The assumption of materialism/physicalism

[tas8831]

Consciousness (cognition) is a transcendent, metaphysical phenomena. It transcends the physics that generate it (enables it to occur) into a whole new realm of existential possibility. And this bothers some people. They don't want to believe that anything can transcend the phenomena of physicality. They don't want to acknowledge a metaphysical reality. Yet their denial is ultimately self-defeating in that it is a denial of self. A denial of that which defines us as human.

I don't know why some people choose this philosophical path. I suspect that it's fear, driven by an uncontrolled ego, as most destructive human behaviors and choices, are.

These are very nice examples of question begging.

 

[tas8831]

To perceive an existential reality is to experience it from a transcendent, metaphysical position (conscious cognition). To then deny the possibility of that metaphysical transcendence is the epitome of logical absurdity, as both the desire and the ability to embrace such a denial is, itself, the proof of it's folly.

More of the same.
Logical absurdity is proclaiming that 'the mind' is transcendent and non-physical when one need only read about Phineas Gage to see that 'the mind' is absolutely a function of physicality.
Hiding behind philosophical circularities are not that impressive.

 

[Polymath257]

Consciousness (cognition) is a transcendent, metaphysical phenomena. It transcends the physics that generate it (enables it to occur) into a whole new realm of existential possibility.

What leads you to this conclusion? I see no evidence for this position. In fact, all the evidence I have seen points to exactly the opposite.

And this bothers some people. They don't want to believe that anything can transcend the phenomena of physicality. They don't want to acknowledge a metaphysical reality. Yet their denial is ultimately self-defeating in that it is a denial of self. A denial of that which defines us as human.

Perhaps some people don't want to believe it and it bothers them. Others are simply not convinced that this is the correct description of reality.

I don't know why some people choose this philosophical path. I suspect that it's fear, driven by an uncontrolled ego, as most destructive human behaviors and choices, are.

Well, they 'choose' this 'philosophical path' because they have decided that evidence is a good thing prior to belief and the current evidence points to consciousness being an activity of the physical brain.

You see, I'm not sure why anyone adopts *your* philosophical position. Why complicate things by unnecessary assumptions? Why stop investigating the ways that consciousness arises and instead adopt a position that says no real understanding is possible? It sounds defeatist to me.

 

[Willamena]

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

We tend to categorize, it's a huge part of what human minds do. We slot things into places (like the child's toy with the squares and circles) and call those places "theirs." In this way, we give them a power over us, the power of orderliness, and a narrative of "how the world is"; and we pat ourselves on the back and say we have "dis-"covered the world. It's a convenient fiction.

"Physical" and "mental" are two of those fictions. They are folk terms (one of which has been borrowed and made a technical term of science) to categorize some things about the world. "This thing," we say, "fits into this hole," and the other into another hole; but then, when we step back to look at the big picture, we somehow allow that the category itself fit some imagined hole. But there is no real hole for any category to fit in, nor was it meant that categories be slotted that way. Categories are not "things" the way that things in categories are "things." To make the (abstract) category a thing is the fallacy of reification.

Right-thinking, which comes, believe it or not, from right-speaking, makes all the difference (as Wittgenstein showed). But we are lazy in our speech and hence in our thought, and getting more-so everyday as social media allows no bounds on how things are expressed. And the more chaotic speech gets, the further we move from the processes that could possibly describe the thinking ("philosophical") world.

The mental and the physical are not two metaphysical images (describing "how the world is"), but two ways of looking at the same world. (Similarly with "objective" and "subjective.") By "world," I mean all the "things" of the world. The world isn't composed of (abstract) categories, but of rocks, trees, plants, animals, and thinking people. Those are the "things" that properly fit the narrative of "how the world is."

 

[PureX]

These are very nice examples of question begging.

It's unfortunate that you were unable to explain how you think so, because accusations without substantiation aren't of much value to anyone.

 

[PureX]

More of the same.
Logical absurdity is proclaiming that 'the mind' is transcendent and non-physical when one need only read about Phineas Gage to see that 'the mind' is absolutely a function of physicality.
Hiding behind philosophical circularities are not that impressive.

Your bias is blinding you, I think. That's unfortunate.

What is the "physicality" of 2 + 2 = 4? What is the physicality of 'justice'? What is the physicality of infinity? And yet because these ideals exist in the human mind, real possibilities emerge within existential reality, through human behavior, that would not exist, otherwise. The physical brain enables the transcendent phenomenon of cognition, which then creates many new possibilities that didn't and couldn't have existed, otherwise. Cognitive ideation is our doorway to the realm we call; "metaphysical".

 

[PureX]

What leads you to this conclusion? I see no evidence for this position. In fact, all the evidence I have seen points to exactly the opposite.

Perhaps the problem is in how you are defining "evidence"? If you insist that the evidence for metaphysical phenomena be physical, you are guaranteeing in advance that none could logically exist.

Mathematics would be a good example of metaphysical phenomena. It does not physically exist. Yet it is being generated from within the realm of physics, to then transcends that into the conceptual realm of cognitive ideation. Consciousness is a metaphysical phenomena. Ideology is a metaphysical phenomena. Self-awareness is a metaphysical phenomena. The ability to look back at ourselves, in our mind's eye, and assess what we see is only possible via the transcendence of our physicality.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps the problem is in how you are defining "evidence"? If you insist that the evidence for metaphysical phenomena be physical, you are guaranteeing in advance that none could logically exist.

I have to say I'm not clear what non-physical evidence would be. Logic and math are languages and both work on the GIGO principle (garbage in, garbage out). To say anything at all about the real world, we have to make actual observations.

Mathematics would be a good example of metaphysical phenomena. It does not physically exist. Yet it is being generated from within the realm of physics, to then transcends that into the conceptual realm of cognitive ideation. Consciousness is a metaphysical phenomena. Ideology is a metaphysical phenomena. Self-awareness is a metaphysical phenomena. The ability to look back at ourselves, in our mind's eye, and assess what we see is only possible via the transcendence of our physicality.

Mathematics is a *language*, created by us to help us understand the universe. No 'transcendence' is found there. Our ideas, awareness, etc are aspects of the functioning of our physical brains. Again, there is no reason to think that anything 'transcends' the physical world. In fact, all the evidence points to everything supervening on the physical.

 

[tas8831]

It's unfortunate that you were unable to explain how you think so, because accusations without substantiation aren't of much value to anyone.

Funny thing - I did not see any reason to accept your word salad as it was assertion without substantiation. Why place a higher burden on a response than on the original assertions?


Consciousness (cognition) is a transcendent, metaphysical phenomena. (citation?)
It transcends the physics that generate it (enables it to occur) into a whole new realm of existential possibility. (citation?)
And this bothers some people. They don't want to believe that anything can transcend the phenomena of physicality. (don't want to, or see no reason to?)
They don't want to acknowledge a metaphysical reality. (don't want to, or see no reason to?)
Yet their denial is ultimately self-defeating in that it is a denial of self. (BEGGING THE QUESTION)
A denial of that which defines us as human. (BEGGING THE QUESTION)

I don't know why some people choose this philosophical path. I suspect that it's fear, driven by an uncontrolled ego, as most destructive human behaviors and choices, are.(projection)

Begging the Question:
"... sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself."

 

[tas8831]

Your bias is blinding you, I think. That's unfortunate.

Projection is so... predictable.

What is the "physicality" of 2 + 2 = 4? What is the physicality of 'justice'? What is the physicality of infinity? And yet because these ideals exist in the human mind, real possibilities emerge within existential reality, through human behavior, that would not exist, otherwise. The physical brain enables the transcendent phenomenon of cognition, which then creates many new possibilities that didn't and couldn't have existed, otherwise. Cognitive ideation is our doorway to the realm we call; "metaphysical".

Psychobabble is not evidence.

If I have 2 apples, and then I get 2 more apples. I have 4 apples.

Emergent phenomena are cool, but without the things that allow them to be, the are not.

I am always entertained by the extent to which some will go to avoid having to admit that their beliefs are just beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

Your bias is blinding you, I think. That's unfortunate.

What is the "physicality" of 2 + 2 = 4? What is the physicality of 'justice'? What is the physicality of infinity? And yet because these ideals exist in the human mind, real possibilities emerge within existential reality, through human behavior, that would not exist, otherwise. The physical brain enables the transcendent phenomenon of cognition, which then creates many new possibilities that didn't and couldn't have existed, otherwise. Cognitive ideation is our doorway to the realm we call; "metaphysical".

2+2=4 is a statement in a formal language. The physicality is that of every idea: a process in our brains. Infinity is yet another idea, so the same answer applies.

Yes, our physical minds can and do affect the physical world. All the things it does, however *could* happen. Duh.

Cognitive ideation is just another phrase for 'brain process'.

 

[PureX]

I have to say I'm not clear what non-physical evidence would be. Logic and math are languages and both work on the GIGO principle (garbage in, garbage out). To say anything at all about the real world, we have to make actual observations.

You mean "actual physical observations", right? You are assuming, then, that reality is physical. Thus, excluding by edict that metaphysicality cannot be "real". Yet what is physical about 2 + 2 = 4? What is physical about 'justice'? What is physical about infinity? These ideas exist, and they effect reality, and yet they have no physicality in themselves. Language exists, yet words have no physicality. Ideals exist, and yet they have no physicality. Yet we know they exist because they are effecting our physical world every day, through our understanding of it, and through our actions within it.

Mathematics is a *language*, created by us to help us understand the universe. No 'transcendence' is found there.

The transcendence is from the physical forces and interactions that generate consciousness, to the conscious cognition (conceptual reality) it results from it. Without this transcendence, a rectangle, two discs, and a stick cannot become a cart. And yet they do become a cart in the human mind, which can then be used to move a mountain. By this phenomenon of transcendence, possibilities occur that would not have occurred by physics alone.

Our ideas, awareness, etc are aspects of the functioning of our physical brains. Again, there is no reason to think that anything 'transcends' the physical world. In fact, all the evidence points to everything supervening on the physical.

I think you are confusing transcendence with the supernatural feat. But I think you are doing this willfully, and that is your issue, not mine. I am not here to argue with your bias. Life is a transcendent form of matter/energy, and conscious cognition is a transcendent form of life. If you choose not to acknowledge this, then you choose not to acknowledge it. And you cannot recognize evidence for something that you've already determined not to have happened.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean "actual physical observations", right? You are assuming, then, that reality is physical.

Yes, of course. Can you give me another form of reliable evidence?

Thus, excluding by edict that metaphysicality cannot be "real". Yet what is physical about 2 + 2 = 4? What is physical about 'justice'? What is physical about infinity? These ideas exist, and they effect reality, and yet they have no physicality in themselves. Language exists, yet words have no physicality. Ideals exist, and yet they have no physicality. Yet we know they exist because they are effecting our physical world every day, through our understanding of it, and through our actions within it.

Words can be sound waves or bits of ink on paper, or voltages transmitted across the internet. They most certainly *do* have physicality. If there were nothing physical, there would be no words.

The same with the rest of these ideas: if there were no physical brains, none of these would exist.

The transcendence is from the physical forces and interactions that generate consciousness, to the conscious cognition (conceptual reality) it results from it. Without this transcendence, a rectangle, two discs, and a stick cannot become a cart. And yet they do become a cart in the human mind, which can then be used to move a mountain. By this phenomenon of transcendence, possibilities occur that would not have occurred by physics alone.

But they *do* occur by physics alone! But it is the physics that includes human beings and the brain processes in their heads. Yes, these require human intervention, but *all* of that intervention is physical.

Let me put it this way: if no humans ever interacted physically with your system to build a cart, that cart would never get built.

I think you are confusing transcendence with the supernatural feat. But I think you are doing this willfully, and that is your issue, not mine.

Truthfully, I have no idea what you mean by 'confusing transcendence with the supernatural feat'. What 'supernatural feat'?

I'm guessing you are confusing transcendence with emergence.

I am not here to argue with your bias. Life is a transcendent form of matter/energy, and conscious cognition is a transcendent form of life. If you choose not to acknowledge this, then you choose not to acknowledge it. And you cannot recognize evidence for something that you've already determined not to have happened.

I don't see 'transcendence', I see 'emergence'. If you knew everything about the physical aspects of a situation, then you would know the ideas the people are thinking, their motivations, etc. You would know if someone is doing math, or feeling a sense of injustice.

I don't see it as a matter of acknowledgment. From what I can see, life is *not* transcendent. It is a physical process, based on chemistry. It is physical at every stage. It isn't a different 'form' of matter and energy. And consciousness is another aspect of our physical world.

I'm not attempting to argue. I'm trying to comprehend why you believe what you believe. All I have seen is bold statements with nothing to back them up.

 

[joelr]

Information is physical. And the total information of the universe does not change with time. The constant that allows to move from adimensional bits to entropy is well known.

Since entropy is energy divided by temperature, every bit has an associated energy at a certain temperature.ergo, it has mass.

That mass increases, for instance, the size of a black hole so that its surface increases just the right amount to accomodate that bit.

Incidentaly, bits take also a minimal amount of space. That has to do with being a bit and not with the material to store it.Actually, surface. That is the Plank surface. Cannot pack two bits into something smaller than that.

Ciao

- viole

Out on the edge of science lies things that seem to exist but have no known physical counterpart.
Before a particle is measured/observed it's in a superposition of many probable states.
This form of matter is very strange for starters.
But the probability is guided by the wavefunction, which has no physical properties to it yet it defines where a particle can most likely and least likely be. In some ways it's the most "real" part of something but it's a mathematical concept (or is made of a substance far beyond anything in the standard model)

So what is this information made of? When we collapse a wave function to a definitive state by observing it but then destroy the information about the location of the particle the particle will go back to it's state of being in superpositions of many states and locations based on it's wave function.
But what changed? How did the wave know to un-collapse? Probabilities and wave functions have some sort of reality but they are not made of substances we think of as "stuff". If they are only mathematical descriptions then something weird is going on.

There is clearly some issues here, there are things influencing other things but they are not "made up of" any known material we know of or can even concepualize?

 

[PureX]

Yes, of course. Can you give me another form of reliable evidence?

There are rules (limitations) governing how energy can and cannot behave, which then result in the physicality of the universe; the physical nature of existence, itself. By logical reasoning and by definition these "rules" (limitations) must be metaphysical.

Words can be sound waves or bits of ink on paper, or voltages transmitted across the internet. They most certainly *do* have physicality. If there were nothing physical, there would be no words.

Sound waves and ink and electrons are not words. It's only when they are arranged in a specific configuration that another human being can recognize and interpret, that they become "words". And that recognition is the result of a human brain transcending the sum of it's physical parts, just as those words transcend the sum of the ink, paper, and/or electrons.

The same with the rest of these ideas: if there were no physical brains, none of these would exist.

Transcendence does not mean that the state or condition of origin be left behind, or disassociated. It simply means that an new realm of possibility has emerged that was not and could not be achieved by the original state and conditions. Those hundred monkeys with their hundred typewriters could and would never write a Shakespeare play. Something about the original conditions has to be transcended for that to happen.

But they *do* occur by physics alone!

We have no way of knowing this. We still have no idea how life emerged from mere matter and energy, or how consciousness becomes a Mozart. There are "rules" at work, here, that are controlling the expressions of physics, and we have no idea what they are, where they originate, or how they "exist". What we do know is that they are, by definition; "metaphysical". They are only evident to us through their control of physicality. The truth is that the materialists have their cart before their horse. They want to claim that information is the result of physical reality when in fact, it is the creator of physical reality.

But it is the physics that includes human beings and the brain processes in their heads. Yes, these require human intervention, but *all* of that intervention is physical.

You are falsely insisting that transcendence must be completely divorced from it's original state before you will recognize it. Why? By what logic do you insist on this?

I'm guessing you are confusing transcendence with emergence.

What "emerges" in these instances is a new realm of existence that manifests possibilities that could not exist before or otherwise.

I don't see 'transcendence', I see 'emergence'. If you knew everything about the physical aspects of a situation, then you would know the ideas the people are thinking, their motivations, etc. You would know if someone is doing math, or feeling a sense of injustice.

The physical universe "emerged" when energy was suddenly introduced into some sort of a controlling "meme". That "meme" determined how the energy could and could not behave, which then became the "blueprint" for how everything that exists as the universe came to be as it is. Order cannot logically emerge from chaos. There had to be some sort of limitation within the chaos (chaos being unordered activity) to allow any sort of order to form, and to "stick" long enough to build on itself. The origin of that limitation PRECEDES AND DEFINES the physics that followed. And it "emerges" from within the physical universe it generated as these transcendent realms of being: like life transcending the matter and energy from which it springs, and like conscious cognition transcending the life from which it springs, and probably there are other forms and realms of transcendence that we are as yet unaware of.

The fact that we can "look back" at the existential universe and quantify/qualify it as though we were not of it is itself an example of metaphysical transcendence. The result, I believe, of that original "meme", or blueprint, that generated order within the otherwise chaotic activity we call "energy" through which the universe exploded into being.

 

[viole]

Out on the edge of science lies things that seem to exist but have no known physical counterpart.
Before a particle is measured/observed it's in a superposition of many probable states.
This form of matter is very strange for starters.
But the probability is guided by the wavefunction, which has no physical properties to it yet it defines where a particle can most likely and least likely be. In some ways it's the most "real" part of something but it's a mathematical concept (or is made of a substance far beyond anything in the standard model)

So what is this information made of? When we collapse a wave function to a definitive state by observing it but then destroy the information about the location of the particle the particle will go back to it's state of being in superpositions of many states and locations based on it's wave function.
But what changed? How did the wave know to un-collapse? Probabilities and wave functions have some sort of reality but they are not made of substances we think of as "stuff". If they are only mathematical descriptions then something weird is going on.

There is clearly some issues here, there are things influencing other things but they are not "made up of" any known material we know of or can even concepualize?

The problem with things like QM is not QM but how the minds that developed themselves into a naturalistic environment think of it.

We (that is, that liter of matter between our ears), are the product of hundred of millions of evolution by natural selection. A selection that by its very nature rewards the ability to survive. Therefore, it is to be expected that our natural intuitions and mechanisms to form believes are just restricted to what is immediately useful for our survival.

So, we are great to have an intuition of the classical world. A world where things are middled sized, they move with middle speed, etc. Things like food, predators, trees, rivers, lakes, stones, etc. And where time flows uniformly from past to future while crossing the ephemeral present.

There is no reason for our brains to be naturally selected in order to have an intuition of things, like QM or relativity, that have no advantage for our every day survival. Predators are not as small as electrons and are not usually found in a superposition of eigenstates.

So, it is not true that nature is strange, because QM is strange. Or it is not physical. What is true is that our minds have a natural belief forming system that is totally unreliable, because of their naturalistic origin that does reward survival, not truth.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

The problem with things like QM is not QM but how the minds that developed themselves into a naturalistic environment think of it.

We (that is, that liter of matter between our ears), are the product of hundred of millions of evolution by natural selection. A selection that by its very nature rewards the ability to survive. Therefore, it is to be expected that our natural intuitions and mechanisms to form believes are just restricted to what is immediately useful for our survival.

So, we are great to have an intuition of the classical world. A world where things are middled sized, they move with middle speed, etc. Things like food, predators, trees, rivers, lakes, stones, etc. And where time flows uniformly from past to future while crossing the ephemeral present.

There is no reason for our brains to be naturally selected in order to have an intuition of things, like QM or relativity, that have no advantage for our every day survival. Predators are not as small as electrons and are not usually found in a superposition of eigenstates.

So, it is not true that nature is strange, because QM is strange. Or it is not physical. What is true is that our minds have a natural belief forming system that is totally unreliable, because of their naturalistic origin that does reward survival, not truth.

Ciao

- viole

Well we have tools to help. Our physics tool is math which allows us to probe deeper than we otherwise could.
But when you say "physical" that has a classical meaning for us and we now know through mathematics and experiments that things like Bells theorem tell us reality is non-local and there are no hidden (physical) variables at work behind quantum mechanics.

There seems to be a very strange level of reality, metaphysical maybe? But it points to a reality beyond just our common ideas of what physical means. It's not tied to any religion or even consciousness (maybe? there is a little evidence for that) I don't really know.

But we are not just relying on out intuition. QM is strange because the math says so.

 

[viole]

Well we have tools to help. Our physics tool is math which allows us to probe deeper than we otherwise could.
But when you say "physical" that has a classical meaning for us and we now know through mathematics and experiments that things like Bells theorem tell us reality is non-local and there are no hidden (physical) variables at work behind quantum mechanics.

There seems to be a very strange level of reality, metaphysical maybe? But it points to a reality beyond just our common ideas of what physical means. It's not tied to any religion or even consciousness (maybe? there is a little evidence for that) I don't really know.

But we are not just relying on out intuition. QM is strange because the math says so.

I cannot imagine math saying that something is strange. For instance, the state of an entangled pair

IS> = 1/sqrt(2) [|01> + |10>] <--- Entangled

does not look stranger then the equation of a not entangled pair, for instance

IS> = 1/sqrt(2) [|01> + |00>] <---- Not Entangled

Can you tell me, just by watching the math, how the former looks stranger than the latter?

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

I cannot imagine math saying that something is strange. For instance, the state of an entangled pair

IS> = 1/sqrt(2) [|01> + |10>] <--- Entangled

does not look stranger then the equation of a not entangled pair, for instance

IS> = 1/sqrt(2) [|01> + |00>] <---- Not Entangled

Can you tell me, just by watching the math, how the former looks stranger than the latter?

Ciao

- viole

Well that's not entanglement yet?
You need quantum states in Hilbert spaces, eigenvalues and all that. Then you have to show how the states are not separable and they can violate causality and then Bells inequalities and it's a whole thing.

In this case, quantum theory showed causality was violated. So that was math showing us something weird about the universe.
Then we had to verify it with experiment. Then Bell came up with more statistical math that once verified proved hidden variables were not possible and more weird stuff.

But math tells us all sorts of strange things about the universe. It's missing mass in an equation that led Dirac to find antimatter. In general relativity it shows the possibility of a singularity. In quantum mechanics it shows a limit to reality - the Planck length.

Forget physics and go straight math. Math shows us reality is weirder than we could imagine.
We used to think there was 1 infinity. Cantor showed us there are infinite levels of infinity - alef-0, alef-1 ....
Non Euclidian geometry discovered by Reinmann ended up being the actual geometry of space-time.
Plus the hidden structure in the primes he discovered.
The complex plane, weird, but turns out it's applicable to all sorts of physical phenomenon.

So math is our tool and it takes up places far beyond and far weirder than we could imagine.

But going back to what is "physical" or classical reality, there are some very strange things or levels of reality that are beyond what we think of as physical.
Like where does the information that describes the wavefunction reside? When matter is smaller than it's wave function it only exists in a probable superposition. When measured it collapses but if you destroy the information about it's position it goes back to being in a superposition?

So it's not just the measurement that collapses the wave. It all makes no sense and suggests some very weird things.

 

[viole]

Well that's not entanglement yet?
You need quantum states in Hilbert spaces, eigenvalues and all that. Then you have to show how the states are not separable and they can violate causality and then Bells inequalities and it's a whole thing.

In this case, quantum theory showed causality was violated. So that was math showing us something weird about the universe.
Then we had to verify it with experiment. Then Bell came up with more statistical math that once verified proved hidden variables were not possible and more weird stuff.

But math tells us all sorts of strange things about the universe. It's missing mass in an equation that led Dirac to find antimatter. In general relativity it shows the possibility of a singularity. In quantum mechanics it shows a limit to reality - the Planck length.

Forget physics and go straight math. Math shows us reality is weirder than we could imagine.
We used to think there was 1 infinity. Cantor showed us there are infinite levels of infinity - alef-0, alef-1 ....
Non Euclidian geometry discovered by Reinmann ended up being the actual geometry of space-time.
Plus the hidden structure in the primes he discovered.
The complex plane, weird, but turns out it's applicable to all sorts of physical phenomenon.

So math is our tool and it takes up places far beyond and far weirder than we could imagine.

But going back to what is "physical" or classical reality, there are some very strange things or levels of reality that are beyond what we think of as physical.
Like where does the information that describes the wavefunction reside? When matter is smaller than it's wave function it only exists in a probable superposition. When measured it collapses but if you destroy the information about it's position it goes back to being in a superposition?

So it's not just the measurement that collapses the wave. It all makes no sense and suggests some very weird things.

What you mean with causality was violated? Causality, still travels at the speed of light. At best.

You cannot transmit any sort of information by using entanglement at speed that is higher than the speed of light. The correlation you have between the observation of two remote entangled particles still encapsulate 1 bit (or qubit). So, observing one does not leave any other bit to be sent wherever. That is completely different from two particles that are not entangled and are completely uncorrelated, since in this case you have two bits. Alas, in this case, no correlation exists and any residual bit will have to sent at the speed of light, at best.

Ergo, if we identify causality with the possibility of transferring information from A to B (which is what really counts), then nature is still pretty much local, since this is bounded by a finite maximal speed.

Ciao

- viole