Quantum mechanics shows deep connections based on empirical evidence.This is Einstein’s famous “spooky action at a distance.”Particles that split apart from one another seem to be in communication as they track on trajectories away from one another at incredible speeds.It’s almost as if there’s will involved.Maybe there is.If intention is part of the natural world, we’re in trouble.Well, at least stark materialism is.You can’t measure will.We all know what it is because we feel it.Try to define it.Isn’t will a matter of what you want?What could a particle possibly want?If it’s small it can’t hurt us, right?But once it crosses a certain level, it no longer works.Science trembles at quantum mechanics being applied at the non-microscopic level.
Ironically science is wedded to an idea proposed by a medieval cleric.Early scientists were often clergy—an association most scientists would prefer to forget these days.William of Ockham (fourteenth century) proposed an idea that became the surefooted stance of science in its toddler phase.Simply reduced it goes like this: the single natural explanation, without relying on outside forces, is probably the best.It’s known as Ockham’s Razor (aka Occam’s Razor). Yet Ockham was a Franciscan Friar, a cleric.His thinking and reasoning were necessarily informed by ecclesiastical thought.Or, not to put too fine a point on it, theology.His razor avoided entanglements.Ironically, science refers to this quantum connection as entanglement.
Humans, it seems, have a tendency toward contrariness.We’re oppositional.When we’re told that quantum mechanics applies only to the very small, we wonder if maybe the same principles don’t work “up here” at our scale.It’s hard to conceive that even our scale is simply a matter of perspective.Since we’re uncomfortable with the idea we suggest that only our species is conscious.That way we can keep the will out of animals as well as subatomic particles, let alone larger scale entities such as planets, galaxies, and universes.Maybe entanglement suggests Ockham’s Razor is dull.Before getting out the philosophical strop, perhaps we should ask if the simplest explanation is really the best after all.Maybe the best answer is far more complex than we’d like to admit.I love science.I still, when I have time, read science books written for the laity.It’s just that science, like religion, is part of a larger picture.As much as we fear entanglement, it is an empirically observed part of life in our universe.
This history of ideas is perhaps the most stimulating of intellectual topics.At least to me.The pedigree of an idea tells us something of its validity—its authority, as it were.I have been reading about the early days of science.(Even the idea that science is modern is a mistaken concept; the earliest tool-makers were in some sense scientists.) A book I was reading made the point that in the Renaissance, magic was a proper competitor to science.Magic was sophisticated, based on much of what we would now call “science”—the belief was that the connections between an interconnected universe were hidden.All things were tied together, nevertheless.This presages not only the concept of evolution but modern cosmology as well.The more I thought of this, the more it occurred to me that oppositional thinking, in some sense, dooms the possibilities of finding the truth.
Quantum mechanics, which I understand only on a lay level, has been puzzling over entanglement for some years now.Entanglement was characterized by Einstein’s phrase “spooky action at a distance.”Still, experiments have show that particles that have no way of “knowing” what each other are doing, are nevertheless connected.That connection is nothing physical, nothing material.Indeed, it makes materialists quite nervous.The inert world of quanta should show no tendency towards “will” or “intention” at all.So we call it something else—entanglement.As I read about Renaissance magic, I realized that it was suggesting just this.Of course, they had no means of observing what particle accelerators, such as that at CERN, reveal.Their “science,” however, successfully predicted it.Were it not for the history of ideas we could let materialists think they’ve discovered something new.Historically, though, they haven’t.(I’m not suggesting that quantum mechanics work on the macro level, but I’m observing that magic supposed some kind of entanglement existed.)
This is some kind of entanglement!
Often I have made bold to challenge Occam.I wear a beard for a reason.One size does not fit all in the entangled universe.Some consider the exploration of spiritual aspects of life to be a waste of time.Look at any university pay scales and be so bold as to differ.The funny thing is, science is only now beginning to catch up with what we historically have called magic.There seem to be multiple explanations to the behavior of the material world instead of a single one.Once an idea becomes orthodoxy it becomes dangerous.Reason is very, very important.But reason sometimes get entangled in a world only revealed in the history of ideas.