Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

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

entanglement.jpg (22.22 KiB) Viewed 4098 times

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

If all particles of the same kind in the Universe are entangled by their identical nature, it implies that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent in all particles in the Universe, which could be proof that the Universe is infinite and does not have a 'begin'.

The concept causality has led major philosophers to believe that the Universe has a begin.

Aristotle: First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Marcus Aurelius: The nature of the universe did once certainly before it was created, whatsoever it hath done since, deliberate and so resolve upon the creation of the world. Now since that time, whatsoever it is, that is and happens in the world, is either but a consequent of that one and first deliberation.

Spinoza: The Oneness of Everything
https://medium.com/personal-growth/spin ... 1a411085c9

It appears that the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration.

A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer to be possible.

Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

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

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

The following may be an example of why value and morality may be applicable with regard the existence of the Universe and the meaning of life, which, for example, includes rocks, crystals and minerals.

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
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. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

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

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

The idea that rocks are meaningless may not be valid. When there is meaning, then there is applicability of moral consideration.

Perspective on reality and its implications for human progress

The modern-day perspective on reality is based on the idea that the facts of science are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy). The consequence of that idea is the natural tendency to completely abolish morality or to reduce morality to a property of the social sciences by which morality is logically considered an illusion.

Another example is the belief that evolution is driven by random chance, which logically results in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random can count as 'good'.

Without the idea that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy), such an idea would not be possible.

The idea that the Universe has a beginning, or that it once started in an accidental Big Bang, has far-reaching implications for human progress and aspects such as morality.

Big Bang theory/religion

According to some scientists, the Big Bang theory is a religion.

Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics: You will find the three main problems of the Big Bang theory religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

History shows something remarkable with regard the origin of the Big Bang theory.

Albert Einstein originally had an opposing theory for an infinite Universe. All of the sudden, he called his own theory his 'biggest blunder' and started to actively promote the Big Bang theory by his friend and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître that was intended as a theory for "a day without a yesterday". The Big Bang theory was originally named "Cosmic Egg theory".

With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.

Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.

Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... -big-bang/

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-big ... turns.html

One of the main arguments for why Albert Einstein gave up his theory for an infinite Universe is that Edwin Hubble showed that the Universe was expanding, forcing Albert Einstein to recognize that he was wrong.

However, history shows that Albert Einstein did not take Hubble seriously. He appeared to deliberately misspell his name, calling him "Hubbel" repeatedly.

It's interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet with Hubble in person? We don't know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble's discovery serious.

April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.

What is remarkable is that documents by Albert Einstein that he submitted to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin were mysteriously lost and were only recovered in Jerusalem in 2013. In those documents he calls Edwin Hubble "Hubbel". Why did he do that?

Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong"
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2 ... wrong.html

It is remarkable that at the time, there was an alternative theory for redshift (named tired light theory) that according to some scientists, is the most plausible theory today [1] [2] [3].

The official story (in magazines) is that Albert Einstein was not a fan of his theory and was forced to admit that he made a mistake due to observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The existence of an alternative theory for explaining redshift combined with the recently recovered papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory for an infinite Universe (and in which he habitually misspelled the name of Edwin Hubble as Hubbel in 1931, two years later) could refute that.

The official story does not seem to be correct.

If Albert Einstein was not forced by Hubble's discoveries to give up his theory for an infinite Universe, then why?

Researching history could perhaps lead to insights.

If he wished to withhold the truth for the sake of social interests, what interests might they be and may they be relevant today?

Social instability can be a real problem. Why could the idea of an infinite Universe adversely affect humanity? What vision could Albert Einstein have had in making his choice to promote the Big Bang theory? Was he forced by ecclesiastical influence? Was it persuasion from a personal friend? Or was it perhaps that he thought that a social interest was more important than accurate truth-finding (perhaps bearing in mind, "in the future society will be more stable and then they will discover that my theory, named "biggest blunder", was actually correct").

Questions:

1) Do you believe in the validity of the Big Bang theory? If so, do you believe that evolution is driven by random chance?

2) If you don't believe in the Big Bang theory, is it possible to believe that evolution is driven by random chance?

[Steve3007]

I've heard that Einstein suffered from Dyslexia. Maybe that's it.

[psyreporter]

I've heard that Einstein suffered from Dyslexia. Maybe that's it.

Can you explain in more detail how Dyslexia might provide an explanation for his choice to name his theory for an infinite Universe his 'biggest blunder' and to instead promote the creationist story based Big Bang theory? (bear in mind, he was apparently convinced after 'listening' to a story by a Catholic priest).

I find it hard to believe that Albert Einstein accidentally made a mistake that he called his "greatest blunder", while recent studies have shown that his biggest mistake was to call his theory a mistake. Also is believing in a Cosmic Egg story one thing, but to promote it as a scientist who has devised proper conflicting theory as a scientist, is something else. It is not that easy to give up an idea as a scientist. It is a life's work. It is unlikely that a scientist suddenly tosses away his work and invests a lot of time to promote a contradictory theory.

The mysteriously lost scientific papers by Albert Einstein that were found in Jerusalem in 2013, show that Albert Einstein actively attempted to restore his theory for an infinite Universe in the years after the discoveries made by Edwin Hubble. That could be an indication that something was going on, perhaps ecclesiastical influence.

A recent scientific article by Chinese researchers about the alternative theory for red shift, which was available in the time of Albert Einstein, shows that Albert Einstein would not have to have been forced by the theory of Edwin Hubble.

(2018) Tired Light Denies the Big Bang
More and more problems related to Big Bang have been appeared in recent years. All the problems are due to the Doppler interpretation of redshift. The “tired light” theory, proposed in 1929 by Zwicky and most recently developed by Shao in 2013, gives a new explanation for redshift. Problems, such as super velocity, the horizon problem, the cosmological microwave background radiation, and Olbers’ paradox, vanish in the cosmological model of “tired light” theory. The model describes a boundless and timeless Cosmos.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefi ... e-big-bang

The following article provides a perspective on the Big Bang theory by the Catholic Church in Belgium, the native country of Georges Lemaître, which may provide an insight. It shows that the Church has the perception that Lemaître has 'thought up' the Big Bang theory and that he suffered a lack of recognition as a result of it.

(2016) Belgian priest 'devised' the Big Bang
"Creators receive less rapid recognition than discoverers. A universal law to which Georges Lemaître has not escaped, "says Science Historian Geert Vanpaemel (KU Leuven)
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... e-oerknal/

[psyreporter]

The following article may be of interest. It shows that when the Universe is considered a conscious mind, that it may have implications with regard morality and the essentiality of philosophy for guiding human progress.

(2021) Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?

The theory of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) by psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Wisconsin that was published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness.

Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician and theoretical physicist at the Munich Center For Mathematical Philosophy, Germany and Sean Tull, a mathematician at the University of Oxford, U.K.'s version of IIT is intended to be what could be called a fundamental theory of consciousness. "It tries to weave consciousness into the fundamental fabric of reality" said Kleiner. And if it's shown that the universe is conscious, what then? What are the consequences?

"There might be moral implications. We tend to treat systems that have conscious experiences different from systems that don't," said Kleiner.

Yet if it is proven that consciousness plays a causal role in the universe, it would have huge consequences for the scientific view of the world, said Kleiner. "It could lead to a scientific revolution on a par with the one initiated by Galileo Galilei," he said.

https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

[Steve3007]

I was just talking about his mis-spelling of "Hubble". That seemed to be quite a large feature of the OP.

[Pattern-chaser]

8<

Your OP occupies four screens, and my screen is large. And that doesn't count following the links. I don't suppose you'd be willing to offer a summary, maybe less than 100 words?

[psyreporter]

Your OP occupies four screens, and my screen is large. And that doesn't count following the links. I don't suppose you'd be willing to offer a summary, maybe less than 100 words?

The first source in the OP is essentially the item for discussion.

The sub-sequential content of the OP essentially intends to investigate the potential implications when it is proven that the Universe is infinite. The concept 'infinite Universe' appears to be suppressed, with the history of the Big Bang theory being a potential clue and source for insights.

What might have been Albert Einstein's motive for doing the following:

- come up with a theory for an infinite Universe that has now been shown to be correct
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and help promote the theory of a Catholic priest friend who states that the Universe began in a "Cosmic Egg".

Potential explanations:

- ecclesiastical influence
- persuasion by a personal friend
- social interests before accurate truth-finding

I merely wonder: if there was a motive, what could it have been? My first idea is that it could have been a good intention, e.g. social stability. In that case there would be other questions: why would a Big Bang theory or creation story be essential for social stability? And what alternative could there be that would be compatible with an accurate search for truth?

The Big Bang theory and thus a creation story could be at question. The history that shows that Albert Einstein may have made a choice that deviated from truth, may indicate that there is a value at stake.

[Terrapin Station]

I wish there were a way to avoid people posting--especially as the first post in a thread--"Time Cube"-like stuff (both in length and content).

Wouldn't it be more productive, in the context of having discussions where we're going to have all sorts of different views, to focus on one small thing at a time and to sort that out first?

[psyreporter]

I wish there were a way to avoid people posting--especially as the first post in a thread--"Time Cube"-like stuff (both in length and content).

Wouldn't it be more productive, in the context of having discussions where we're going to have all sorts of different views, to focus on one small thing at a time and to sort that out first?

The first item in the OP is essentially the subject for discussion.

Subject for discussion: study shows that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent to all particles in the Universe.

Greater subject: if the Universe is proven to be infinite, what are the implications?

You once replied to that item with the following:

What, specifically, in that article do you take to be a support for the claim (rather than just an assumption that the claim is coherent and is the case) that there are numerically distinct but somehow identical particles?

Do you believe that all particles in the Universe are truly unique? If so, what is the basis for that idea?

[Terrapin Station]

Subject for discussion: study shows that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent to all particles in the Universe.

If there's some way to show an apparent connection that's unexpected that's one thing. But the idea that they're literally "non-unique" is incoherent due to the indiscernibility of identicals, the discernibility of non-identicals. In short, if they're numerically distinct, so that we can tell this particle from that particle, they're not identical, or they're unique.

[psyreporter]

Subject for discussion: study shows that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent to all particles in the Universe.

If there's some way to show an apparent connection that's unexpected that's one thing. But the idea that they're literally "non-unique" is incoherent due to the indiscernibility of identicals, the discernibility of non-identicals. In short, if they're numerically distinct, so that we can tell this particle from that particle, they're not identical, or they're unique.

The aspect that you are referring to with regard the quality uniqueness is 'we can tell'. As it appears, the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration.

When particles are entangled by their 'identical nature' that simply implies that the quality non-uniqueness is applicable to particles on a fundamental level. The quality uniqueness would then only be possible within the scope of a perspective, which is empirical and cannot provide evidence for the fundamental nature of particles.

[chewybrian]

I wish there were a way to avoid people posting--especially as the first post in a thread--"Time Cube"-like stuff (both in length and content).

Wouldn't it be more productive, in the context of having discussions where we're going to have all sorts of different views, to focus on one small thing at a time and to sort that out first?

A thousand times yes. This thread seems to be about life, the universe and everything.

The first item in the OP is essentially the subject for discussion.

Subject for discussion: study shows that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent to all particles in the Universe.

Greater subject: if the Universe is proven to be infinite, what are the implications?
...
Do you believe that all particles in the Universe are truly unique? If so, what is the basis for that idea?

You seem to be starting with the idea that, at the smallest levels we can measure, it seems to us that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. You seem to be jumping from this to the conclusion that everything must therefore be everywhere at the same time, such that no thing or particle in the universe is unique. Is this the idea?

If I am following you, then I don't agree. Everything at a human level can be seen or shown to be unique. Two things of noticeable size can not occupy the same space at the same time. Even an identical appearance can be shown to be an illusion if we examine things closely. So, things are not only occupying different places, but they are unique in their characteristics, no matter how similar they might first appear.

So, I conclude that everything is unique within the slice of the spectrum that covers my ability to judge uniqueness. It is reasonable, then, to leap to the idea that all things are unique at all levels. It is only my inability to judge them at a certain level of largeness, smallness, quickness or slowness that makes them appears otherwise.

[Terrapin Station]

Subject for discussion: study shows that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent to all particles in the Universe.

If there's some way to show an apparent connection that's unexpected that's one thing. But the idea that they're literally "non-unique" is incoherent due to the indiscernibility of identicals, the discernibility of non-identicals. In short, if they're numerically distinct, so that we can tell this particle from that particle, they're not identical, or they're unique.

The aspect that you are referring to with regard the quality uniqueness is 'we can tell'. As it appears, the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration.

When particles are entangled by their 'identical nature' that simply implies that the quality non-uniqueness is applicable to particles on a fundamental level. The quality uniqueness would then only be possible within the scope of a perspective, which is empirical and cannot provide evidence for the fundamental nature of particles.

You're not understanding what I wrote. If there are particles, plural, they're numerically distinct--otherwise it wouldn't be plural, but singular, one particle. Numerically distinct things are necessarily non-identical.

[psyreporter]

You seem to be starting with the idea that, at the smallest levels we can measure, it seems to us that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. You seem to be jumping from this to the conclusion that everything must therefore be everywhere at the same time, such that no thing or particle in the universe is unique. Is this the idea?

No. The cited study shows that all particles in the Cosmos are entangled by their 'identical nature'. This implies that the quality non-uniqueness is applicable to particles on a fundamental level.

If I am following you, then I don't agree. Everything at a human level can be seen or shown to be unique. Two things of noticeable size can not occupy the same space at the same time. Even an identical appearance can be shown to be an illusion if we examine things closely. So, things are not only occupying different places, but they are unique in their characteristics, no matter how similar they might first appear.

So, I conclude that everything is unique within the slice of the spectrum that covers my ability to judge uniqueness. It is reasonable, then, to leap to the idea that all things are unique at all levels. It is only my inability to judge them at a certain level of largeness, smallness, quickness or slowness that makes them appears otherwise.

The concept Uniqueness would only apply within the context of a perspective. The origin of the concept Uniqueness is the start of a pattern (value), which origin is meaning.

When the Universe is considered a conscious mind, that would explain that all that can be seen in the world is merely a memory within the scope of a 'perspective'.

Within the context of a perspective, the start of a pattern is the origin of the concept Uniqueness. On a fundamental level, the origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern (i.e. value cannot be the origin of value), therefor, Uniqueness cannot be applicable to the fundamental nature of reality, which explains that particles would be Non-Unique on a fundamental level.

In summary: two things of noticeable size, are unique only within the scope of a perspective. The concept Uniqueness would derive significance only by meaning within the scope of a retro-perspective (a memory).

[psyreporter]

You're not understanding what I wrote. If there are particles, plural, they're numerically distinct--otherwise it wouldn't be plural, but singular, one particle. Numerically distinct things are necessarily non-identical.

The aspect 'identical nature' as a concept, when considering that it applies to all particles in the Universe, implies that the start point of the consideration is the identical nature by itself. From that perspective, the concept numerically distinct cannot apply and thus it implies that particles are non-unique on a fundamental level.

The simple logical truth that something cannot be the cause of itself, implies that value cannot be the origin of value. This implies that the observer (counsciousness or mind) must precede reality and it would imply that the Universe is infinite and that particles are as infinite (Non-Unique) as the origin of the perspective in which the particles find their origin.