"Consider the notion of quantum entanglement as empirically validated by Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger (recognized by a Nobel Prize in 2022): one can find countless different interpretations as to what exactly can be inferred—regarding the underlying nature of reality—as a result of these observations. The mathematics and empirical observations are irrefutable; however, what they mean is an entirely unique beast."
This is a thing for me. I strongly prefer to go out of my way to admit when I am speculating. This comes up a lot when people engage in cutting-edge topics, I have found, leading to a lot of confusion.
What I strive for, often, is what I call the minimal inference. If I understand entanglement correctly, it is commonly understood to mean that we can affect outcomes non-locally, through our observation. What gets less press, is the idea that our reality is subject to the same effect from the proverbial 'other side.'
When we talk about quantum entanglement, we often frame it through a deeply human lens: we observe, and things happen elsewhere. The narrative tends to center us as the agents of change—as if the quantum universe is waiting for our input like a cosmic customer service rep. What gets less airtime is the possibility that entanglement is not a one-way effect but a mutual influence—a *two-way street* of reality, where we may be observed or affected from the “other side” of the entangled connection. Our models tend to assume we’re the ones doing the poking, rarely asking whether we’re also being poked. This oversight might not be due to a lack of data, but a lack of perspective.
Thank you for the insightful comment. I am still coming to understand entanglement and other quantum effects myself, and I always find it tricky to upscale meaning; for example, from the observation of two entangled particles demonstrating non-local influence, what can be inferred about macroscopic daily life? Can two conscious beings become entangled? Many have experienced thinking of someone immediately before receiving a phonecall from them, and I'd be curious whether such a phenomenon could be explained in terms of entanglement.
Drawing on the works of Bernardo Kastrup, I find it helpful to view myself as the unfolding of (a fraction of) nature itself, rather than an entity separate from nature. In this way, the whole of reality is a singular organism, and analogous to how we can automatically sense the presence of all our limbs, perhaps the universe has the capacity to create instantaneous pathways of connection between its different parts.
I appreciate your idea of a two-way street with respect to entanglement--what would you say that translates to in a macroscopic sense?
"Consider the notion of quantum entanglement as empirically validated by Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger (recognized by a Nobel Prize in 2022): one can find countless different interpretations as to what exactly can be inferred—regarding the underlying nature of reality—as a result of these observations. The mathematics and empirical observations are irrefutable; however, what they mean is an entirely unique beast."
This is a thing for me. I strongly prefer to go out of my way to admit when I am speculating. This comes up a lot when people engage in cutting-edge topics, I have found, leading to a lot of confusion.
What I strive for, often, is what I call the minimal inference. If I understand entanglement correctly, it is commonly understood to mean that we can affect outcomes non-locally, through our observation. What gets less press, is the idea that our reality is subject to the same effect from the proverbial 'other side.'
When we talk about quantum entanglement, we often frame it through a deeply human lens: we observe, and things happen elsewhere. The narrative tends to center us as the agents of change—as if the quantum universe is waiting for our input like a cosmic customer service rep. What gets less airtime is the possibility that entanglement is not a one-way effect but a mutual influence—a *two-way street* of reality, where we may be observed or affected from the “other side” of the entangled connection. Our models tend to assume we’re the ones doing the poking, rarely asking whether we’re also being poked. This oversight might not be due to a lack of data, but a lack of perspective.
Thank you for the insightful comment. I am still coming to understand entanglement and other quantum effects myself, and I always find it tricky to upscale meaning; for example, from the observation of two entangled particles demonstrating non-local influence, what can be inferred about macroscopic daily life? Can two conscious beings become entangled? Many have experienced thinking of someone immediately before receiving a phonecall from them, and I'd be curious whether such a phenomenon could be explained in terms of entanglement.
Drawing on the works of Bernardo Kastrup, I find it helpful to view myself as the unfolding of (a fraction of) nature itself, rather than an entity separate from nature. In this way, the whole of reality is a singular organism, and analogous to how we can automatically sense the presence of all our limbs, perhaps the universe has the capacity to create instantaneous pathways of connection between its different parts.
I appreciate your idea of a two-way street with respect to entanglement--what would you say that translates to in a macroscopic sense?
"I appreciate your idea of a two-way street with respect to entanglement--what would you say that translates to in a *macroscopic* sense?"
Always, it is this.
The seamless superimposition of time-space novelties,
over normal time space. Data
curiously dovetailing with quantum mechanics—
in ways that are *demonstrably non-random*,
and thoroughly grounded, untouched by idle speculation.
The data points, are always deemed "significant" by the local 'macro' audience,
rather than trivial
through forms of collective conscious consensus
that are based on setting-specific data
or ones borrowed from the broader culture.
Great question !
:)
Love it!