sentient Beings) did not emerge from matter. The reason is that the origin of any pattern - both in matter and consciousness - is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern. The origin of a pattern requires an act of valuing.

With regard Will being the only philosophical theory that corresponds to the metaphorical fire.

“Will” – a mindless, aimless, non-rational impulse at the foundation of our instinctual drives, and at the foundational being of everything. A conception of Will as being devoid of rationality or intellect.

Schopenhauer maintains that the world is an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view, devoid of knowledge, lawless, absolutely free, entirely self-determining and almighty.

Within Schopenhauer’s vision of the world as Will, there is no God to be comprehended, and the world is conceived of as being inherently meaningless. When anthropomorphically considered, the world is represented as being in a condition of eternal frustration, as it endlessly strives for nothing in particular, and as it goes essentially nowhere. It is a world beyond any ascriptions of good and evil.

Schopenhauer’s denial of meaning to the world differs radically from the views of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, all of whom sustained a distinct belief that everything is moving towards a harmonious and just end.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#4

--

Wouldn't an eternal world devoid of meaning require the concept true randomness as if it were to be fundamentally applicable to that world? In my opinion the slightest departure from pure randomness implies fundamental meaning and that meaning cannot be otherwise than 'good' (good that cannot be valued) since the concept good is required for valuation.

Valuing underlays both physical reality and mind. It cannot be otherwise since the fundamental origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern while that origin is necessarily meaningful. A pattern therefore is fundamentally value. The origin of value is the act of valuing. The origin of the potential of the act of valuing is 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued itself).

Is the Universe a conscious mind?
Cosmopsychism might seem crazy, but it provides a robust explanatory model for how the Universe became fine-tuned with values. It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Fine-tuned with value is evidence that the act of valuing is required at the fundament of the Universe.

value wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 6:42 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 20th, 2022, 6:08 pm Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.

Gee wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 12:34 pmI don't always agree with Sculptor, but I have to here.

Is the concept of eternity logically possible? No. Is the concept of eternity logically impossible? No. Why? Because the concept of eternity is not logically discernable. Logic is the wrong tool to answer that question.

The logic in my previous post would make it evident that infinity and eternity are plausible concepts and that applicability to reality of the potential type/variant is merely impossible by the fundamental requirement of a begin that is provided for by the mind (a subjective perspective) while the origin of the a priori potential for a begin cannot logically have a begin and therefore must be beginning-less of nature.

The logic would prove that the concept true ∞ Eternity is valid.

Nothing here makes your case.

It would be nonsensical in my opinion to consider finite nature - that which has a begin - to stand apart from a subjective perspective. It is the subjective perspective that fundamentally provides the a priori potential for a begin.

On what basis. Just saying you think it is illogical is not helpful. That is what you call a gut feeling.
You must know that logic is being abused here.

Therefore, the subjective perspective is primary and the origin of a subjective perspective must be beginning-less of nature.

True ∞ Eternity, plausibly derived from endless eternity in time, involves a concept beyond time (that precedes time from a fundamental perspective).

Albert Einstein once wrote the following prophecy:

“Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space."

It involves a meaning 'beyond' space and time (i.e. a meaning that 'precedes' space from a fundamental philosophical perspective).

“Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things. "

The supposed meaning 'beyond space' is referenced by both the concepts true ∞ Infinity and true ∞ Eternity.

Whatever precedes a subjective perspective fundamentally is the only possible ground for significance within that subjective perspective. Therefore the origin of a subjective perspective lays beyond it from within that perspective. This explains the existence of the concepts potential infinity and endless eternity - an endless infinite potential from within a subjective perspective that has only its beginning-less origin as possible ground for significance.

When one looks out into the world (the Universe) one looks into the origin of the Universe, fundamentally so.

The question what lays 'beyond space' would fundamentally be equal to asking what 'precedes space'.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 20th, 2022, 1:41 pmI've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations.

When one is to explore the meaning that underlays space and time fundamentally, i.e. what 'breath's fire into the Hawking equations', one is to start with a concept that is beginning-less of nature (true ∞ Infinity and true ∞ Eternity).

Non-locality is a concept that addresses the concept from a physical perspective. When you would stripe away the reference 'locality' (space and time) what would be left is 'non' and from a physical perspective there would be not much more to say about it (Albert Einstein: "At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.").

From a philosophical perspective it concerns a meaning of a different type than knowledge.

Can it be said that that indicated meaning - that 'beyond space' - is Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will?

It's all a bit vague and diffuse. Where's the "logic", please?

I think conceptually yes, putting it into practice would be something else.
I feel as if a concept such as eternity would need to have a "start date." Most look forwards, not back.

JDBowden wrote: ↑July 24th, 2022, 9:07 am I think conceptually yes, putting it into practice would be something else.
I feel as if a concept such as eternity would need to have a "start date." Most look forwards, not back.

Welcome JD!

Thanks. Generally speaking I happen to agree with you. For instance, eternity is logically possible through theoretical knowledge of time stoppage at the speed of light. Of course, its only logically possible primarily because no human can experience it (survive and live to describe it).

Funny thing though is even if one could somehow experience it, perhaps one would be able to describe the experience, yet still not be able to actually explain the experience or phenomenon itself, using logic that is... .

In other words, we could theoretically experience it but still not be able to explain it. This is not all that different from other mental phenomena that we actually do experience from consciousness itself (conscious existence).

Your thoughts?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2022, 9:03 am

value wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 6:42 pm The logic would prove that the concept true ∞ Eternity is valid.

Nothing here makes your case.

The indicated true Eternity would be beginning-less of nature similar to true Infinity. The plausibility of the concept is derived by backwards reasoning from the undisprovability of the apparent realness of the concept potential infinity, the ability to perceive time as endless or the ability to 'count into infinity'.

Potential infinity and potential eternity are dependent on the concept 'begin' that originates from experience which is a subjective perspective. That 'begin' must be explained as a potential.

The potential of the concept 'begin' must be beginning-less of nature, proving that the concept true Infinity and true Eternity are valid.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2022, 9:03 am

It would be nonsensical in my opinion to consider finite nature - that which has a begin - to stand apart from a subjective perspective. It is the subjective perspective that fundamentally provides the a priori potential for a begin.

On what basis. Just saying you think it is illogical is not helpful. That is what you call a gut feeling.
You must know that logic is being abused here.

One is to explain the concept 'begin' as a potential. Either that potential originates from experience (because it is experience that seeks an answer to the question, giving significance to a potential answer of the question by the idea that experience must be real) or it originates from a 'First Cause' in time which would demand an answer as to what would cause 'the begin of the cosmos', which would require some sort of external God, intelligent Being or simulation theory, or a groundless and fallaciously diverting of the problem into 'Infinity' with a concept such as the Multiverse (which is simply absurd because true ∞ Infinity cannot be counted and would be meaningless).

Determinism therefore doesn't seem plausible and when it concerns an explanation of the potential of the concept 'begin', it will result in a search for a external intelligent Being or God or fallacious attempts to escape the problem.

As mentioned before, determinism is closer to compatibility with religions then the idea of 'pure meaning' as true ∞ Infinite (beginning-less) origin of the cosmos. That this is true might be evident from the 2022 book Reality+ by philosopher David Chalmers.

The book is essentially a display that determinism necessarily results in deism - a belief in God or something similar such as 'simulation theory'.

From Dualism to Deism
In this latest offering, Chalmers seems to have come full circle, articulating what he describes as an entirely naturalistic account of God—i.e., a god not exempt from natural laws. That is why the book could mark a turning point in educated opinion. It may be that Chalmers will do for deism what he was able to do for consciousness: make the idea respectable again.
Science, 4 February, 2022 issue

value wrote: ↑August 13th, 2022, 4:30 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2022, 9:03 am

value wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2022, 6:42 pm The logic would prove that the concept true ∞ Eternity is valid.

Nothing here makes your case.

The indicated true Eternity would be beginning-less of nature similar to true Infinity. The plausibility of the concept is derived by backwards reasoning from the undisprovability of the apparent realness of the concept potential infinity, the ability to perceive time as endless or the ability to 'count into infinity'.

Potential infinity and potential eternity are dependent on the concept 'begin' that originates from experience which is a subjective perspective. That 'begin' must be explained as a potential.

The potential of the concept 'begin' must be beginning-less of nature, proving that the concept true Infinity and true Eternity are valid.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2022, 9:03 am

It would be nonsensical in my opinion to consider finite nature - that which has a begin - to stand apart from a subjective perspective. It is the subjective perspective that fundamentally provides the a priori potential for a begin.

On what basis. Just saying you think it is illogical is not helpful. That is what you call a gut feeling.
You must know that logic is being abused here.

One is to explain the concept 'begin' as a potential. Either that potential originates from experience (because it is experience that seeks an answer to the question, giving significance to a potential answer of the question by the idea that experience must be real) or it originates from a 'First Cause' in time which would demand an answer as to what would cause 'the begin of the cosmos', which would require some sort of external God, intelligent Being or simulation theory, or a groundless and fallaciously diverting of the problem into 'Infinity' with a concept such as the Multiverse (which is simply absurd because true ∞ Infinity cannot be counted and would be meaningless).

Determinism therefore doesn't seem plausible and when it concerns an explanation of the potential of the concept 'begin', it will result in a search for a external intelligent Being or God or fallacious attempts to escape the problem.

As mentioned before, determinism is closer to compatibility with religions then the idea of 'pure meaning' as true ∞ Infinite (beginning-less) origin of the cosmos. That this is true might be evident from the 2022 book Reality+ by philosopher David Chalmers.

The book is essentially a display that determinism necessarily results in deism - a belief in God or something similar such as 'simulation theory'.

From Dualism to Deism
In this latest offering, Chalmers seems to have come full circle, articulating what he describes as an entirely naturalistic account of God—i.e., a god not exempt from natural laws. That is why the book could mark a turning point in educated opinion. It may be that Chalmers will do for deism what he was able to do for consciousness: make the idea respectable again.
Science, 4 February, 2022 issue

I do not think you are really respecting the idea of logic.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2022, 6:00 am I do not think you are really respecting the idea of logic.

Do you agree that the concept 'begin' requires a potential that needs to be explained?

value wrote: ↑August 13th, 2022, 8:32 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2022, 6:00 am I do not think you are really respecting the idea of logic.

Do you agree that the concept 'begin' requires a potential that needs to be explained?

You are talking metaphysics, not logic.
There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

Whilst we might be able to find some residual evidence of a beginning, we can never know whether the part of the universe we see was the result of a catastrophic start o a catastrophic change from a pervious state.
As for ends - such a thing is impossible to ever know since our own ends would be included and never able to report that end.
For a non-ending Universe the question is - how long would you wait to be able to conclude that it was never ending?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2022, 9:42 am There are 4 possible states of the universe.

The idea that the concept 'begin' is fundamental to possible logical options to explain 'the cosmos' is a fallacy. Do you not understand why I would say this based on the previous given reasoning?

There is a magical belief involved to consider an existent to be of a quality that requires a limited frame of thinking (causality) to explain it. It is the dogmatic belief that reality is 'really real'.

The idea that an 'existent' such as the universe is real (and thus a start point for explaining the fundamental nature of reality) is based on the belief that underlays ontological realism. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.

An example is the following assertion by Terrapin Station

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:16 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

The idea that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy) necessarily lays at the basis of the idea that reality is 'real'. At question would be if the 'magical' belief that lays at the basis of that idea can possibly be valid. If it is proven otherwise then ontological realism would lose its ground.

With regard the given options:

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
Absurd when the idea is that the universe is physically eternal and infinite as an 'infinite totality' because true Infinity cannot be counted. What is 'perceived' to be the universe would merely be a potential that is true Infinite (beginning-less) of nature.

2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
Absurd. There is no reason to be given for the idea that something that never began would end.

3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
Absurd for the same reason as 2).

4) A universe with a beginning and an end.
Absurd in my opinion. It involves the determinism debate and it would require some magical origin for a "First Cause" such as a God or an intelligent Being.

My argument: the concept 'begin' requires an a priori explanation which would imply that the mentioned 4 logical options are not plausible options.

value wrote: ↑August 14th, 2022, 5:54 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2022, 9:42 am There are 4 possible states of the universe.

The idea that the concept 'begin' is fundamental to possible logical options to explain 'the cosmos' is a fallacy. Do you not understand why I would say this based on the previous given reasoning?

There is a magical belief involved to consider an existent to be of a quality that requires a limited frame of thinking (causality) to explain it. It is the dogmatic belief that reality is 'really real'.

The idea that an 'existent' such as the universe is real (and thus a start point for explaining the fundamental nature of reality) is based on the belief that underlays ontological realism. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.

An example is the following assertion by @Terrapin Station

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:16 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

The idea that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy) necessarily lays at the basis of the idea that reality is 'real'. At question would be if the 'magical' belief that lays at the basis of that idea can possibly be valid. If it is proven otherwise then ontological realism would lose its ground.

With regard the given options:

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
Absurd when the idea is that the universe is physically eternal and infinite as an 'infinite totality' because true Infinity cannot be counted. What is 'perceived' to be the universe would merely be a potential that is true Infinite (beginning-less) of nature.

2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
Absurd. There is no reason to be given for the idea that something that never began would end.

3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
Absurd for the same reason as 2).

4) A universe with a beginning and an end.
Absurd in my opinion. It involves the determinism debate and it would require some magical origin for a "First Cause" such as a God or an intelligent Being.

My argument: the concept 'begin' requires an a priori explanation which would imply that the mentioned 4 logical options are not plausible options.

That's pretty funny.

The four options constitute a COMPLETE set. There are not other options.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding some of the English?
If you think there is another option please let me know,

So in a complete set of options, you think that they are all absurd, and for completely specious reasons based on unfounded assumptions lacking empirical credibility.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2022, 6:21 am The four options constitute a COMPLETE set. There are not other options.
If you think there is another option please let me know,

How can you be so certain? Did you evaluate the concept 'begin' or did you just assume it to create a list of options to explain the universe with?

Terrapin Station had a similar view but according to him there are just 2 options to explain the universe: it either magically sprung into existence, or it magically always existed. He reasoned the following conclusion:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:01 pm Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

If both options for an explanation are considered counterintuitive, then, from the ontological realism perspective, there is a strong clue that something is wrong.

Similar to your list the two options of Terrapin Station are based on the assumption that the quality (physical) Being (the concept 'begin') is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level.

The idea is that when non-locality is applicable to reality itself, that the physical cannot be the origin of reality. The concept non-locality would demand an a priori explanation for the concept 'begin' which is logically beginning-less of nature but non-the-less cannot be said to be meaningless.

There has been a debate with GE Morton about the meaning of the term 'meaning'. It is seen here that meaning can be applicable to aspects that lay outside the scope of the space-time continuum.

Evidence (non-locality applicable to 'kind' in Nature):

(2020) Is non-locality 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 only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html