So... the argument is that entangling lynx and snowshoe hares would be an advantage for the lynx, and entanglement is analogous to god, therefore all organisms were created by god?
You might want to put that one into the oven to bake a bit more fully.
See, we tried to entangle lynx and showshoe hares experimentally, but the ethics board described it as "cruel", "unusual" and"not at all how quantum works".
Apparently sticking creatures on an endangered species list in a big collider is not a good use of funds, and hell on the cleaning staff.
But, in seriousness, this isn't how quantum works. If you were arguing about proteins, now, that's more reasonable. We're at the scale where proteins are tiny enough to be influenced by quantum effects (but still not massively). But predator prey interactions? I don't buy it.
I think I read about this - whole mess looked like those dogs from The Thing.
Yeah, I'm with you, this sounds like an argument built on incredibly weak conjecture.
More that their competitive advantage was facilitated by entanglement. If the proliferation of the genetic advantage was not possible within the bounds of the current interpterion, through random mutation at the point of copulation, then another form of signalling is involved. Quantum information and signalling is a known system, and by applying it to the lynx/hare you place the entanglement as the facilitator, and therefore, creator or the advantage.
No entanglement is involved between a hare and a lynx. Have you not heard of decoherence and/or wave function collapse?
The existence of games where quantum information is involved does not mean all games involve quantum information.
I guess decoherence then disproves the creator? That was easy.
Like I said yesterday in a different quantum bullshit thread:
If someone attempts to use QM to 'prove' a god, you can be certain they're either lying, or have been lied to and repeat that lie.
Layman here… What are your thoughts regarding quantum fluctuations as these pertain to cosmology, especially regarding the onset of the universe and after the heat death of the universe?
This notion seems to imply that anything is possible and that it is likely that everything can and will happen given enough time, including divine formation (all forms of divinity, as well as instances lacking any divinity).
Eternity and infinity are often countered with the notion that it would take forever to get anywhere so then nothing would ever get anywhere, yet if the universe has forever then that is enough relativity for anything get everywhere eventually.
Again, these are just layman thoughts, so any correction of faulty notions will be much appreciated.
Many Worlds Theory and Simulation Theory address this notion, even beyond religion from a secular perspective. This is not a discussion of magic, but rather the notion of infinite probability.
There are many cyclic cosmology models. I am not defending, but rather discussing. I admitted to being a layman, yet the many cosmological theories are proposed by well established scientific branches.
Multidimensional cosmology is not a fringe concept.
We must be willing to challenge each our own philosophies daily else these philosophies become ideology whereby belief withholds knowledge, and vice versa, knowledge withholds belief. This is the essence of the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is infallible, whereas Current Science is always fallible.
Albert Einstein wrote, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” He later clarified by saying he was an agnostic, a religious nonbeliever.
Stephen Hawking outright wrote, “There is no God.”
Despite my various spiritual and religious beliefs I am more inclined to align with Einstein rather than Hawking, in that I believe ultimatums stand in contrast with the Scientific Method.
“…it can never be proved right because tomorrow’s experiment could succeed at proving what you thought was right wrong...” - Richard Feynman
Embrace the question.
No worries… I was seeking further insight into your opinions. That is the essence of scientific pursuit and the scientific method. Pardon my intrusion into your gates, I didn’t mean to trespass. Take care and smile often.
>This notion seems to imply that anything is possible
Not really. "Anything possible, no matter how unlikely, could happen, given enough time".
Like, all the atoms of a brick spontaneously moving exactly 5 metres to the left all at the same instant. Insanely, insanely unlikely, but we can assign a discrete probability to such a ridiculous event.
The fact that the chances of seeing such an event largely require longer than the expected lifespan of the universe is sort of immaterial to the underlying maths.
BUT
Impossible things, like "magic", remain impossible. You cannot assign probability variables to ideas like "the specific judeo-christian god exists", and thus no matter how long the universe persists for, this isn't going to 'eventually' happen.
First of all, I wasn’t making an argument specifically for a “judeo-christian” belief, but rather I was making an argument for the vast realm of possibility from a wholly scientific perspective.
And regarding the particle charges in bricks of atoms, I am well aware of the probability curves.
I am not sure you are aware of the frame of reference, or “time frames”, regarding the heat death of the universe. Given that the relative nature of time breaks down at that scale, there is more than enough “time”.
The notion that such an event would require longer than the expected lifespan of the universe is exactly the point. We are talking about after the heat death of the universe.
The concepts underlying the notions I shared are rooted in cosmology and physics rather than myth.
Study up on scientific thought regarding the heat death of the universe. Don’t let bias shroud your understanding.
Add quantum information into evolutionary game theory. That's all I've done. If you do it, it can solve some problems (cryptic female choice, genital evolution). It also means we have to confront the big question: "what is the entanglement?"
Even if evolution could make use of long-term quantum information (which is impossible), how is this evidence for god any more than quantum mechanics itself is? Why set yourself up for failure by proposing something actually impossible instead of just saying "quantum mechanics therefore god" like the other quantum quacks?
Ugh. Mdpi strikes again. Honestly that entire article is basically word salad, and my suspicion is that the authors just filled it with so much maths that any reviewers went "fuck, I am not getting paid at all for this, so just accept it and do not email me ever again".
In essence, it boils down to "if we take a scenario we can model very simply, and then add a fuckton of quantum woo, we get a scenario that is waaaaaay more complicated, but that produces basically the same outcome".
And of course, there's zero evidence for quantum woo in population dynamics.
Extrapolating this non-evidenced quantum woo to quantum entanglement of elementary particles which are themselves still contentious, and then extrapolating that to _god_?
That's a very, very bold stretch.
It is a bold stretch, but all I've really done is suggest that evolutionary game theory include quantum signalling, then question what the entanglement actually is. There simple steps, on a very bold path. (I did not write that with a straight face!)
1. Can you explain quantum mechanics please. Simple language.
2. How is quantum mechanics like an unmoved mover?
3. The article you reference is about decision-making, not evolution. What does this have to do directly with evolution?
4. Could you summarize the paper's model? How does their entanglement model affecting decision-making affect evolution? Please use plain language.
There are some irregularities with the paper, it does not appear to be properly peer reviewed, and the authors are not people who have experience with quantum mechanics. Also, it is a purely speculative model with no empirical data. I'm not sure if this paper is proof of anything outside of mathematical modeling.
I'm not a physicist, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what this has to do with a new model of evolution.
OP, please spoon feed me this model, as it is hard to connect the dots.
*1, Can you explain quantum mechanics please. Simple language.*
1a, The study of sub-atomic particles, such as protons (light) and electrons.
*2, How is quantum mechanics like an unmoved mover?*
2a, Quantum particles, until measured or observed, exist in a state of potential different positions. In the case of entangled particles, their positions are realized in cohesion with their partner particles through the process of entanglement. This means that entanglement itself is the actualizing factor for the potential positions of the particles. When one particle's state is actualised, its entangled partner's state is instantaneously actualised, demonstrating the role of entanglement in actualising potential states. Thus, while the entangled particles exist in a state of potentiality, the entanglement can be seen as a purely actualizing force, analogous to Aristotle's Prime Mover, which realizes potential without itself possessing any potentiality. (Werner Heisenberg, god father of QM, also saw links between Aristotle and QM [source](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9QXkEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&ots=RC6352yYjh&sig=yRXU9vm5wQLdLvL6jalL66uQiDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false))
*3, The article you reference is about decision-making, not evolution. What does this have to do directly with evolution?*
3a, game theory is all about decision making, and evolutionary game theory applies it to evolution. It's central to current theory.
*4, Could you summarize the paper's model? How does their entanglement model affecting decision-making affect evolution? Please use plain language.*
4a, the population share information through quantum entanglement, which is faster than the speed of light. This information sharing gives them an unfair competitive advantage allowing them to proliferate. In this sense the entanglement is the creator of their advantage, and should be be considered Creator.
> The study of sub-atomic particles, such as protons (light) and electrons.
Off to a good start.
> 4a, the population share information through quantum entanglement, which is faster than the speed of light.
This is nonsense. There's no way to share information faster than light with entanglement. You are even confused about what the advantage of shared quantum information is. You had one job. It's also very much not in the best interest of either lynxes or hares to keep any such hypothetical shared entangled particles around. Evolution is not a cooperative game. What are you imagining here really? The common ancestor entangled a lot of particles that are then distributed to their descendants across millions of years somehow? What is the slightest evidence any such thing is possible?
There's no way to share entangled particles without massive containment/isolation systems. Look at a quantum computer some time. Any entanglement will decohere in nanoseconds, much less millions of years.
1a = good. Still does not connect entanglement and evolution.
2 = word salad again. Because "entangled particles exist in a state of potentiality can be seen as a purely actualizing force" therefore "analogous to Aristotle's prime mover”. Please define what you think of potentiality in terms of physics, as the generally accepted definition of potential in physics is not magic. Worse with your use of "actualizing", complete deepity with no meaning, please define.
3 = Still not seeing the connections you or the paper authors are making (I noticed you ignore my concerns about the paper and it's authors). But ok evolutionary game theory... got it, the application of game theory to evolution. So I'm still lost, how is quantum entanglement, game theory and evolution put together in this paper? There is no empirical or even observational data in this paper, so how do the authors connect entanglement to game theory? Then to evolution? Please explain in simple English.
4 = I really respect you are an honest interlocutor, this is rare for theists, certainly on reddit. But WTF? You don't know what entanglement is if you are referring to faster than light communication. Please show in the paper where the authors show that. And if they show it why is their paper not referenced 10s of thousands of times. Again your primary source is very suspicious, how many times has it been referenced by people in the field other than the authors? If a paper shows quantum entanglement affects evolution it would have made main stream news, hardcore biologists (like me) who generally avoid math would be doing this paper for journal club, it would be winning lots of awards. Your appeal to authority is not good when there is no authority.
4 continued. If there is faster than light communication affecting evolution please show it.
4 again. Even if I granted you everything about entanglement and evolution, I still don't see a creator. How does everything you say = god/creator/prime mover?
I'm sorry the primary literature you base your idea is still very suspicious, and even looking at the paper I don't get your idea from it. And remember this paper if valid still has no primary data, no observations that confirms their model.
This all seems like that dumb story about monkeys on different parts of the same island simultaneously discovering the same tools. The idea is that they got the idea from a creator simultaneously, which is a cool story bro but not a real story and even if real does support a creator.
Then you claim a very esoteric, and honestly not trustworthy paper with sciencey terms like quantum entanglement is the glue for creator driven evolution.
It's just not convincing at all. Is this entanglement word salad really why you believe in a creator? Or did you want to shoehorn a creator into evolution?
> Quantum particles, until measured or observed, exist in a state of potential different positions.
Only on paper...
The quantum particles only " exist in a state of potential different positions" because we don't know what they are, not because that's how they actually exist in reality. i.e. the "observer effect", I think, is grossly misunderstood to mean that Shcrodinger's cat is actually both alive and dead at the same time... but we know that's not actually the case in reality, right? The observation simply makes the state known and, therefore, eliminates all other possible states and further eliminates all other possible interactions involving those other possible states with the next particle.
For example, if you have a particle that has 4 possible states and you want to model it's interaction with another particle with 4 possible states, that's 4^4 (256) different interactions that all exist "simultaneously" in your model. When you observe the state of particle A, you've eliminated 3 other states and in the process 4^3 (64) different possible interactions. So, your model has 256 possible interactions, but reality has 2 - the state of particle A interacting with the state of particle B. The observation didn't change anything about the particles themselves, it just eliminated the other possibilities.
EDIT: pretty sure my math is totally wrong but my point stands. :)
EDIT 2: I think I fixed it... maybe...
> The quantum particles only " exist in a state of potential different positions" because we don't know what they are, not because that's how they actually exist in reality
No, experiments like the Bell inequality and Bell's theorem suggest that no such local hidden variables that contain the "real" state can exist.
Ok. I actually waded through this nonsense.
No evidence. And no real understanding of what entanglement actually means.
Come back when you have something more than wishful thinking.
"no real understanding of what entanglement actually means". If entanglement facilitates evolutionary advantage and exists outside of the 4 dimensions of space time, then we should be asking what it is. It does appear that the great thinkers of the past already did, and appear to have got it right. I've always found the "turns out Aristotle was right" amusing. He was right about everything.
...Aristotle was a geocentrist who believed in spontaneous generation and he thought heavier objects fell faster than light objects. Few philosophers are wronger than Aristotle. He thought mares were impregnated by the wind.
No, Aristotle did not contemplate entanglement. He was also wrong about the majority of things. Eels spontaneously generating? The biosphere has been around in identical form for eternity? You're going to take evolutionary thinking from that guy?
The OP has written a book entitled ***Entangled Evolution: How Quantum Game Theory Links Evolution and God***. They don't appear to also be among the authors of the paper they linked to.
The reviews of the book (all 7 of them from this 2 year old book) are funny, no explanation of what the book is about but basically "quantum=god so me happy with with sciencey god book".
Yeah, it's not a popular book to be honest, it's made me about $300 since it's publication. I do feel like I've failed the topic sometimes, in the manner described by 1 reviewer, but I mad it an easy read! I'm not "shouting the odds", more displaying facts that indicate that lead to entanglement as a solution. Once that's done, I investigate what entanglement actually is.
Also, it seems to me that OP is conflating evolution (a concept from biology, more or less) and evolution (a concept from the theory of dynamic systems, more or less).
Study of dynamic systems - branch of mathematics concerned with measurable spaces under the repeated action of a transformation mapping said measurable space into itself.
Quantum game theory is the basis of quantum computing. I'm essentially saying that evolution can be assessed using the same mathematics that assesses quantum computing.
> Moreover, quantum game theory includes a quantum referee between the entangled parties, which ensures fair play and mediates interactions. This referee can be seen as analogous to a divine overseer or a higher power that ensures order and fairness in the universe.
So you found the concept of a [quantum refereed game](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_refereed_game) and assumed this special case of a hypothetical kind of game somehow applies to everything in the universe?
You know what, the universe is like soccer. There are several linesmen that correspond to minor gods, and one referee that is the head honcho god. That makes more sense than your scenario because soccer has actually been realized in the world. Feel free to steal this idea to improve your argument.
I meant to us "anecdotally" at the start of that sentence. I found it amusing that science invented something called a "quantum referee" that exists outside of known reality and validates contracts between players. There's a lot of irony in an atheistic industry doing that!
Why are you surprised mathematicians invented a referee for a game? Wait until you hear about oracles, which can literally trancend god. Mathematicians invent a lot of things that don't exist in reality. Math is not an "atheistic industry". No irony involved at all.
EDIT: By the way, the referee is _not_ actually outside known reality any more than a football referee. In fact, it's completely the other way around! The players are computationally unbounded in a one-turn quantum game while the referee has bounded computation. So what is that supposed to mean?
When starting your post I was thinking: I bet they don't really understand entanglement.
I don't even need to read that far to find out.
>Why is this a new argument for creationism?
>Entanglement has features analogous to God as defined in Aristotle's Unmoved Mover proof ref. The information transferred through entanglement appears to break the speed of light. Nothing within the four dimensions of spacetime can break the speed of light. If it’s outside of those four dimensions, it can be argued to have features associated with God.
This is nonsense. And I'm not even talking about the philosophical implications and interpretations but the basic physics.
1. There is no information transferred through entanglement.
2. It especially does not transfer it faster than the speed of light.
3. Tachyons, if they were to exist, can exist in spacetime. That they'd need to be outside of the four dimensions isn't an argument against their existence.
I don't think that this is a good new argument for creationism because it just adds in another field of science creationists need to misunderstand and misrepresent. They already have enough, they need to deal with those first before they can have seconds, just like my 2 year old with his lunch.
[Introduction to quantum information](https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_344957_smxx.pdf) - page 14 is a good, if difficult, place to start. You might want to review content associated with quantum computing as well. Quantum game theory is from quantum computing, and the speed they achieve is because of entanglement. Happy to respond if you have questions.
That's not that difficult that's pretty basic algebra on page 14 and the next couple ones. Just because they use bra ket notation doesn't make it difficult. That's just the standard in QM.
Yes I have questions, I want you to find the place where they show that information is sent faster than the speed of light.
Edit: I also accept the place where they show that information is transmitted as you claimed somewhere else that happens.
Hey, I guess you forgot to answer. Please show me where they show in the book that information is transferred faster than the speed of light, or any information for that matter.
Or in any physics textbook. Doesn't have to be this one.
RemindMe! 2 days
I will be messaging you in 2 days on [**2024-07-11 08:58:42 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-11%2008:58:42%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1dwlhzr/a_new_argument_for_creationism/lcbp6pm/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FDebateEvolution%2Fcomments%2F1dwlhzr%2Fa_new_argument_for_creationism%2Flcbp6pm%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-11%2008%3A58%3A42%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dwlhzr)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Olivia Lang isn't a physicist and it shows. That's why her other articles are about MDMA and PTSD and Lula in Brasil.
Show me in a textbook not in a pop sci article.
It’s not the article, it’s the noble prize! Clauser won it for proving that entrapment breaks the speed of light. He’s also the C in the CHSH game. Which is the inception of quantum game theory.
No he didn't prove that, or you wouldn't need to rely on pop sci articles that misunderstand entanglement but could point to actual papers or textbooks.
Would you like me to exactly point out the errors in the article and how they're misunderstandings of the actual science?
Nah, you don’t need to. In, a better, article on the topic it states the following: "It may be tempting to think that the particles are somehow communicating with each other across these great distances, but that is not the case," says Thomas Vidick, a professor of computing and mathematical sciences at Caltech. "There can be correlation without communication," and the particles "can be thought of as one object." https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement#:~:text=A%20common%20misconception%20about%20entanglement,faster%2Dthan%2Dlight%20communications.
It scream’s sequel! 😂 joking aside, (not joking) the “can be thought of as 1 object” is worse. At least with the speed of light feature there was a way out. This means, deductively, the entangled players in quantum game theory should not be considered as individuals. They are a single decision making entity that time and space is irrelevant to. Like I said: worse.
I will be messaging you in 2 days on [**2024-07-09 08:44:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-09%2008:44:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1dwlhzr/a_new_argument_for_creationism/lc0klj4/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FDebateEvolution%2Fcomments%2F1dwlhzr%2Fa_new_argument_for_creationism%2Flc0klj4%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-09%2008%3A44%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dwlhzr)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
"Until it isn't" it is mere conjecture.
Trying to insert quantum physics anywhere in biology remains conjecture. Quantum biology is a solution in search of a problem.
Nah, biology is at its base about molecular interaction. The ATP process will rely on electron engagement to move between di/tri phosphate. DNA mutations rais require electron misalignment for them to happen. Quantum’s inclusion on evolution is inevitable. Whether it’s benign or agentic is the real question.
As I have explained several times already, quantum interactions in chemistry are already handled perfectly fine by normal chemistry. Chemicals doing chemical stuff is what chemistry is all about. So for quantum biology to actually be a thing, it would need to be something that isn't just normal chemistry. Nothing you listed is anything beyond normal chemistry.
Just because quantum entanglement can be used to somehow model evolutionary processes it does not follow that evolution as a process is somehow based on quantum entanglement as an actual principle.
This isn't a new argument
Creationists have been trying to insert "God" into quantum physics for decades, particularly entanglement.
That being said, this isn't creationism as it is normally used. It is the idea that God controls evolution, that is theistic evolutionism. And again theists have been trying to claim God acts through quantum effects for decades as well.
There are a bunch of problems here, every single one of which renders this impossible
1. It is impossible to share information through entanglement.
2. All indications are that no property that can be entangled has any impact any processes relevant to evolution
3. Entanglement works on pairs, not populations
4. There is no way to induce entanglement between members of a population
5. Entanglement is fragile, and there is no way to maintain it over evolutionarily relevant time scales
Edit: not just spin
1. It is impossible to share information through entanglement.
1. It is possible - Quantum computers are base on it!
2. All indications are that no property that can be entangled has any impact any processes relevant to evolution
1. Until they are. Quantum entanglement is being discussed in photosynthesis and bacteria. When does it move to evolution? In my book I say it is.
3. Entanglement works on pairs, not populations
1. Quantum computers entangle a lot more than pairs
4. There is no way to induce entanglement between members of a population
1. as per point 2, coherent oscillations can be tested to establish there existence.
5. Entanglement is fragile, and there is no way to maintain it over evolutionarily relevant time scales
1. It is in a laboratory
2. it exists outside of space time, so wont' have timescales like we have
> It is possible - Quantum computers are base on it!
No, they aren't. They are based on the superposition of multiple states. That superposition requires entanglement, but no information is transmitted by the entanglement, rather the superposition state is manipulated through wave interference.
> Until they are. Quantum entanglement is being discussed in photosynthesis and bacteria. When does it move to evolution? In my book I say it is.
It has been discussed, but every single test of quantum behavior in living systems has resoundingly failed, again beyong basic chemical interactions that are adequately handled by normal chemistry.
> Quantum computers entangle a lot more than pairs
I was wrong about that,
> as per point 2, coherent oscillations can be tested to establish there existence.
The problem is is a "population" in biology is a nebulous and varying thing. Populations split and rejoin. They grow and shrink.
Alligator gar and longnose gar are separated by hundreds of millions of years, but can interbreed but don't. If someone a mixed population of those forms, do their particles somehow get re-entangled? If so how?
> It is in a laboratory
We aren't talking about a laboratory, we are talking about living things. Laboratories require very specific, very carefully controlled conditions to maintain entanglement, and even that is it is really hard. Those conditions are not present in living things
> it exists outside of space time, so wont' have timescales like we have
Quantum entanglement doesn't exist outside space and time. At this point you are just talking about magic.
> Until they are. Quantum entanglement is being discussed in photosynthesis and bacteria.
Neither which involve any long-term entanglement.
> it exists outside of space time, so wont' have timescales like we have
More nonsense. You can't handwave away the fragility of entanglement. Entanglement is very much between things inside spacetime. Theoretically and empirically we can see that decoherence happens extremely quickly _in spacetime_.
"Entanglement is very much between things inside spacetime" but where is what's between them? There's got to be something, because they are linked, and it breaks the speed of light, which has implications for it's mass. With the expansion of evolutionary game theory to include quantum information the entanglement is between the players. But the questions persists, where is what's between them?
Easy, the entanglement is in the wavefunction of the universe.
Seriously, whatever the "fundamental" nature of entanglement is, it doesn't change its observed and predicted behavior. There is no surviving entanglement between the players in _reality_. You can speculate about hypotheticals all you want. This uninformed speculation is not going to help evolutionary theory, nor quantum mechanics. If you want to claim there's some kind of entanglement between organisms in a biosphere you will need a different theory than quantum mechanics.
This is the persistent downfall of the whole category of quantum nonsense: quantum mechanics isn't magic that can do whatever you want it to do. Your statement about breaking the speed of light is not a fact of quantum theory, only about certain interpretations, none of which gives you faster than light communication/sharing/whatever. There are fully local interpretations like Many Worlds that do not break the speed of light in even a vague sense.
No idea what you mean with "which has implications for it's mass".
It's not a good sign that the cited article introduces QM by citing a paper in NeuroQuantology. Wikipedia's description of that journal is apt: 'It was established in April 2003 and its subject matter almost immediately dismissed in The Lancet Neurology as "wild invention" and "claptrap". According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal had a 2017 impact factor of 0.453, ranking it 253rd out of 261 journals in the category "Neuroscience". However, the journal has been delisted since the 2019 edition.'
So…ecosystems are complex and have interdependencies therefore God?
No. This actually points to the power of evolution. The fact that these complex ecosystems are able to form naturally (as we literally see it happen today) indicates that there is no ‘information complexity’ barrier to evolution.
>While it does not include empirical evidence from biological experiments to support God's control of evolution
This is the eternal weakness of creationism. The theory is not connected with the evidence in any meaningful way and I don't see how it ever will be. Aside from that this post is barely worth talking about. You haven't proven that populations are actually entangled and you haven't proven that quantum entanglement is a non-material phenomena comparable to the god of classical theism. This concept might make you feel nice when you think about it but it's useless.
It is the weakness, but with this approach the process to establishing it is easier. I'm not arguing with Darwin, Darwin is right, but I'm saying that the genetic changes are entangled, not random.
This article provides strong evidence that mutations are stochastic [https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations](https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations)
>The mutations, being a clear change, will be stochastic
No, you're saying these changes are being chosen by an intelligent agent. In that case those changes would only appear stochastic if that agent decided to make them appear stochastic. If I went in with a gene editor and changed a bunch of base pairs in a fetus, those changes would only follow the stochastic pattern in that article if I chose them to. What you're implying is that god is obfuscating his evidence trail. Also what are these base pairs even supposed to be entangled with? Quantum effects would have almost no effect on the chemistry here.
Joking aside, the use of “intelligent” is the single greatest understatement that exists. If this is truly at the centre of everything, the scale of its intellect isn’t fathomable.
I mean doesn't that kinda cook your entire endeavor? What is the diagnosable difference between a universe where the prime mover is an unfathomable intellect and a universe without an intelligent prime mover?
Golly. It's got quantum so it has to be right!
First, arguments prove nothing, even good ones. Gibberish like this isn't a good one. Second, if god is a necessary ingredient, prove god.
Entanglement proved that something can break the speed of light, which mean immateriality, and in this instance, it also provide a competitive advantage in evolution. So we find entanglement with 2 features associated with God, maybe it is actually God.
No, it really, really doesn't prove that something can break the speed of light. QM, including entanglement, is fully consistent with Special Relativity. QM-based models of particle behavior all incorporate the speed of light and all yield the result that information cannot be transmitted faster than that speed. There is currently zero reason to think that QM has anything to do with evolution (beyond providing the basis for chemistry) and abundant reason, both theoretical and empirical, to think that entanglement is far too fragile to last long enough to have any effect on populations of organisms.
>Given that entanglement is analogous to the classic proofs of God, you can then say that God created that successful population
What an assertion. Prove it. With evidence.
And this is where creationism fails. It likes to offer whimsical, philosophical ideas, without providing evidence. Science is where evidence matters, not philosophical ideals. Put up or shut up, essentially.
I love that you quoted Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, as if Aristotle was right about anything (spoiler, he was practically wrong about everything he ever thought).
Mate, be careful dismissing Aristotle. I haven't read much of his work, but what I have read put's him at the top of the tree. Aquinas as well, to be fair. Up there with with the best thinking I've ever read.
We should be very dismissive of Aristotle's ideas. His thought process was fine (which is usually what we teach today) but his evidence was shotty. And that also goes for Thomas Aquinas. Ibyn Al-Hazen eats both of their lunches.
In western civ he's basically credited with being the father of the modern scientific method:
\-Take no one's word for it, ask for evidence
\-Do not merely accept authority
\-Test ideas with experiments and present the evidence
\-Only the ideas that can be reconfirmed or show evidence are to be kept
This philosophy is greatly superior to that of Aristotle and Aquinas; where it's not simply how well you can argue something logically, but actually design experiments to confirm them; and you only accept those that have evidence to support them.
Aristotlian philosophy was great for it's basic idea that you can make observations of the world around you and make sense of them in a logical manner. His major flaw was that he did not design tests of those observations.
Thomas Aquinas was excellent in grounding the christian religion in naturalism, his major flaw was the assertion that things must exist without evidence. Aquinas asserts that the existence of natural laws must therefore prove the existence of a god, which is absolutely terrible reasoning, and one you cannot test.
Compare this to Ibyn Al-hazen who rejected the idea that beams of sight emerge from our eyes, bounce of the object and return, which is how we see. He reasoned that objects were too far distant for beams of sight to travel from our eyes, to an object and bounce back before we blink again. Thus he reasoned there must be something else (light/light-waves) and then began to devise experiments to understand light and measure it. He created the first camera (the camera obscura) which is how he learned how light travels in straight lines, which is the foundation for modern optics and optical lenses.
Al-Hazen essentially set down the precepts of a self-correcting mechanism (Scientific Method) that would spread throughout Medieval Mideast and into Medieval Europe during the Islamic Golden Era.
Interesting. You might want to spend some time considering the nature of the entanglement. The only way to test is will be through features that exist in our 4 dimensional space time. If it exists outside of that, which correlates with the constant of the speed of light being irrelevant to it, how can we test it? That suggests that Aquinas was correct.
>You might want to spend some time considering the nature of the entanglement.
No thanks. I'm a naturalist, and I only care about what can be demonstrated.
>The only way to test is will be through features that exist in our 4 dimensional space time. If it exists outside of that, which correlates with the constant of the speed of light being irrelevant to it, how can we test it?
We exist in 5-dimentional space-time; 2 time dimensions and 3 spacial dimensions. And just because something might exist outside of the dimensions we ***currently*** can measure and perceive, does not mean in any way that you cannot measure it, observe it, make models for it.
Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory postulates that there are 26 dimensions. Guess what? they have experiments designed to detect those dimensions.
No, you don't just get to claim other dimensions exist and say they can't be measured, and then just assert that they exist!
>That suggests that Aquinas was correct.
That absolutely does not. As I stated above; you cannot assert something is true without proposing a way to demonstrate it.
Even if we proved Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory tomorrow, hat does not, in anyway, support Thomas Aquinas' assertion. Why? Because he didn't develop the experiment to support it.
And if something from those other 26 dimensions does interact with our 5 (that we can perceive) guess what? We CAN therefore detect it, measure it and study it. Each dimension intersects all others. the XY plane does in fact interact with the Z plane in every possible way. If you are 2D you'd have to find a way to see when an XYZ axis thing interacts with your axis. It'd be similar to an MRI, with 2D cross-sections of the XYZ object as it passes through the XY AXIS.
And still not at all what Thomas Aquinas described. If he didn't give a mathematical formula, theory or experimental test, his commentary on the matter is irrelevant.
That's posthumous credit for something he didn't do. The local Drunk who picked the winning lottery numbers isn't nostradamus.
>“While it does not include empirical evidence from biological experiments to support God's control of evolution, *it does offer a new path for exploring the philosophical concept*.“
And how is that useful? Is “exploring that philosophical concept” going to get us any closer to the truth or is it just a lot of words that ultimately change nothing about our understanding? Because I feel like it’s the latter.
I wonder if Einstein's space-time is similar. When conceived it was useless, but now it positions satellites. The technologies of the future will be based on the scientific advances of today.
I wanted to call the post "creationism reimagined" or "creationism reinvented" as it's not really creationism. But it is a way that the God from the proofs of Aristotle/Aquinas/et.al can be at the centre of evolution. Which is essentially creationism.
Quantum entanglement is like having magic pair of dice that will land on the same number for 2 people who each have 1 of the die. The issue is... Neither side has any control over whar the die will land on. It is entirely random. This means information cannot be share back and forth between these 1 locations. I know this isn't the best analogy for it, so feel free to pick it apart. My point is that entanglement isn't going to be able to share information in order to steer evolution.
That's what the John Bell's inequality is for. If the results of the game exceed what is achievable through local reality, it's got to be entanglement. We don't necessarily need an opinion, the statistical analysis can decide the existence of entanglement.
This reads more as you believe that quantum entanglement somehow is a strong driver of evolution, and that entanglement is somehow God. Where is the proof of creationism?
It's a kind of practical re-interpretation. Including quantum information in game theory changes the payoffs so significantly that only entangled players will get pay-offs. Entanglement facilitates this, so is effectively a creator of the competitive advantage. It isn't creationism in the current sense, but it is a way that means that something we know of, entagnelemtn, that has features you can associate with God is also at the center of evolution.
>Entanglement has features analogous to God
Are you redefining the word "God" to mean evolutionary entanglement? If so, you know that's a fallacy, right? Or are you saying only that's it's analogous to god, in which case, (a) so what? (b) it's a terrible analogy, since evolutionary entanglement is a process, and god is supposed to be a being.
Or are you saying something else? If so, what?
I'm saying that entanglement, what "exists" between the particles has features associated with classical proofs of God. When applying quantum information to game theory, specifically evolutionary game theory, it gains another feature: that it creates the changes associated with evolution.
>has features associated with classical proofs of God.
Well since all of those "proofs" suck, what does it matter?
You're not saying that it's god, but that it's kinda like god?
Again: God is a being; entanglement is a process. Two whole different categories.
You can NOT use entanglement to send information faster than a speed of light.
You fundamentally misunderstand quantum mechanics.
Anyway, sharing information using regular light with its limited speed is more than fast enough for any two organisms on earth within line of sight.
You're basically saying that animals communicate telepathically. There's zero evidence for that.
While it does say that the particles communicate faster than the speed of light, you're not able to use that to send any information.
Imagine this scenario:
You have a pair of quantum shoes. The quantum part is that they're each simultaneously a left and right shoe until you look at them, at which point the wave function collapses and they will turn into a regular pair of shoes.
You take that pair of shoes and put them into a pair of boxes without looking at them, then put one of the boxes in a ship and send it to mars.
After it arrives, you open the box that you kept and find a right shoe. Instantly, the shoe in the other box on mars will contain a left shoe.
But how can you use that to send information? The person on mars can't look into their box without collapsing the wave function as well. They can't know that you've opened your box or what shoe it contained. Even if they look in their box and find a left shoe, all that would tell them is that your box contains a right shoe.
There's no way to send any usable information since trying to do any kind of measurement on the entangled particle collapses the wave function and permanently resolves them into their respective states.
I don't think it's as clear as "telepathy". More that everyone feels/acts the same about something. Through game theory analysis you can identify the point that the behaviour spread beyond the speed available for the animals to have been a genetic mutation.
>The information transferred through entanglement appears to break the speed of light. ......
You should really try to make that argument in a physics group. It's complete nonsense.
See, for example: [https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement](https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement)
"A common misconception about entanglement is that the particles are communicating with each other faster than the speed of light, which would go against Einstein's special theory of relativity. Experiments have shown that this is not true, nor can quantum physics be used to *send* faster-than-light communications."
> Given that entanglement is analogous to the classic proofs of God
No, no it is not and a cursory review of modern physics would disabuse you of this idea.
So... the argument is that entangling lynx and snowshoe hares would be an advantage for the lynx, and entanglement is analogous to god, therefore all organisms were created by god? You might want to put that one into the oven to bake a bit more fully.
> You might want to put that one into the oven to bake a bit more fully. Oh, I think he's baked enough already.
See, we tried to entangle lynx and showshoe hares experimentally, but the ethics board described it as "cruel", "unusual" and"not at all how quantum works". Apparently sticking creatures on an endangered species list in a big collider is not a good use of funds, and hell on the cleaning staff. But, in seriousness, this isn't how quantum works. If you were arguing about proteins, now, that's more reasonable. We're at the scale where proteins are tiny enough to be influenced by quantum effects (but still not massively). But predator prey interactions? I don't buy it.
I think I read about this - whole mess looked like those dogs from The Thing. Yeah, I'm with you, this sounds like an argument built on incredibly weak conjecture.
More that their competitive advantage was facilitated by entanglement. If the proliferation of the genetic advantage was not possible within the bounds of the current interpterion, through random mutation at the point of copulation, then another form of signalling is involved. Quantum information and signalling is a known system, and by applying it to the lynx/hare you place the entanglement as the facilitator, and therefore, creator or the advantage.
No entanglement is involved between a hare and a lynx. Have you not heard of decoherence and/or wave function collapse? The existence of games where quantum information is involved does not mean all games involve quantum information. I guess decoherence then disproves the creator? That was easy.
Like I said yesterday in a different quantum bullshit thread: If someone attempts to use QM to 'prove' a god, you can be certain they're either lying, or have been lied to and repeat that lie.
Layman here… What are your thoughts regarding quantum fluctuations as these pertain to cosmology, especially regarding the onset of the universe and after the heat death of the universe? This notion seems to imply that anything is possible and that it is likely that everything can and will happen given enough time, including divine formation (all forms of divinity, as well as instances lacking any divinity). Eternity and infinity are often countered with the notion that it would take forever to get anywhere so then nothing would ever get anywhere, yet if the universe has forever then that is enough relativity for anything get everywhere eventually. Again, these are just layman thoughts, so any correction of faulty notions will be much appreciated.
I think that QM is a complex modeling of the workings of reality by humans, and it doesn't have [magic] as a variable.
Many Worlds Theory and Simulation Theory address this notion, even beyond religion from a secular perspective. This is not a discussion of magic, but rather the notion of infinite probability.
Those aren't theories by a long shot, they're interpretations of questionable merit. Their foundations are faulty.
There are many cyclic cosmology models. I am not defending, but rather discussing. I admitted to being a layman, yet the many cosmological theories are proposed by well established scientific branches. Multidimensional cosmology is not a fringe concept. We must be willing to challenge each our own philosophies daily else these philosophies become ideology whereby belief withholds knowledge, and vice versa, knowledge withholds belief. This is the essence of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is infallible, whereas Current Science is always fallible. Albert Einstein wrote, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” He later clarified by saying he was an agnostic, a religious nonbeliever. Stephen Hawking outright wrote, “There is no God.” Despite my various spiritual and religious beliefs I am more inclined to align with Einstein rather than Hawking, in that I believe ultimatums stand in contrast with the Scientific Method. “…it can never be proved right because tomorrow’s experiment could succeed at proving what you thought was right wrong...” - Richard Feynman Embrace the question.
You asked for my opinion. My opinion is that fanciful notions with no support are useless. Quoting flowery language at me doesn't change that.
No worries… I was seeking further insight into your opinions. That is the essence of scientific pursuit and the scientific method. Pardon my intrusion into your gates, I didn’t mean to trespass. Take care and smile often.
lol that dude was angry af at some questions 🤣
>This notion seems to imply that anything is possible Not really. "Anything possible, no matter how unlikely, could happen, given enough time". Like, all the atoms of a brick spontaneously moving exactly 5 metres to the left all at the same instant. Insanely, insanely unlikely, but we can assign a discrete probability to such a ridiculous event. The fact that the chances of seeing such an event largely require longer than the expected lifespan of the universe is sort of immaterial to the underlying maths. BUT Impossible things, like "magic", remain impossible. You cannot assign probability variables to ideas like "the specific judeo-christian god exists", and thus no matter how long the universe persists for, this isn't going to 'eventually' happen.
First of all, I wasn’t making an argument specifically for a “judeo-christian” belief, but rather I was making an argument for the vast realm of possibility from a wholly scientific perspective. And regarding the particle charges in bricks of atoms, I am well aware of the probability curves. I am not sure you are aware of the frame of reference, or “time frames”, regarding the heat death of the universe. Given that the relative nature of time breaks down at that scale, there is more than enough “time”. The notion that such an event would require longer than the expected lifespan of the universe is exactly the point. We are talking about after the heat death of the universe. The concepts underlying the notions I shared are rooted in cosmology and physics rather than myth. Study up on scientific thought regarding the heat death of the universe. Don’t let bias shroud your understanding.
Add quantum information into evolutionary game theory. That's all I've done. If you do it, it can solve some problems (cryptic female choice, genital evolution). It also means we have to confront the big question: "what is the entanglement?"
Even if evolution could make use of long-term quantum information (which is impossible), how is this evidence for god any more than quantum mechanics itself is? Why set yourself up for failure by proposing something actually impossible instead of just saying "quantum mechanics therefore god" like the other quantum quacks?
Ugh. Mdpi strikes again. Honestly that entire article is basically word salad, and my suspicion is that the authors just filled it with so much maths that any reviewers went "fuck, I am not getting paid at all for this, so just accept it and do not email me ever again". In essence, it boils down to "if we take a scenario we can model very simply, and then add a fuckton of quantum woo, we get a scenario that is waaaaaay more complicated, but that produces basically the same outcome". And of course, there's zero evidence for quantum woo in population dynamics. Extrapolating this non-evidenced quantum woo to quantum entanglement of elementary particles which are themselves still contentious, and then extrapolating that to _god_? That's a very, very bold stretch.
Yeah I was "fuck, I am not paid to skim this goobledegook for a reddit post", when I looked at this word salad of a publication.
I wonder if it's translated, because it is quite inaccessible
It is a bold stretch, but all I've really done is suggest that evolutionary game theory include quantum signalling, then question what the entanglement actually is. There simple steps, on a very bold path. (I did not write that with a straight face!)
1. Can you explain quantum mechanics please. Simple language. 2. How is quantum mechanics like an unmoved mover? 3. The article you reference is about decision-making, not evolution. What does this have to do directly with evolution? 4. Could you summarize the paper's model? How does their entanglement model affecting decision-making affect evolution? Please use plain language. There are some irregularities with the paper, it does not appear to be properly peer reviewed, and the authors are not people who have experience with quantum mechanics. Also, it is a purely speculative model with no empirical data. I'm not sure if this paper is proof of anything outside of mathematical modeling. I'm not a physicist, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what this has to do with a new model of evolution. OP, please spoon feed me this model, as it is hard to connect the dots.
*1, Can you explain quantum mechanics please. Simple language.* 1a, The study of sub-atomic particles, such as protons (light) and electrons. *2, How is quantum mechanics like an unmoved mover?* 2a, Quantum particles, until measured or observed, exist in a state of potential different positions. In the case of entangled particles, their positions are realized in cohesion with their partner particles through the process of entanglement. This means that entanglement itself is the actualizing factor for the potential positions of the particles. When one particle's state is actualised, its entangled partner's state is instantaneously actualised, demonstrating the role of entanglement in actualising potential states. Thus, while the entangled particles exist in a state of potentiality, the entanglement can be seen as a purely actualizing force, analogous to Aristotle's Prime Mover, which realizes potential without itself possessing any potentiality. (Werner Heisenberg, god father of QM, also saw links between Aristotle and QM [source](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9QXkEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&ots=RC6352yYjh&sig=yRXU9vm5wQLdLvL6jalL66uQiDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)) *3, The article you reference is about decision-making, not evolution. What does this have to do directly with evolution?* 3a, game theory is all about decision making, and evolutionary game theory applies it to evolution. It's central to current theory. *4, Could you summarize the paper's model? How does their entanglement model affecting decision-making affect evolution? Please use plain language.* 4a, the population share information through quantum entanglement, which is faster than the speed of light. This information sharing gives them an unfair competitive advantage allowing them to proliferate. In this sense the entanglement is the creator of their advantage, and should be be considered Creator.
> The study of sub-atomic particles, such as protons (light) and electrons. Off to a good start. > 4a, the population share information through quantum entanglement, which is faster than the speed of light. This is nonsense. There's no way to share information faster than light with entanglement. You are even confused about what the advantage of shared quantum information is. You had one job. It's also very much not in the best interest of either lynxes or hares to keep any such hypothetical shared entangled particles around. Evolution is not a cooperative game. What are you imagining here really? The common ancestor entangled a lot of particles that are then distributed to their descendants across millions of years somehow? What is the slightest evidence any such thing is possible? There's no way to share entangled particles without massive containment/isolation systems. Look at a quantum computer some time. Any entanglement will decohere in nanoseconds, much less millions of years.
1a = good. Still does not connect entanglement and evolution. 2 = word salad again. Because "entangled particles exist in a state of potentiality can be seen as a purely actualizing force" therefore "analogous to Aristotle's prime mover”. Please define what you think of potentiality in terms of physics, as the generally accepted definition of potential in physics is not magic. Worse with your use of "actualizing", complete deepity with no meaning, please define. 3 = Still not seeing the connections you or the paper authors are making (I noticed you ignore my concerns about the paper and it's authors). But ok evolutionary game theory... got it, the application of game theory to evolution. So I'm still lost, how is quantum entanglement, game theory and evolution put together in this paper? There is no empirical or even observational data in this paper, so how do the authors connect entanglement to game theory? Then to evolution? Please explain in simple English. 4 = I really respect you are an honest interlocutor, this is rare for theists, certainly on reddit. But WTF? You don't know what entanglement is if you are referring to faster than light communication. Please show in the paper where the authors show that. And if they show it why is their paper not referenced 10s of thousands of times. Again your primary source is very suspicious, how many times has it been referenced by people in the field other than the authors? If a paper shows quantum entanglement affects evolution it would have made main stream news, hardcore biologists (like me) who generally avoid math would be doing this paper for journal club, it would be winning lots of awards. Your appeal to authority is not good when there is no authority. 4 continued. If there is faster than light communication affecting evolution please show it. 4 again. Even if I granted you everything about entanglement and evolution, I still don't see a creator. How does everything you say = god/creator/prime mover? I'm sorry the primary literature you base your idea is still very suspicious, and even looking at the paper I don't get your idea from it. And remember this paper if valid still has no primary data, no observations that confirms their model. This all seems like that dumb story about monkeys on different parts of the same island simultaneously discovering the same tools. The idea is that they got the idea from a creator simultaneously, which is a cool story bro but not a real story and even if real does support a creator. Then you claim a very esoteric, and honestly not trustworthy paper with sciencey terms like quantum entanglement is the glue for creator driven evolution. It's just not convincing at all. Is this entanglement word salad really why you believe in a creator? Or did you want to shoehorn a creator into evolution?
> Quantum particles, until measured or observed, exist in a state of potential different positions. Only on paper... The quantum particles only " exist in a state of potential different positions" because we don't know what they are, not because that's how they actually exist in reality. i.e. the "observer effect", I think, is grossly misunderstood to mean that Shcrodinger's cat is actually both alive and dead at the same time... but we know that's not actually the case in reality, right? The observation simply makes the state known and, therefore, eliminates all other possible states and further eliminates all other possible interactions involving those other possible states with the next particle. For example, if you have a particle that has 4 possible states and you want to model it's interaction with another particle with 4 possible states, that's 4^4 (256) different interactions that all exist "simultaneously" in your model. When you observe the state of particle A, you've eliminated 3 other states and in the process 4^3 (64) different possible interactions. So, your model has 256 possible interactions, but reality has 2 - the state of particle A interacting with the state of particle B. The observation didn't change anything about the particles themselves, it just eliminated the other possibilities. EDIT: pretty sure my math is totally wrong but my point stands. :) EDIT 2: I think I fixed it... maybe...
> The quantum particles only " exist in a state of potential different positions" because we don't know what they are, not because that's how they actually exist in reality No, experiments like the Bell inequality and Bell's theorem suggest that no such local hidden variables that contain the "real" state can exist.
> Bell inequality Interesting. I'll check that out.
Ok. I actually waded through this nonsense. No evidence. And no real understanding of what entanglement actually means. Come back when you have something more than wishful thinking.
"no real understanding of what entanglement actually means". If entanglement facilitates evolutionary advantage and exists outside of the 4 dimensions of space time, then we should be asking what it is. It does appear that the great thinkers of the past already did, and appear to have got it right. I've always found the "turns out Aristotle was right" amusing. He was right about everything.
...Aristotle was a geocentrist who believed in spontaneous generation and he thought heavier objects fell faster than light objects. Few philosophers are wronger than Aristotle. He thought mares were impregnated by the wind.
No, Aristotle did not contemplate entanglement. He was also wrong about the majority of things. Eels spontaneously generating? The biosphere has been around in identical form for eternity? You're going to take evolutionary thinking from that guy?
Aristotle, and the Greeks in general, did not get a single thing right about science. They were pure math people.
Aristotle was always right? Have you even READ Aristotle?
The OP has written a book entitled ***Entangled Evolution: How Quantum Game Theory Links Evolution and God***. They don't appear to also be among the authors of the paper they linked to.
The reviews of the book (all 7 of them from this 2 year old book) are funny, no explanation of what the book is about but basically "quantum=god so me happy with with sciencey god book".
Imagine my shock and surprise…
Yeah, it's not a popular book to be honest, it's made me about $300 since it's publication. I do feel like I've failed the topic sometimes, in the manner described by 1 reviewer, but I mad it an easy read! I'm not "shouting the odds", more displaying facts that indicate that lead to entanglement as a solution. Once that's done, I investigate what entanglement actually is.
Also, it seems to me that OP is conflating evolution (a concept from biology, more or less) and evolution (a concept from the theory of dynamic systems, more or less).
I'll need more on this to respond. Is the biological concept genetic? And the dynmaic systems sociological?
Study of dynamic systems - branch of mathematics concerned with measurable spaces under the repeated action of a transformation mapping said measurable space into itself.
Anyone who uses the word “quantum” outside of the realm of quantum mechanics is either a sucker or a peddler of bullshit.
I knew there was a reason I thought the 2008 James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, wasn't as good as the others!
Quantum game theory is the basis of quantum computing. I'm essentially saying that evolution can be assessed using the same mathematics that assesses quantum computing.
Quantum computing uses quantum mechanics
Not throwing shade or anything, but Lotka and Volterra are two different people and the terminology should be "Lotka-Volterra" throughout.
> Moreover, quantum game theory includes a quantum referee between the entangled parties, which ensures fair play and mediates interactions. This referee can be seen as analogous to a divine overseer or a higher power that ensures order and fairness in the universe. So you found the concept of a [quantum refereed game](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_refereed_game) and assumed this special case of a hypothetical kind of game somehow applies to everything in the universe? You know what, the universe is like soccer. There are several linesmen that correspond to minor gods, and one referee that is the head honcho god. That makes more sense than your scenario because soccer has actually been realized in the world. Feel free to steal this idea to improve your argument.
I meant to us "anecdotally" at the start of that sentence. I found it amusing that science invented something called a "quantum referee" that exists outside of known reality and validates contracts between players. There's a lot of irony in an atheistic industry doing that!
Why are you surprised mathematicians invented a referee for a game? Wait until you hear about oracles, which can literally trancend god. Mathematicians invent a lot of things that don't exist in reality. Math is not an "atheistic industry". No irony involved at all. EDIT: By the way, the referee is _not_ actually outside known reality any more than a football referee. In fact, it's completely the other way around! The players are computationally unbounded in a one-turn quantum game while the referee has bounded computation. So what is that supposed to mean?
When starting your post I was thinking: I bet they don't really understand entanglement. I don't even need to read that far to find out. >Why is this a new argument for creationism? >Entanglement has features analogous to God as defined in Aristotle's Unmoved Mover proof ref. The information transferred through entanglement appears to break the speed of light. Nothing within the four dimensions of spacetime can break the speed of light. If it’s outside of those four dimensions, it can be argued to have features associated with God. This is nonsense. And I'm not even talking about the philosophical implications and interpretations but the basic physics. 1. There is no information transferred through entanglement. 2. It especially does not transfer it faster than the speed of light. 3. Tachyons, if they were to exist, can exist in spacetime. That they'd need to be outside of the four dimensions isn't an argument against their existence. I don't think that this is a good new argument for creationism because it just adds in another field of science creationists need to misunderstand and misrepresent. They already have enough, they need to deal with those first before they can have seconds, just like my 2 year old with his lunch.
[Introduction to quantum information](https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_344957_smxx.pdf) - page 14 is a good, if difficult, place to start. You might want to review content associated with quantum computing as well. Quantum game theory is from quantum computing, and the speed they achieve is because of entanglement. Happy to respond if you have questions.
That's not that difficult that's pretty basic algebra on page 14 and the next couple ones. Just because they use bra ket notation doesn't make it difficult. That's just the standard in QM. Yes I have questions, I want you to find the place where they show that information is sent faster than the speed of light. Edit: I also accept the place where they show that information is transmitted as you claimed somewhere else that happens.
Hey, I guess you forgot to answer. Please show me where they show in the book that information is transferred faster than the speed of light, or any information for that matter. Or in any physics textbook. Doesn't have to be this one. RemindMe! 2 days
I will be messaging you in 2 days on [**2024-07-11 08:58:42 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-11%2008:58:42%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1dwlhzr/a_new_argument_for_creationism/lcbp6pm/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FDebateEvolution%2Fcomments%2F1dwlhzr%2Fa_new_argument_for_creationism%2Flcbp6pm%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-11%2008%3A58%3A42%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dwlhzr) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
[https://uclpimedia.com/online/physics-nobel-prize-winners-research-shows-quantum-particles-can-communicate-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-regardless-of-distance](https://uclpimedia.com/online/physics-nobel-prize-winners-research-shows-quantum-particles-can-communicate-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-regardless-of-distance)
Olivia Lang isn't a physicist and it shows. That's why her other articles are about MDMA and PTSD and Lula in Brasil. Show me in a textbook not in a pop sci article.
It’s not the article, it’s the noble prize! Clauser won it for proving that entrapment breaks the speed of light. He’s also the C in the CHSH game. Which is the inception of quantum game theory.
No he didn't prove that, or you wouldn't need to rely on pop sci articles that misunderstand entanglement but could point to actual papers or textbooks. Would you like me to exactly point out the errors in the article and how they're misunderstandings of the actual science?
Nah, you don’t need to. In, a better, article on the topic it states the following: "It may be tempting to think that the particles are somehow communicating with each other across these great distances, but that is not the case," says Thomas Vidick, a professor of computing and mathematical sciences at Caltech. "There can be correlation without communication," and the particles "can be thought of as one object." https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement#:~:text=A%20common%20misconception%20about%20entanglement,faster%2Dthan%2Dlight%20communications.
So now that you realize that the premise that there is some FTL communication is false what's going to happen to your book?
It scream’s sequel! 😂 joking aside, (not joking) the “can be thought of as 1 object” is worse. At least with the speed of light feature there was a way out. This means, deductively, the entangled players in quantum game theory should not be considered as individuals. They are a single decision making entity that time and space is irrelevant to. Like I said: worse.
"can be thought of as one object."
But we experience them as 2 objects. What is between them?
RemindMe! 2 days Just in case you forget to answer my question so I can remind you.
I will be messaging you in 2 days on [**2024-07-09 08:44:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-09%2008:44:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1dwlhzr/a_new_argument_for_creationism/lc0klj4/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FDebateEvolution%2Fcomments%2F1dwlhzr%2Fa_new_argument_for_creationism%2Flc0klj4%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-09%2008%3A44%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dwlhzr) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
“Does not include empirical evidence” 😂😂
I had to be honest. It is theoretical. Until it isn't?
"Until it isn't" it is mere conjecture. Trying to insert quantum physics anywhere in biology remains conjecture. Quantum biology is a solution in search of a problem.
Nah, biology is at its base about molecular interaction. The ATP process will rely on electron engagement to move between di/tri phosphate. DNA mutations rais require electron misalignment for them to happen. Quantum’s inclusion on evolution is inevitable. Whether it’s benign or agentic is the real question.
As I have explained several times already, quantum interactions in chemistry are already handled perfectly fine by normal chemistry. Chemicals doing chemical stuff is what chemistry is all about. So for quantum biology to actually be a thing, it would need to be something that isn't just normal chemistry. Nothing you listed is anything beyond normal chemistry.
Just because quantum entanglement can be used to somehow model evolutionary processes it does not follow that evolution as a process is somehow based on quantum entanglement as an actual principle.
This isn't a new argument Creationists have been trying to insert "God" into quantum physics for decades, particularly entanglement. That being said, this isn't creationism as it is normally used. It is the idea that God controls evolution, that is theistic evolutionism. And again theists have been trying to claim God acts through quantum effects for decades as well. There are a bunch of problems here, every single one of which renders this impossible 1. It is impossible to share information through entanglement. 2. All indications are that no property that can be entangled has any impact any processes relevant to evolution 3. Entanglement works on pairs, not populations 4. There is no way to induce entanglement between members of a population 5. Entanglement is fragile, and there is no way to maintain it over evolutionarily relevant time scales Edit: not just spin
[удалено]
Fixed
1. It is impossible to share information through entanglement. 1. It is possible - Quantum computers are base on it! 2. All indications are that no property that can be entangled has any impact any processes relevant to evolution 1. Until they are. Quantum entanglement is being discussed in photosynthesis and bacteria. When does it move to evolution? In my book I say it is. 3. Entanglement works on pairs, not populations 1. Quantum computers entangle a lot more than pairs 4. There is no way to induce entanglement between members of a population 1. as per point 2, coherent oscillations can be tested to establish there existence. 5. Entanglement is fragile, and there is no way to maintain it over evolutionarily relevant time scales 1. It is in a laboratory 2. it exists outside of space time, so wont' have timescales like we have
> It is possible - Quantum computers are base on it! No, they aren't. They are based on the superposition of multiple states. That superposition requires entanglement, but no information is transmitted by the entanglement, rather the superposition state is manipulated through wave interference. > Until they are. Quantum entanglement is being discussed in photosynthesis and bacteria. When does it move to evolution? In my book I say it is. It has been discussed, but every single test of quantum behavior in living systems has resoundingly failed, again beyong basic chemical interactions that are adequately handled by normal chemistry. > Quantum computers entangle a lot more than pairs I was wrong about that, > as per point 2, coherent oscillations can be tested to establish there existence. The problem is is a "population" in biology is a nebulous and varying thing. Populations split and rejoin. They grow and shrink. Alligator gar and longnose gar are separated by hundreds of millions of years, but can interbreed but don't. If someone a mixed population of those forms, do their particles somehow get re-entangled? If so how? > It is in a laboratory We aren't talking about a laboratory, we are talking about living things. Laboratories require very specific, very carefully controlled conditions to maintain entanglement, and even that is it is really hard. Those conditions are not present in living things > it exists outside of space time, so wont' have timescales like we have Quantum entanglement doesn't exist outside space and time. At this point you are just talking about magic.
> Until they are. Quantum entanglement is being discussed in photosynthesis and bacteria. Neither which involve any long-term entanglement. > it exists outside of space time, so wont' have timescales like we have More nonsense. You can't handwave away the fragility of entanglement. Entanglement is very much between things inside spacetime. Theoretically and empirically we can see that decoherence happens extremely quickly _in spacetime_.
"Entanglement is very much between things inside spacetime" but where is what's between them? There's got to be something, because they are linked, and it breaks the speed of light, which has implications for it's mass. With the expansion of evolutionary game theory to include quantum information the entanglement is between the players. But the questions persists, where is what's between them?
Easy, the entanglement is in the wavefunction of the universe. Seriously, whatever the "fundamental" nature of entanglement is, it doesn't change its observed and predicted behavior. There is no surviving entanglement between the players in _reality_. You can speculate about hypotheticals all you want. This uninformed speculation is not going to help evolutionary theory, nor quantum mechanics. If you want to claim there's some kind of entanglement between organisms in a biosphere you will need a different theory than quantum mechanics. This is the persistent downfall of the whole category of quantum nonsense: quantum mechanics isn't magic that can do whatever you want it to do. Your statement about breaking the speed of light is not a fact of quantum theory, only about certain interpretations, none of which gives you faster than light communication/sharing/whatever. There are fully local interpretations like Many Worlds that do not break the speed of light in even a vague sense. No idea what you mean with "which has implications for it's mass".
It's not a good sign that the cited article introduces QM by citing a paper in NeuroQuantology. Wikipedia's description of that journal is apt: 'It was established in April 2003 and its subject matter almost immediately dismissed in The Lancet Neurology as "wild invention" and "claptrap". According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal had a 2017 impact factor of 0.453, ranking it 253rd out of 261 journals in the category "Neuroscience". However, the journal has been delisted since the 2019 edition.'
Which citation was that?
Number 26: "Erol, M. Quantum Entanglement: Fundamentals and Relations with Consciousness/Mind. Neuroquantology **2010**, 8, 390–402. "
So…ecosystems are complex and have interdependencies therefore God? No. This actually points to the power of evolution. The fact that these complex ecosystems are able to form naturally (as we literally see it happen today) indicates that there is no ‘information complexity’ barrier to evolution.
I agree with you, and if there's no "information complexity" barrier, then it's likely using quantum information.
>While it does not include empirical evidence from biological experiments to support God's control of evolution This is the eternal weakness of creationism. The theory is not connected with the evidence in any meaningful way and I don't see how it ever will be. Aside from that this post is barely worth talking about. You haven't proven that populations are actually entangled and you haven't proven that quantum entanglement is a non-material phenomena comparable to the god of classical theism. This concept might make you feel nice when you think about it but it's useless.
It is the weakness, but with this approach the process to establishing it is easier. I'm not arguing with Darwin, Darwin is right, but I'm saying that the genetic changes are entangled, not random.
This article provides strong evidence that mutations are stochastic [https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations](https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations)
The mutations, being a clear change, will be stochastic. It's how they are chosen that is in question. Is it truly random? Not if it's entangled.
>The mutations, being a clear change, will be stochastic No, you're saying these changes are being chosen by an intelligent agent. In that case those changes would only appear stochastic if that agent decided to make them appear stochastic. If I went in with a gene editor and changed a bunch of base pairs in a fetus, those changes would only follow the stochastic pattern in that article if I chose them to. What you're implying is that god is obfuscating his evidence trail. Also what are these base pairs even supposed to be entangled with? Quantum effects would have almost no effect on the chemistry here.
Yep, that’s the rub.
You’ve coined an entertaining counter to “intelligent design” as well: “intelligent obfuscation”.
Joking aside, the use of “intelligent” is the single greatest understatement that exists. If this is truly at the centre of everything, the scale of its intellect isn’t fathomable.
I mean doesn't that kinda cook your entire endeavor? What is the diagnosable difference between a universe where the prime mover is an unfathomable intellect and a universe without an intelligent prime mover?
It would be the lack of entanglement. And entanglements consequent impression on the evolutionary process.
I appreciate your responses, by the way. Thanks.
Golly. It's got quantum so it has to be right! First, arguments prove nothing, even good ones. Gibberish like this isn't a good one. Second, if god is a necessary ingredient, prove god.
Entanglement proved that something can break the speed of light, which mean immateriality, and in this instance, it also provide a competitive advantage in evolution. So we find entanglement with 2 features associated with God, maybe it is actually God.
Hahahaha. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
No, it really, really doesn't prove that something can break the speed of light. QM, including entanglement, is fully consistent with Special Relativity. QM-based models of particle behavior all incorporate the speed of light and all yield the result that information cannot be transmitted faster than that speed. There is currently zero reason to think that QM has anything to do with evolution (beyond providing the basis for chemistry) and abundant reason, both theoretical and empirical, to think that entanglement is far too fragile to last long enough to have any effect on populations of organisms.
>Given that entanglement is analogous to the classic proofs of God, you can then say that God created that successful population What an assertion. Prove it. With evidence. And this is where creationism fails. It likes to offer whimsical, philosophical ideas, without providing evidence. Science is where evidence matters, not philosophical ideals. Put up or shut up, essentially. I love that you quoted Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, as if Aristotle was right about anything (spoiler, he was practically wrong about everything he ever thought).
Mate, be careful dismissing Aristotle. I haven't read much of his work, but what I have read put's him at the top of the tree. Aquinas as well, to be fair. Up there with with the best thinking I've ever read.
We should be very dismissive of Aristotle's ideas. His thought process was fine (which is usually what we teach today) but his evidence was shotty. And that also goes for Thomas Aquinas. Ibyn Al-Hazen eats both of their lunches.
I will look up Ibyn Al-Hazen.
In western civ he's basically credited with being the father of the modern scientific method: \-Take no one's word for it, ask for evidence \-Do not merely accept authority \-Test ideas with experiments and present the evidence \-Only the ideas that can be reconfirmed or show evidence are to be kept This philosophy is greatly superior to that of Aristotle and Aquinas; where it's not simply how well you can argue something logically, but actually design experiments to confirm them; and you only accept those that have evidence to support them. Aristotlian philosophy was great for it's basic idea that you can make observations of the world around you and make sense of them in a logical manner. His major flaw was that he did not design tests of those observations. Thomas Aquinas was excellent in grounding the christian religion in naturalism, his major flaw was the assertion that things must exist without evidence. Aquinas asserts that the existence of natural laws must therefore prove the existence of a god, which is absolutely terrible reasoning, and one you cannot test. Compare this to Ibyn Al-hazen who rejected the idea that beams of sight emerge from our eyes, bounce of the object and return, which is how we see. He reasoned that objects were too far distant for beams of sight to travel from our eyes, to an object and bounce back before we blink again. Thus he reasoned there must be something else (light/light-waves) and then began to devise experiments to understand light and measure it. He created the first camera (the camera obscura) which is how he learned how light travels in straight lines, which is the foundation for modern optics and optical lenses. Al-Hazen essentially set down the precepts of a self-correcting mechanism (Scientific Method) that would spread throughout Medieval Mideast and into Medieval Europe during the Islamic Golden Era.
Interesting. You might want to spend some time considering the nature of the entanglement. The only way to test is will be through features that exist in our 4 dimensional space time. If it exists outside of that, which correlates with the constant of the speed of light being irrelevant to it, how can we test it? That suggests that Aquinas was correct.
>You might want to spend some time considering the nature of the entanglement. No thanks. I'm a naturalist, and I only care about what can be demonstrated. >The only way to test is will be through features that exist in our 4 dimensional space time. If it exists outside of that, which correlates with the constant of the speed of light being irrelevant to it, how can we test it? We exist in 5-dimentional space-time; 2 time dimensions and 3 spacial dimensions. And just because something might exist outside of the dimensions we ***currently*** can measure and perceive, does not mean in any way that you cannot measure it, observe it, make models for it. Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory postulates that there are 26 dimensions. Guess what? they have experiments designed to detect those dimensions. No, you don't just get to claim other dimensions exist and say they can't be measured, and then just assert that they exist! >That suggests that Aquinas was correct. That absolutely does not. As I stated above; you cannot assert something is true without proposing a way to demonstrate it. Even if we proved Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory tomorrow, hat does not, in anyway, support Thomas Aquinas' assertion. Why? Because he didn't develop the experiment to support it. And if something from those other 26 dimensions does interact with our 5 (that we can perceive) guess what? We CAN therefore detect it, measure it and study it. Each dimension intersects all others. the XY plane does in fact interact with the Z plane in every possible way. If you are 2D you'd have to find a way to see when an XYZ axis thing interacts with your axis. It'd be similar to an MRI, with 2D cross-sections of the XYZ object as it passes through the XY AXIS.
Still dimensions. Still a feature in space time. A null-dimension is more accurate for this.
And still not at all what Thomas Aquinas described. If he didn't give a mathematical formula, theory or experimental test, his commentary on the matter is irrelevant. That's posthumous credit for something he didn't do. The local Drunk who picked the winning lottery numbers isn't nostradamus.
>“While it does not include empirical evidence from biological experiments to support God's control of evolution, *it does offer a new path for exploring the philosophical concept*.“ And how is that useful? Is “exploring that philosophical concept” going to get us any closer to the truth or is it just a lot of words that ultimately change nothing about our understanding? Because I feel like it’s the latter.
I wonder if Einstein's space-time is similar. When conceived it was useless, but now it positions satellites. The technologies of the future will be based on the scientific advances of today.
you didn't make an argument for creationism.
I wanted to call the post "creationism reimagined" or "creationism reinvented" as it's not really creationism. But it is a way that the God from the proofs of Aristotle/Aquinas/et.al can be at the centre of evolution. Which is essentially creationism.
Quantum entanglement is like having magic pair of dice that will land on the same number for 2 people who each have 1 of the die. The issue is... Neither side has any control over whar the die will land on. It is entirely random. This means information cannot be share back and forth between these 1 locations. I know this isn't the best analogy for it, so feel free to pick it apart. My point is that entanglement isn't going to be able to share information in order to steer evolution.
That's what the John Bell's inequality is for. If the results of the game exceed what is achievable through local reality, it's got to be entanglement. We don't necessarily need an opinion, the statistical analysis can decide the existence of entanglement.
This reads more as you believe that quantum entanglement somehow is a strong driver of evolution, and that entanglement is somehow God. Where is the proof of creationism?
It's a kind of practical re-interpretation. Including quantum information in game theory changes the payoffs so significantly that only entangled players will get pay-offs. Entanglement facilitates this, so is effectively a creator of the competitive advantage. It isn't creationism in the current sense, but it is a way that means that something we know of, entagnelemtn, that has features you can associate with God is also at the center of evolution.
>Entanglement has features analogous to God Are you redefining the word "God" to mean evolutionary entanglement? If so, you know that's a fallacy, right? Or are you saying only that's it's analogous to god, in which case, (a) so what? (b) it's a terrible analogy, since evolutionary entanglement is a process, and god is supposed to be a being. Or are you saying something else? If so, what?
I'm saying that entanglement, what "exists" between the particles has features associated with classical proofs of God. When applying quantum information to game theory, specifically evolutionary game theory, it gains another feature: that it creates the changes associated with evolution.
>has features associated with classical proofs of God. Well since all of those "proofs" suck, what does it matter? You're not saying that it's god, but that it's kinda like god? Again: God is a being; entanglement is a process. Two whole different categories.
You can NOT use entanglement to send information faster than a speed of light. You fundamentally misunderstand quantum mechanics. Anyway, sharing information using regular light with its limited speed is more than fast enough for any two organisms on earth within line of sight. You're basically saying that animals communicate telepathically. There's zero evidence for that.
[https://uclpimedia.com/online/physics-nobel-prize-winners-research-shows-quantum-particles-can-communicate-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-regardless-of-distance](https://uclpimedia.com/online/physics-nobel-prize-winners-research-shows-quantum-particles-can-communicate-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-regardless-of-distance)
While it does say that the particles communicate faster than the speed of light, you're not able to use that to send any information. Imagine this scenario: You have a pair of quantum shoes. The quantum part is that they're each simultaneously a left and right shoe until you look at them, at which point the wave function collapses and they will turn into a regular pair of shoes. You take that pair of shoes and put them into a pair of boxes without looking at them, then put one of the boxes in a ship and send it to mars. After it arrives, you open the box that you kept and find a right shoe. Instantly, the shoe in the other box on mars will contain a left shoe. But how can you use that to send information? The person on mars can't look into their box without collapsing the wave function as well. They can't know that you've opened your box or what shoe it contained. Even if they look in their box and find a left shoe, all that would tell them is that your box contains a right shoe. There's no way to send any usable information since trying to do any kind of measurement on the entangled particle collapses the wave function and permanently resolves them into their respective states.
I don't think it's as clear as "telepathy". More that everyone feels/acts the same about something. Through game theory analysis you can identify the point that the behaviour spread beyond the speed available for the animals to have been a genetic mutation.
All you need is light speed. Monkey see, monkey do. Animals learn from each other.
Prove there is a god first.
>The information transferred through entanglement appears to break the speed of light. ...... You should really try to make that argument in a physics group. It's complete nonsense. See, for example: [https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement](https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement) "A common misconception about entanglement is that the particles are communicating with each other faster than the speed of light, which would go against Einstein's special theory of relativity. Experiments have shown that this is not true, nor can quantum physics be used to *send* faster-than-light communications." > Given that entanglement is analogous to the classic proofs of God No, no it is not and a cursory review of modern physics would disabuse you of this idea.