An aspect of nature I love is its elegant ambiguity. Despite our best efforts and the amazing discoveries we’ve made in the past few centuries there are fundamental questions about the nature of the universe that may not ultimately be knowable through objective inquiry. It’s always too early to tell, of course, since we don’t know what we may learn next, but the pattern of ambiguity is fairly clear. The ambiguity goes all the way back to the Greeks. At least.
Two fundamental questions on which we still cannot definitively rule upon with our present knowledge are free will vs determinism and atomism (discreteness) vs holism (interrelatedness). Other assumptions that appear to be true given our present knowledge but may ultimately be disproven are the notion that natural laws and/or fundamental properties do not change in time, the idea that causality holds at the most fundamental level of the universe, and the idea that the universe is only one thing at a time.
We just don’t know.
Generally speaking I think scientific discoveries provide interesting data points for our conversations regarding the really big questions, but I do not believe any of the discoveries we’ve made to date should be parlayed into big picture conclusions just yet. For instance, some may look at the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and suggest that the uncertainty gives room to justify the existence of free will, or the movement of the will of God, etc. I think it is inappropriate to draw these conclusions, and thankfully, nature’s ambiguity makes them untenable anyway.
That said, I do think the patterns and correlations we observe in the natural world are interesting. I think they tell us something about ourselves, much like our artwork may reveal qualities of our subconscious minds. I think that our discoveries tell some of the truth, but not the whole truth, if you will, and although I argue we have to be careful about drawing metaphysical conclusions from physics, for instance, I do think it is worthwhile to note correlations between the two—not as one serving as rigorous proof of the other per se, but more like the manner in which good literature invokes a sensation of the familiar. Good literature reminds us of something genuine about ourselves and our experience of life that cannot necessarily be reduced to simple statements. Likewise, I think the patterns we see in the natural world can resonate with and spark a memory of what we experience and know at a deep level. It is like seeing something and going, “Oh, yes… I remember this… it is familiar… it is life…”
So one really interesting field of research in modern physics today is quantum entanglement, and while I don’t have space to explore the idea fully here, I will try to provide a simple example. In quantum physics a particle does not have definite properties until one or more of them are measured and information about the particle is extracted from it. In some cases, more than one particle can be bound by natural laws to form a singular quantum system. One example is two particles who have the same point of origin, or birth point. Due to natural laws, and by way of example, we could say that the property of spin must be conserved: if one particular spins one way, the other particle must spin the other. But until one or the other particle is acted upon or measured, both particles exist together as a singular quantum system in which the spin of neither particle is determined. They “exist” in multiple spin states simultaneously until we force them to choose one state or another. What is remarkable about entanglement is that we can take these two particles in carefully constructed carrying cases to the opposite poles of the earth, and then measure one of them. What has been proven in modern physics experiments is that both particles always show equal and opposite spins when the measurement is made.
The head-scratcher here is that the particles are too far apart in space to receive any signal from the other, so they essentially coalesce into the mutually correlated states instantly. If one is spin up, the other is spin down. How do they do that? If their condition wasn’t predetermined at the moment of their conception, how does the roulette wheel land in precisely opposite points every time? That is entanglement. Theoretically it has been shown that IF the outcomes of the particles were predetermined by some factor that existed at their mutual birth, then an experimental result would be different than if they were truly a quantum system whose final state was NOT predetermined. Time after time the quantum result has been measured.
But recently physicists have noted that the quantum outcome of the experiments could be measured AND the outcome could still be related to some predetermined factor that related them from birth IF it were the case that instead of having all possible spin states to choose from, they were limited to a particular menu. In other words, if some factor existed at their birth that constrained the possible spin states from which they could choose, then the quantum experimental results would be observed but it would NOT prove the quantum position. The experiment could not distinguish then between two particles whose identities were determined at birth from two particles whose identities were randomly determined only at the time a measurement was made.
The distressing outcome of this realization is that there is no way to know for certain that everything in the universe is not constrained in some way all the way back to the common point of origin for the entire universe—e.g.the Big Bang. If I replace the word constrained with related, and if I understand the article correctly, it means there is no way to disprove the existence of a fundamental relatedness of all things to all other things that extends all the way back to the birth of this universe.
Scientists call this catastrophe super-determinism, and they call it a catastrophe because it suggests the entire universe is pre-determined. But I view it for the time being as an interesting corollary to the sort of “God” described in A Course of Love, a God which is described as “the relationship of everything to everything.” [ACOL D:D35.3] A key idea in A Course of Love is that to shed our false skins we must forgive reality for being what it is. We have to forgive the fact that the universe is based upon relationship, and none are truly separate.
“Joining rests on forgiveness. This you have heard before without understanding what it is you would forgive. You must forgive reality for being what it is. Reality, the truly real, is relationship. You must forgive God for creating a world in which you cannot be alone. You must forgive God for creating a shared reality before you can understand it is the only one you would want to have. […] You have to forgive yourself for being what you are, a being who exists only in relationship.” [ACOL C:6.1]
I think that this idea of super-determinism is perceived as catastrophe because it speaks to our deep relatedness and we are culturally enamored of our own independent greatness. We marvel at the self-made man, the one who puts destiny on their back and sallies forth. We don’t generally like the idea there may be something we cannot overcome, some condition that binds us. Now I’m not sure that this finding implies every last thing is known in advance (e.g. is as deterministic as the behavior of billiard balls for instance) or if it merely implies that because of our relatedness the universe may not explore every conceivable situation or possibility. The menu may be limited, and it may be limited by the choices we make together, or perhaps by a choice we made together at the very beginning. I find that to be a beautiful thought.
So I’m not suggesting we have proof of God here. Far from it. But I do think we have a piece of cosmic literature with which to resonate. Or not. What we most assuredly do not have, is answers.
* * * * *
The article that kicked this musing off is here.
Embracing Forever 
Wonderful musings on life, God, science, and relationships. Thank you for tackling such deep questions and topics Michael. I love your perspective, that these deep topics on science and God are really just conversation points to explore further. We just don’t really know what the universe is all about. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks, Brad. I have fun kicking these things around and I do enjoy the moments when a pattern expressed in the universe dovetails with the spiritual teachings most dear to me. But it is indeed a mystery! I think the universe is all about this right now!
Peace
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed Michael. I’m getting better at embracing uncertainties and mysteries. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, Michael. That got my creative juices flowing on this Sunday morning ☺
This particular passage touched my heart:
“The menu may be limited, and it may be limited by the choices we make together, or perhaps by a choice we made together at the very beginning. I find that to be a beautiful thought.”
I feel this cosmic awareness lately in the climate of our nation. It saddens me that there seems to be such a devisive line drawn and people seem so split down the middle. But then when I think about and I apply all that I have learned from ACIM, I have to question the way I see it! I can not exclude anyone from the power of love based on whether I agree with their views or not. And I do believe that we, each and every single one of us are connected, and that we did join into an agreement, and maybe that agreement was at the very beginning, or possibly we wake each day to one. What I do know is that as long as I believe that some are ‘right’ and some are ‘wrong,’ or that some ‘deserve’ and some ‘do not,’ then I contribute to the separation. If I can ‘forgive’ myself for this view, and ‘forgive reality for what it is,’ then perhaps I am moving towards the agreement I entered into in the first place…whenever that was! 🤔
Hope all is super in your world, my friend. Wrapped in love!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hi Lorrie,
Yes I feel that divisiveness, too. I think almost everyone probably does. It is hard to imagine sometimes that this process is meaningful, but like your individual journey, I think this collective one will draw us forward inevitably into deeper understanding. That is my hope for sure. It also can be hard to realize the other people in this world are in fact the opportunity to heal that we’ve been looking for, and without them we would truly be lost… But each one holds the door open for a moment of unity. And I am quite certain none are left behind.
Peace and Love
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating stuff, Michael, albeit quite over my head, admittedly. I decided long ago I wouldn’t seek a theory in a bid to settle myself in my own skin, not least because none such existed. I suppose I side with William James in appreciating a pragmatic approach to metaphysics.
“It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.”
— Majjhima Nikaya 63, The Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
With Mettā, Hariod.
LikeLiked by 6 people
What a great and humorous quote Harriod, and how timely!!! I am reading now a book entitled ” Healing Secrets of the Native Americans” and marveling over how very healing practices were executed in ancient societies because they worked. Our “scientific” explanations are different now and maybe they will be different again in 1000 yrs if we are around, but sometimes one can only wonder, if we spend more time disecting things rather than doing what works.
Thank you for sharing!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t know who I side with really, but I agree in the wisdom of the allegory you’ve offered concerning how much time needs be spent on knowing any of these things for certain when so much suffering remains with us… That is why I thought it was interesting to think of these observations as being like literature. There’s no need to figure good literature out. Whatever it is, it just seeps into you…
With Love
Michael
LikeLiked by 4 people
Interesting musings Michael. It’s interesting that when Einstein first wrote about entanglement, he thought he was demonstrating an absurd consequence of quantum mechanics, too absurd for it to be valid: “spooky action at a distance.” It just goes to show that reductio ad absurdum arguments shouldn’t be taken as authoritative.
Many physicists I read today give assurances that the measured value was set prior to the wave/particle being split apart, and that while we don’t know the value prior to the measurement, what it will collapse into is nonetheless already determined. If true, then entanglement doesn’t communicate faster than light.
But this feels like it would depend on which interpretation of quantum mechanics we’re subscribing to. Certainly Einstein didn’t seem to see it that way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Mike,
You’ve got me thinking. My reading in physics is a little haphazard–I’ve read the books I’ve read and probably have little idea what I’ve missed–but I wasn’t under the impression that entanglement was a function of interpretation. I know that a core issue that concerned Einstein was the idea that QM must be incomplete because it doesn’t allow for a complete picture of reality, right? Meaning that–in the entanglement example–if the particle states are actually set at the time of their creation, then physics should be able to know about that. But QM says we can’t know about that. Since QM says we can’t know about that, Einstein felt there must be more to reality than QM was including in the scope of its theorem, so it therefore was incomplete.
The alternative is that there are more variables than we may understand presently–the so-called hidden variable theories–which would enable the particles to have a pre-determined value at the moment of their creation. Where I get tripped up is that I thought Bell’s Inequality showed that IF the states were pre-determined, then the experimental outcomes would be different than if the states were not pre-determined, and that this had been tested, in some cases, to over a hundred significant digits.
So are you saying most physicists don’t agree with the line of work Bell’s paper fostered? Or that perhaps there is an entirely different interpretation in which Bell’s theorem is a non sequitur because the different interpretation doesn’t produce the problem Bell sought to address? I’d definitely be interested to read more about that if you have a link or two.
The other part of this that trips me up is how this relates to the double slit experiments. The double slit experiments couldn’t yield the results they do if the particles’ properties (trajectory) was always predetermined. Then they seemingly wouldn’t create the interference patterns associated with the wave function. Now maybe that is a completely different case than entanglement–meaning there is something about the two experimental setups that preclude predetermination in one case and allow it in the other–but I don’t know enough to distinguish why.
In any case i think this reinforces the intro to this piece, which is that so much of this rests on the head of a pin, and is incredibly tricky to know for certain.
Peace
Michael
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Michael,
I have to admit I’m not on firm ground here. My own knowledge of this stuff is likely more haphazard than yours. But I’d imagine a lot of these physicists are buying into the superdeterminism you discussed in the post. Bell himself reportedly recognized that, if true, it would provide a loophole to his theorem (although he himself discounted the possibility). Apparently his theorem implicitly assumes libertarian free will on the part of the experimenters. (I’m on board with compatibilist free will, but not the libertarian variety.)
I mentioned quantum interpretations because some of them are deterministic, and the many-worlds interpretation, as I understand it, seems compatible with superdeterminism. It’s deterministic and local, as are a few other interpretations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations
Myself, until there is some evidence for one interpretation over the others, I’m agnostic on all of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mike,
I’m agnostic at well at this point and don’t fully understand all of the implications of the various interpretations to the work of Bell, and the subsequent experimental tests based on his work. It seems like we’re left with selecting one of the following, based upon our preference: Bell’s work was correct and there is something non-local; or the universe splits into many more each time something “happens”; or quantum waves are traveling equally forward and backward in time; or quantum mechanics is only a way to discern what can be known, not what really is.
All very interesting choices and it seems we’ve got to tolerate some postmodern weirdness in any outcome we select. It’s heady stuff, isn’t it!
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Michael,
I think it’s a stark reminder of the limitations of our minds, minds that evolved to model the environment as it works at a certain level, that produce what is sometimes called “the manifest image.” We can only understand things substantially below or above that level by using metaphors from the manifest image. (Which is why spacetime is usually illustrated as a sheet being warped, or quantum phenomena are called “particles” as though they were like a spec of dust.)
But quantum mechanics confronts us with a layer of reality where those metaphors simply no longer work, where what we think of as the most fundamental rules of reality are composite phenomena that emerge from a lower level following different rules, rules that our minds are simply not equipped to relate to, rules that we simply have to accept if we’re going to work with them. This realization makes me wonder if all attempts at interpretation are futile. (Which I think is why so many physicists eventually just throw up their hands and say, “Shut up and calculate.”)
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
I can pick up what you’re laying down to a large extent. Interesting to note that the author (I believe) of the famous statement “Shut up and calculate” was the author of a famous paper attempting to describe entanglement to the lay person, but was devoid of any explanations of the phenomena described. If you search for David Mermin “Bringing Home the Atomic World: Quantum Mysteries for Anybody” you can find a copy online I believe.
When you say the rules are ones that we cannot relate to, I think another way to say that would be that the rules do not conform to our structures of logic. When you try to make sense of what is observed and to draw conclusions logically, inconsistencies arise. So to your point, we’re not capable yet, with the information we have, of producing a logically consistent model of our observations.
I personally view the axiom “Shut up and calculate” as a rather pessimistic approach–almost like giving up because it is difficult. My version of that axiom would be to keep digging, but enjoy the ride. Which is why I like to think of the patterns as partial facets of whatever it is we’re seeing. Like literature. We are finding a few of the themes at work in the whole. They are insightful–interesting and amusing even–and in the end although we may never understand Everything we are certainly enriched by the attempt.
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the other hand, gravity is also “spooky action at a distance”. The only reason it doesn’t seem spooky is because it is so common that we’re all used to it. New stuff (new things, events, people, cultures) often seems a little “spooky” at first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gravity certainly seemed to be “spooky action at a distance” to Newton and his contemporaries. To them, gravity seemed like something that one object instantly did to another distant object, which led some of those contemporaries to be skeptical of his theories. It seemed to give ground on something they had dispelled in the 16th century.
But later Einstein demonstrated that gravity is the warping of spacetime, and that the effects of that warping propagate at the speed of light. In other words, gravity is a localized phenomenon. General relativity removed the action at a distance aspect of gravity.
I’ve often wondered if Einstein’s victory as dispelling that action at a distance aspect was at the heart of his resistance to quantum mechanics. Just as with Newton’s original theory of gravity, it seemed to bring back once again the old pre-mechanistic notion of action at a distance, at least with most QM interpretations.
LikeLike
Michael, I do not necessarily grasp the depth of the entanglement idea but I liked how you tied it in with forgiveness and the idea of going back to the origin.
Couple things that I wanted to mention to you since tou talked about Walter Russell before and the universe as the sound waves. Did you see the recent news that now they are recording the sound waves from the planets? Also I was at the lecture of plant communicatuons and although we laugh at those playing music to their plants, etc. , but latest experiments were done where certain sound waves were played to corb plants and the roots all leaned towards the waves! The sound healing properties of the native american drum to change the vibrational frequencies of cells is also probably much familiar to you.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts, interesting as usual. As Edward Abbey once said, we need poets who are scientists and scientists who are poets.
To the Forgivess,
Kristina
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oooh, I like that quote from Edward Abbey. I had not heard about scientists recording sound waves from planets. I know there was a relatively recent detection, for the first time, of gravity waves. Which is pretty wild! Ripples of space itself!
I have on my desktop right now a photo from the Hubble telescope. I thought it was pretty cool until someone in the office told me the Hubble doesn’t actually take color images. The color gets added later, based on some parameter–for instance they could do a color scale based on x-rays or UV intensity or any number of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation probably. I was a little disappointed! Ha!
So I wonder if the sounds are not a way to transform recordings of other types of radiation into sound using some algorithm. It is still really interesting, but it may not be the case that planets are actually emitting sound through space.
And see, yes… this is why we need the forgiveness. 🙂
Peace
Michael
LikeLiked by 3 people
🙂 Hubble and Photoshop, interesting. And forgiveness please for my spelling too!! That is what happens when you type while your face is being face painted in reds and greens.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I really enjoyed this post Michael. There is much that we dont know, but the door to understanding is opening more and more. Thank you for being a part of this exploration and sharing here. 💛
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Val,
I hope the door is opening as you say. I’m pretty committed to that outlook myself. I think we could all benefit from a dose of realizing things are seldom as they overtly seem, as perhaps this is an equalizing factor between us–this desire to know and to be forced to operate in difficult situations with limited knowledge–that can foster the practice of compassion.
Peace
Michael
LikeLiked by 2 people
💛🙏💛
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think people view reliable causation as a constraint because they tend to assign agency to concepts (see the “Love Chapter”, for example). This error leads them to view determinism as something that strips them of any control over their own lives, forcing them to live out a plan created by the Big Bang. But this is a delusion.
Logically, without reliable cause and effect, we could not reliably cause any effect. That means we would have no freedom to do anything at all. So, all our freedoms actually require a deterministic universe.
The key to unlocking the paradox of free will and determinism, is to realize that determinism is not itself a causal agent. Determinism merely asserts that objects and forces within the universe behave in a reliable and theoretically predictable fashion. It is the objects and forces that actually do all the causing.
And we happen to be one of those objects. As living organisms we behave purposefully to survive, thrive, and reproduce. As an intelligent species, we behave deliberately, by imagining different ways to solve a problem, evaluating our options, and choosing the one that seems best to us at the time.
And when we decide for ourselves what we “will” do, “free” of coercion or other undue influence, we call it “free will”. But when someone forces their choice upon us against our will, then our will is not free.
Now, because our deliberate choices will be most influenced by our own purpose and our own reasons, they will also be theoretically predictable by anyone who knows us well enough to know how we think and feel about different issues. Our choices, to the degree that they are reliable and predictable, are also deterministic.
There is no real conflict between (a) the fact that the choice was authentically our own (free will) and (b) the fact that our choice could be predicted by anyone who knew us well enough (determinism).
And that’s the answer to the riddle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Marvin,
Welcome and thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
I think some of the challenge in separating causality from determinism depends on your philosophical/spiritual orientation. If you think, for instance, that the act of choosing is tied to a consciousness that is not utterly dependent upon physical processes, then it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that causality can be teased apart from determinism. But if you believe that all experiences and factors of what we call “mind” are the product of physical processes that are tied explicitly to deterministic laws, then there is no room in the equation for free will–only the illusion of it. And I think for scientists or for anyone with a materialist orientation, the two cannot really be teased apart unless the underlying physical processes are themselves able to evidence some degree of freedom or vehicle of chance that is not entirely pre-determined.
That said, I like you answer and in particular your observation that exercising free choice, to be meaningful, requires a reliable relationship between cause and effect. Clearly a wholly random system would be meaningless, at minimum, and may be unlikely to give rise to life as we know it. Though there are of course ideas about the way in which chaos produces order, which is another beautiful paradox baked into this reality I think. I read something the other day in which a scientist had shown that maximizing entropy in a colloidal solution caused the emergence of crystalline patterns.
So order arises naturally from chaos, and chaos from order…? Oh, this universe. So, so beautiful…
Peace
Michael
LikeLike
Purpose and reason are causes. So any choice that is based upon purpose and reason is also deterministic. And any being, spiritual or physical, that has a purpose, and that evaluates options via reason, will also exhibit theoretically perfectly predictable behavior. And if God operates indeterministically, then how could anyone count upon any of his promises or covenants.
Purpose orders behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating post Michael. I’ll be the first to admit my brain isn’t so fast these days and so I read and re-read a few times, and as ever it is so well constructed. Awareness of being, consideration of all possibilities and striving at times to see a little farther is no bad thing in my book. But then I did write my book . . . *laughs*
– Esme waving at Michael from upon the Cloud
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! Perfect, Esme. How is that book coming, anyway!? I’m looking forward to its arrival. There are all these interesting themes in physics these days; many stepping off points for pondering the imponderables. I agree that striving to see over the next rise is a good thing–hope can lift us, and knowing what is changeless can lift us even further. Not that we will understand entanglement or anything, but I hear there’s quite a nice view from the Cloud…
Well Wishes and thank you for the kind words, Esme!
Michael
LikeLike
Hahahaha, yes you can see for miles, and miles and miles and . . . up here. – *waves* – The book. Well it should be out by the end of the century. Hahahahaha. The content is all sat there, the proofing making for chewy business mind you, and that’s due to the stories rather than the poems. One edit of one chapter of one story at one point, was sent back and forth 46 times between myself and my proofer. Handbags at dawn it was. *falls about*. I have around eight good illustrations (almost all finished, the main thing is getting a solid framework visually down at present) and the cover design is coming together too. But even when that’s all done and dusted, it will be such a wondrous item I’ll need to carry on saving up just to produce it at the level of magnificence I’m after. So probably a couple of years or so. As long as it appears in final form whilst I’m still alive . . . I’ll be happy hahahaha.
– Esme having white tea and sticky buns with Michael upon the Cloud
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though I did not comment initially, you have struck up, again, what is a continuous conversation *in my mind* about an ongoing inquiry into the nature of things and what is measurable, and especially what is spooky and compellingly interesting, even if possibly just an illusion of entanglement. I did check out the link. I listened and and I read to the Quanta Literature and podcast and still wasnt sure exactly whether or not I was fated to do that. Then, I realized, it really didn’t matter to me thus I was not troubled by such dichotomies of did the starlight know I was going to measure it or not. Nevertheless, your post did continue to fuel my fire with curiosity and appreciation for the brilliance of toys we have here on Earth, and gratitude for my ungraspability of it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Ka, it is ultimately a tad un-graspable, which was part of my approach here. I’ve gone through stages of grasping and accepting, and I think I’ve found that in accepting I am free to simply discover and enjoy the various themes that emerge for us to explore. There is so much written into the language of this world… It is unbelievable, how perfectly balanced it all is…
With Joy!
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
i’m imagining God
being revealed
by physicists,
who coyly smile
as they find contentment
and somehow lose
all the data 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person