Do entanglement and nonlocality imply that everything is interdependent and interconnected?

[Gambit]

But I would suggest that they probably are because it appears likely that all goes back to singularity.

Bingo!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well, when one interprets the experience as referring to something more than just one's local subjective mental state(s), you would say that is a delusional interpretation. Correct?

I think there is a tendency to reify mystical experiences, projecting them out as some kind of "ultimate reality".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why not just come out with your game, here? What corner would you like to paint your opponent into?

I was wondering that too.

 

[viole]

Do entanglement and nonlocality imply that everything is interdependent and interconnected?

(Why is this religiously significant? Because spirituality can be defined as the transcendental experience of interdependence and interconnection.)

Question for you.

Do you think your free will depends non locally on the configuration of some particles at the other end of the universe?

If yes, why do you call it free?
If no, then there is something that is not interconnected to anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nous]

I offered a possible definition of "physical" for your benefit. I don't struggle with the term. Of course that non scientific definition has its limits. I wasn't attempting to provide a solid, scientific definition that would hold up to all your personal issues.

If you would prefer to use the term "physical" in a different way than my quick "ballpark" definition, then please do.

In my terminology, a "physical" object can be affected by real energy. It's pretty simple. Nothing mystical about real energy and physical objects at all.

Dark energy and matter and gravity affect objects. They are real due to their continual, ongoing, measurable effects regardless of whether someone calls them "physical" or not.

Why not just come out with your game, here? What corner would you like to paint your opponent into?

It usually is my strategy to back an opponent into a corner, but in this case I really only asked the question about the definition of “physical” as an aside, without much connection to the topic here. In any case, you sort of disarmed me by the fact that you articulated a non-vacuous definition of “physical,” and acknowledged that there can and does exist non-physical phenomena that can produce effects on physical phenomena. I have no complaint any of that. Indeed, I think your definition and replies have been more sensible and honest than what one would find in most such discussions. (Notice that no one else offered a definition.)

Again as an aside: Notice that your definition of “physical” utterly ruins Jaegwon Kim’s thesis of physicalism and mental causation: http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Kim/003_0003.htm The first claim that he thinks “any physicalist will accept” is: “the world contains nothing but bits of matter and aggregates of bits of matter.” Apparently there are no conserved quantities or quantum vacuum in his world. He subsequently says, “A further thesis that I believe any physicalist should, and would, accept is the causal closure of the physical domain.” He defines this thesis, which is an essential component to his entire philosophy, in a way that is directly contrary to what you have said: “If a physical event has a cause that occurs at t, it has a physical cause occurring at t. A stronger version would go like this: No physical event has a cause outside the physical domain.”

 

[Nous]

I was wondering that too.

Apparently I emit an odor of having ulterior motives. I can't help it.

 

[prometheus11]

That makes sense. Fields are what is really important. They are the "connections" of all physics. Because fields hold everything together, fundamentally, or push things apart, they are crucial for the APPARENT solidity of matter and the functioning of energy. However, fields use "virtual" particles that seemingly "pop" in and out of existence. While those particles are in existence, they are as "physical" as any other particle that is not virtual, but what about when they pop out of evidence? I don't know. ....

That's why I have trouble saying that they are physical. Purely. However, because these particles work functionally and are only "out of existence" for very short time frames, they behave with matter as if they are physical all the time.

Either way, something that consistently and measurably acts on matter is "real" and not some mysterious or ethereal, mystical element.

 

[Gambit]

Do you think your free will depends non locally on the configuration of some particles at the other end of the universe?

If yes, why do you call it free?
If no, then there is something that is not interconnected to anything.

I believe free will presupposes final causality (teleology) which presupposes God. So, yes, on this view, agents are definitely interconnected to something greater than themselves.

 

[Nous]

That makes sense. Fields are what is really important. They are the "connections" of all physics. Because fields hold everything together, fundamentally, or push things apart, they are crucial for the APPARENT solidity of matter and the functioning of energy. However, fields use "virtual" particles that seemingly "pop" in and out of existence. While those particles are in existence, they are as "physical" as any other particle that is not virtual, but what about when they pop out of evidence? I don't know. ....

That's why I have trouble saying that they are physical. Purely. However, because these particles work functionally and are only "out of existence" for very short time frames, they behave with matter as if they are physical all the time.

Either way, something that consistently and measurably acts on matter is "real" and not some mysterious or ethereal, mystical element.

Agree with everything you said here--until possibly your last sentence.

On that front, I would just note that the fact that the findings and theories of modern physics include a variety of phenomena that can apparently only be defined as non-physical and that produce effects on physical physical phenomena destroys one of the principles or commonplace reasons for deflationary or reductionist interpretations of mystical experience.

But even more importantly (I would say), Jaegwon Kim is probably not unusual in his seemingly unquestioned certainty that non-physical phenomena simply cannot be real, much less be causal; it is on this sole basis that he concludes there can be no such thing as mental causation, despite the conundrums that conclusion leaves him struggling with. Apparently the concept of mental causation among modern philosophers is the bare naked minimum requirement for an act of volition or free will. One might not refer to volition, free will or mental causation as “mystical,” but it is certainly mysterious. There is apparently no explanation as to how it can arise from either deterministic or random processes.

So I do not want to be dismissive of the importance of the seemingly undeniable conclusion that nonphysical phenomena exist and produce effects on physical phenomena.

 

[prometheus11]

Are you claiming that scientists are possibly detecting non physical "things" by seeing movement and energy in physical objects?

 

[Nous]

I believe free will presupposes final causality (teleology) which presupposes God. So, yes, on this view, agents are definitely interconnected to something greater than themselves.

That's interesting. So, for instance, when people choose to fly planes into skyscrapers, are they just doing God's will?

 

[Nous]

Are you claiming that scientists are possibly detecting non physical "things" by seeing movement and energy in physical objects?

I would prefer to simply use the adjective "nonphysical" to refer to conserved quantities (such as energy), virtual particles and the quantum vacuum, rather than including the noun "things". Do you find that problematic?

 

[prometheus11]

No, but I would counter that any field or particle that produces a measurable effect must be real by virtue of the fact that it's effects can be conclusively detected.

 

[Nous]

No, but I would counter that any field or particle that produces a measurable effect must be real by virtue of the fact that it's effects can be conclusively detected.

Yes, I agree with that statement. Such non-physical are real by virtue of their observable effects.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The universe is just like one big extended family. The Big Bang was an expansion, not an explosion. Therefore, the "family" was never separated, we just grew a little further apart (distant) and some family members don't get along so well with other family members. So yes, I would say that the universe (our family) is interconnected and "one", it just doesn't always behave as such.

 

[Reflex]

If you are interested in fields, Science and the Akashic Field by Ervin Laszlo is interesting.

That being said, I think what's most interesting are the implications: it lets the "divine foot" in the door. Taken seriously, it makes "scientific" atheism untenable.

 

[outhouse]

it lets the "divine foot" in the door

No it lets in imagination, not anything divine.

you are interested in fields, Science and the Akashic Field by Ervin Laszlo is interesting.

Pseudoscience like this has northing to do with the OP

 

[outhouse]

Taken seriously, it makes "scientific" atheism untenable.

But of course like usual you cannot supply a example due to knowing you will pined down in error.

Its nothing but a rhetorical weak attack

Your saying "Taken seriously, it makes academia untenable" sorry fail

 

[prometheus11]

If you are interested in fields, Science and the Akashic Field by Ervin Laszlo is interesting.

That being said, I think what's most interesting are the implications: it lets the "divine foot" in the door. Taken seriously, it makes "scientific" atheism untenable.

The divine, like fairy farts, is always a possibility in the realm of the unknown and undetectable.

 

[Gambit]

If you are interested in fields, Science and the Akashic Field by Ervin Laszlo is interesting.

That being said, I think what's most interesting are the implications: it lets the "divine foot" in the door. Taken seriously, it makes "scientific" atheism untenable.

I have already read that.