Is Quantum Nonlocality all around us? Living in a Telekinetic entangled reality of quantum biology, no longer just Metaphysics!

The physical concept of quantum entanglement is brought to the biological domain. We simulate the cooperation of two insects by hypothesizing that they share a large number of quantum entangled spin-1/2 particles. Each of them makes measurements on these particles to decide whether to execute certain actions. In the first example, two ants must push a pebble, which may be too heavy for one ant. In the second example, two distant butterflies must find each other. In both examples the individuals make odour-guided random choices of possible directions, followed by a quantum decision whether to push/fly or to wait. With quantum entanglement the two ants can push the pebble up to twice as far as independent ants, and the two butterflies may need as little as half of the flight path of independent butterflies to find each other.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2195024_Quantum_Cooperation_of_Two_Insects

This dude Johann Summhammer worked with Zeilinger doing research - so he is no small fry in quantum research.

 the random moves of both individuals will be quite coordinated.

So what this means is that despite science THINKING or mathematically assuming the foundation of reality is random - in fact it is nonlocal!

I would not call it spamming. I would call it free and open discussion. It's not uncommon for posts to diverge from the initial topic. 
 
Still, it's your thread. If you want so constrained, I will bow out.
 
Adios!

  So in a "thread" on thedaobums I was responding to other people acknowledging this quantum foundation of reality - but of course the OP assumes that the foundation of reality must be "random" and therefore can not even acknowledge what I am pointing out (and the others as well!).

On 6/23/2018 at 9:04 AM, Michael Sternbach said:

 But is that really how it works? What if Yijing divination, in order to create meaning, is using what we think of as "chance", rather than defying it? The "hidden order" concept of quantum mechanics comes to mind.

 

You have precisely summed up the situation here.

  Quote

 
In most common situations, averaging over the particle positions in the causal model makes the mean direct influence of one particle on another at large distances negligibly small. This is not so, however, in EPR-type situations where the wave function has a non-decomposability property which makes this interaction at a distance significantly different from zero even at long range(13). But, even in these situations, once we take an ensemble average, using the special distribution function in phase space that assures the statistical equivalence of the causal interpretation and quantum mechanics, we revert to the quantum mechanical prediction that statistically no influence at a distance can be demonstrated. One may ask, however, why only these special distribution functions should apply. Is there anything absolute about the ignorance implicit in the use of these particular distribution functions? The argument will be made in the following that other distribution functions, with different statistical properties, are relevant in other contexts, especially those associated with life.
Situations where a change in context leads to a new kind of statistical distribution becoming relevant are indeed commonplace in science: they occur for example whenever a phase transition occurs that leads to a breaking of symmetry. As a result of symmetry breaking, statistical distributions that are asymmetric with regard to this symmetry may come into existence in situations where previously only symmetric distributions were observable or relevant. Analogously, it can be anticipated that special situations will exist whose natural description involves probability distributions other than the particular ones that arise in the quantum formalism.
 

Paper published in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207, 1991, (c) Plenum Press.

Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality[1] Brian D. Josephson[2] and Fotini Pallikari-Viras[3]   http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html  

So this is precisely what Johann Summhammer is doing.

So standard physics thinks such macro quantum entanglement is impossible:

  with increasing complexity of the entanglement

— as would be the case in systems of many degrees of freedom, e.g. from

molecules upwards — the deviation from classical physics as witnessed by

violations of Bell inequalities becomes stronger [6],[7]. Therefore, traces of

QE might be noticeable between such systems even aft er appreciable contact

with the environment.

 It has also been suggested that correlations found

between the electroencephalograms from two different persons could be due

to QE [14, 15]. Indeed, one can easily think of a wide range of biological

processes, where QE would lead to a Darwinian advantage: Quantum entan-

glement could coordinate biochemical reactions in different parts of a cell,

or in different part s of an organ. It could allow correlated firings of distant

neurons. And — as shall be the topic here — it could coordinate the be-

havior of members of a species, because it requires no physical link a nd is

independent of distance. It is also conceivable that QE correlates processes

between members of different species, a nd even between living systems and

the inanimate world.

 Yes indeed! This is straight up shamanistic spirituality as quantum biology. Scientifically it is very possible and probable!

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503136   full link there.

Here's another one! 

The before-before experiment demonstrates that quantum randomness can be controlled by influences from outside spacetime, and therefore by immaterial free will. Rather than looking at quantum physics as the model for explaining free will, one should look at free will as a primitive principle for explaining why the laws of Nature are quantum.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282691753_Unified_description_of_quantum_nonlocal_and_relativistic_local_correlations_Both_assume_free_will_and_happen_without_connection_in_space-time

It is argued that quantum and relativistic correlations can be described in a unified way, in that both assume free will as an axiom, and happen without any continuous connection in space-time. This description may contribute to a coherent definition of "space-time quantization" and highlights the importance of solving the "measurement problem".

So instead of a "superdeterminism" model - we have the OPPOSITE model - of total free will.



So ten years later Summhammer is building on this same concept - the "appearance" of randomness does not MEAN it is random!

arXiv:1611.05737  [pdf, other]  physics.gen-ph

Telekinetic Entanglement

Authors: Johann Summhammer

Abstract: A numerical thought experiment with two momentum correlated particles is presented, in which particle A passes through a series of zig-zagging slits and particle B moves unobstructedly. It is shown that, if particle A's meandering path is monitored by successive non-detections, particle B will loosely adhere to a similar trajectory without violating momentum conservation. The discussion relates th… ▽ More

Submitted 15 November, 2016; originally announced November 2016. 

 

 So by "precursor" - what is really going on here is that the "intention" as "free will" then resonates with the future as a guiding wave - that is superluminal - as per de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony. To quote the "free will" dude Antoine Suarez:

a mind influences local randomness from outside spacetime to produce nonlocal or-
der....By contrast, one can coherently assume that the correlations between observed events (no matter whether they are quantum nonlocal or relativistic local ones) originate

always from outside space-time: There are correlated visible things, which define the “real physical space-time”, and invisible influences producing the correlations from

outside space-time!...The introduction of the space-time continuum (geometry and “real” numbers) in physics is a useful idealization, but it should not be considered a
“real” structure underpinning the physical world.

O.K. let's assume your "self-organizing random" exotic theory is true.
https://www.blueswami.com/home/blog/randomreality

  Quote

IF YOU could lift a corner of the veil that shrouds reality, what would you see beneath? Nothing but randomness, say two Australian physicists. According to Reginald Cahill and Christopher Klinger of Flinders University in Adelaide, space and time and all the objects around us are no more than the froth on a deep sea of randomness.

Then, based on your assumption, "life" is still explained as quantum nonlocality. Oops. haha.

  Quote

Cahill and Klinger believe that these defects are the stuff we are made of, as described by the wave functions of quantum theory, because they have a special property shared by quantum entities: nonlocality. In quantum theory, the properties of two particles can be correlated, or "entangled", even when they are so far apart that no signal can pass between them. "This ghostly long-range connectivity is apparently outside of space," says Cahill. But in Cahill and Klinger's model of reality, there are some connections that act like wormholes to connect far-flung topological defects.

Then we need to address entropy and the ecological crisis - from science wrongly assuming life is random. Oh well. This assumes a logarithmic definition of number.

Math is funny that way. Now "weak measurements" of phase entanglement are disproving randomness as the foundation of reality:

"Hardy's paradox is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics devised by Lucien Hardy[1][2] in which a particle and its antiparticle may interact without annihilating each other. The paradox arises in that this may only occur if the interaction is not observed and so it seemed that one might never be able to confirm this.[3] Experiments[4][5] using the technique of weak measurement[3] have studied an interaction of polarized photons and these have demonstrated that the phenomenon does occur. However, the consequence of these experiments maintain only that past events can be inferred about after their occurrence as a probabilistic wave collapse. These weak measurements are considered by some[who?] to be an observation themselves, and therefore part of the causation of wave collapse, making the objective results only a probabilistic function rather than a fixed reality."

Narayanankutty Karuppath

Professor and Chairman, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University

Quantum Non-Locality and Universe N Karuppath, P Achuthan arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.1414 (pdf) So if we assume the foundation of reality IS quantum - and therefore noncommutative - then randomness becomes a "special" situation - and not truly "free."  https://terrytao.wordpress.com/tag/noncommutative-probability/

2009

This is only possible because of the highly non-commutative nature of these matrices; as we shall see, it is not possible for non-trivial commuting independent random variables to be freely independent.

So now we move onto Gerard 't HOoft. 

He does favor superdeterminism:

But his "determinism" is limited to BEABLES - not to "changeables" - the math involved in the measurement problem.

So now we get to the Big Bell Test:

Wow!!

Formally measurement setting independence for Bell's test had to rely on randomness that was not really random - and maybe not even "free" - it could be deterministic.
















So to address the "hidden order of quantum physics" issue that Michael Sternbach raised - this is a known "loop hole" in quantum physics.

A Bell test is a randomized trial that compares experimental observations against the philosophical worldview of local realism¹, in which the properties of the physical world are independent of our observation of them and no signal travels faster than light. A Bell test requires spatially distributed entanglement, fast and high-efficiency detection and unpredictable measurement settings^2,3.

O.K. so This is called Bell's Inequality Test - and it has been "disproven" - which means that indeed the foundation of reality is non-local - just as Daoism maintains - there ARE superluminal correlations - faster than light.

physical setting choices

This was the big loophole - whether the "Measurement settings" truly are RANDOM or not.

So then I accessed the pdf through https://sci-hub.tw/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0085-3
just enter the link to get a pdf download.
And so what this experiment verifies - just as John Bell argued - is that instead of using "random number generators" - it is better to use Human Free Will to create the 0/1 number string.
Randomness is NOT required for the measurement settings but instead what is required is:

independence of choices from the hidden variables.

So this is very similar to the I Ching experiment because it involves a person making choices.

Simultaneous experiments on five continents challenge Einstein's principle of local realism. Participants contributed to the experiment generating more than 90 million bits, unpredictably choosing among measurements to escape a paradox known as the 'freedom-of-choice loophole'.

So the freedom of choice loophole is precisely this idea of quantum nonlocality as a deterministic factor.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509135409.htm

the possibility that the particles themselves influence the choice of measurement. Such influence, if it existed, would invalidate the test;

But local realism is a question we can't fully answer with a machine. It seems we ourselves must be part of the experiment, to keep the Universe honest."

And so this experiment RULES OUT the use of random number generators to test the foundation of reality.
And what is this foundation of reality? Well again the mainstream view is that there are correlations that are superluminal - but inherently unknowable until they are measured. This is called Lucian Hardy's Paradox.
But other experiments have shown these correlations can be views in "real time" - as "weak measurements" based on the phase probability - or the quantum potential as Bohm called it - these are the noncommtuative "changeables" that once measured become "beables."
And so based on that evidence - Nobel Physicist Gerard t' Hooft argued the Universe is STILL deterministic (not random) at the microscale.
So the point being that "unknowable" is NOT the same as random - and "unknowable" possibly could still be deterministic.

How Does God Play Dice? (Pre-)Determinism at the Planck Scale

Gerard 't Hooft (Utrecht)

(Submitted on 25 Apr 2001)

In deterministic theories, one can start from a set of ontological states to formulate the dynamical laws, but these may not be directly observable. Observable are only equivalence classes of states, and these will span a basis of "beables", to be promoted to an orthonormal basis of Hilbert Space. After transforming this basis to a more conventional basis, a theory may result that is fundamentally quantum mechanical. It is conjectured that the quantum laws of the real world may be understood from exactly such a procedure.

So it depends on how the experiment is defined but this gets into Entropy again since randomness is inherently tied to entropy - and when we get into entropy then we have to consider the "externalities" of science itself. We assume science to be objective but the "entropy" of science has been a vast ecological and social injustice crisis on Earth.

So again Daoism doesn't deal with any of this - randomness is not part of Daoism, since entropy as part of randomness assumes the foundation of reality is a geometric, logarithmic continuum. This is clearly NOT Daoism. haha.