## Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

hrmilo
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:49 am

### Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

Take out your digital camera, point it at a blank white wall, and snap a picture. What do you have? A digital canvas of, let us say, 1024-by-1024 pixels. Take each row of pixels, top to bottom, and line them end to end. Now you have one long string of pixels. Though your mind cannot put it together, the image is none-the-less still there. Let each pixel support a color depth of roughly sixteen million color variations, a modest color depth today. That would indicate each pixel holding about twenty-four bits of computer information (2^24 = 16,777,216). So, now our extremely long pixel string becomes in reality a long binary number of 1024 x 1024 x 24 bits, or 25,165,824 bits. If we counted through this number, starting from zero, we would, in effect, be iterating through each pixel of our image and through every color each one could produce. The modest computer I am sitting at would take roughly twenty-seven days to count through all the iterations that such a binary number could represent. So let's imagine a very powerful computer that could do it in twenty-seven microseconds. So, in less than a second, we have a computer creating an image of everything that was, that is, or that will come to pass. Including every image in fantasy, alternate universe, and deepest hell. Now take what we know of quantum computing. A quantum computer storing the same number of qbits will hold, simultaneously juxtaposed, all possible states that number could represent. In effect, it holds an image of all imagined possibility all at one time. Research suggests that is the nature of these qbits until you observe them. By observing them, you bring substance and reality to one of those multitudes of possibilities. Similar to Shor's algorithm for quantum integer factorization, might it become possible to reduce the guesswork of quantum values such that you eliminate all but those images that are likely to hold our future. Perhaps we begin with some image of today, and through a set of probabilistic logic, we find that reel of images that plays like a video of what is to come. In this way we become time travelers. What is the difference if we are beings of a future moving back to the past, or simply beings of the present with the same knowledge of our future. This idea that all possibilities exist until the point of observation is an interesting one. We are beings floating in a quantum sea and our conscientiousness exacts an observation which solidifies reality on-the-fly. Perhaps when I watch you cross the room, I am not seeing this one solid structure moving through time, but from moment to moment, I am seeing a quantum probability solidify through my observation. It is, perhaps, through proximity to one another, our observation upon one another, that we influence each others quantum realizations. Perhaps our collective conscience keeps those nearest us on the same relative track in space-time.  When you arrive home tongiht, the wife you kiss isn't the wife you kissed earlier that morning.  That wife has already split off down some other alter-reality you are no longer part of.  If observation is the key to solidifying reality, it might explain why witnesses to an event can vary in testimony so incredibly.

henry quirk
Posts: 3125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here
There's only one universe...the cat is dead or alive, not both...reality is held together with Gorilla Glue.

thedoc
Posts: 6425
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re:

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:46 pm
There's only one universe...the cat is dead or alive, not both...reality is held together with Gorilla Glue.
What they are saying about the cat is that they don't know if it's dead or alive.

Gorilla Glue expands while it dries, perhaps that is why the Universe is expanding, the glue is still drying.

Impenitent
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re:

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:46 pm
There's only one universe...the cat is dead or alive, not both...reality is held together with Gorilla Glue.
this explains all the loose chimpanzees quite nicely...

-Imp

attofishpi
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

hrmilo wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:07 am
Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?
The contradiction to your premise is that in fact the quantum universe DOES NOT have a collective reality. As i have bared witness to, where people around me, in their reality witnessed fuck all.

Michael MD
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

The universal-ether model I have previously described in past threads provides the only rational model for explaining Quantum Entanglement.

The model starts with the idea that the likeliest mechanism for First Cause that produced the universe was Oscillation. The likeliest substrate for such an oscillatory process would have been pure original space. The oscillating "points" would have been finite (if oscillatory-reciprocity-distances had been infinite, oscillation could not have occurred, and nothing further could have happened.) These point-localities which oscillated would have had non-oscillating space between them to provide "room" for oscillational motion to occur. -This leads to the concept that massless oscillating elemental, universal, point localities of such "portions" of space, itself, were what came first.

This will lead, later, into the model for quantum entanglement.

After these universal "points" oscillated reciprocally for a certain amount of time, oscillatory fatigue of neighboring points occurred, in which "Yin Yang" pairings of two points came together, as in the classic depiction of Yin and Yang. (Oscillatory fatigue is a process known to occur in metals.) Such a pairing of two units would have had to reversibly revert to singleton elemental units, which now would have been out-of-phase with the oscillations, which would have destroyed the perfect symmetry of original oscillational space, producing directional vibrating elements out of the oscillational elements. -This is how a universal ether composed of energically-vibrating elemental ether units would have arisen from pure space. (The etheric units would interact as their outward vibrations come into contact.) Everything from the on would have been composed of these elemental units. -The next step would have been that these vibrational elements would have served to underlay transition to our present quantum/atomic structured world - for which I don't see any other possibility than creational design, using etherically finely-tuned forces to move larger quantum units around via designed pathways (i.e., through "like-unit" pathways, or channels, through the surrounding ether matrix.)

You need creational input to account for how antiparticles could have been channeled out of the way of the new quantum-particle universe (present quantum physics still can't explain why antiparticles are not found in the present universe.)

Finally, this picture - of an unstructured ether matrix composed of elemental ether units existing together with our structured quantum-world where all the quantum units and atoms are made of these same elemental units - represents the only kind of model that can rationally explain Quantum Entanglement.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

Michael MD wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:27 pm
The universal-ether model I have previously described in past threads provides the only rational model for explaining Quantum Entanglement.

The model starts with the idea that the likeliest mechanism for First Cause that produced the universe was Oscillation. The likeliest substrate for such an oscillatory process would have been pure original space. The oscillating "points" would have been finite (if oscillatory-reciprocity-distances had been infinite, oscillation could not have occurred, and nothing further could have happened.) These point-localities which oscillated would have had non-oscillating space between them to provide "room" for oscillational motion to occur. -This leads to the concept that massless oscillating elemental, universal, point localities of such "portions" of space, itself, were what came first.

This will lead, later, into the model for quantum entanglement.

After these universal "points" oscillated reciprocally for a certain amount of time, oscillatory fatigue of neighboring points occurred, in which "Yin Yang" pairings of two points came together, as in the classic depiction of Yin and Yang. (Oscillatory fatigue is a process known to occur in metals.) Such a pairing of two units would have had to reversibly revert to singleton elemental units, which now would have been out-of-phase with the oscillations, which would have destroyed the perfect symmetry of original oscillational space, producing directional vibrating elements out of the oscillational elements. -This is how a universal ether composed of energically-vibrating elemental ether units would have arisen from pure space. (The etheric units would interact as their outward vibrations come into contact.) Everything from the on would have been composed of these elemental units. -The next step would have been that these vibrational elements would have served to underlay transition to our present quantum/atomic structured world - for which I don't see any other possibility than creational design, using etherically finely-tuned forces to move larger quantum units around via designed pathways (i.e., through "like-unit" pathways, or channels, through the surrounding ether matrix.)

You need creational input to account for how antiparticles could have been channeled out of the way of the new quantum-particle universe (present quantum physics still can't explain why antiparticles are not found in the present universe.)

Finally, this picture - of an unstructured ether matrix composed of elemental ether units existing together with our structured quantum-world where all the quantum units and atoms are made of these same elemental units - represents the only kind of model that can rationally explain Quantum Entanglement.
I like the theory. However, would it be better to equate the pure space to the ether itself, which reflecting upon itself produced the oscillatory elements?

These oscillatory elements, seem to be dependent on time (if not existing as time itself) and in these respects are conducive to the necessary "flux" or "movement" which results in creation, in these respects they are not original "entities" themselves (as you have pointed out).

In these respects would they maintain the "unity" necessary to constitute an "ether(ial dimension)"? I am of the opinion they would not qualify due to this.

In simpler terms, and this is only from one read through, your theory appears correct if reversed.

uwot
Posts: 3618
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

Michael MD wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:27 pm
The universal-ether model I have previously described in past threads provides the only rational model for explaining Quantum Entanglement.
Don't be so silly. The idea that only your model is rational just shows you don't know what rational means; and your assertion that only it explains quantum entanglement just shows you don't know what "explaining" means.
You are confusing 'makes sense' with 'is true'.

Michael MD
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

The part of my Ether Model referring to "oscillations" only refers to a"first cause" state, or setting, existing universally, where portions of space were acting as oscillating point-localities. Then the oscillating elemental points transitioned to vibrating elemental units, forming an ether which co-exists with the (remaining) parts of space that had "provided the room" between the oscillations of other, elemental, portions of space.

The ether that formed after that is vibrational. The oscillations no longer exist. That state of space had transitioned to a new kind of space containing an ether.

So-called Quantum Entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in the phenomenon, with the quantum units kineticaly "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, ether mechanism.

The key concept in this model is that quantum units and atoms, like everything else in our world, are made of the same elemental units as those that make up the surrounding ether matrix.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

Michael MD wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:08 pm
The part of my Ether Model referring to "oscillations" only refers to a"first cause" state, or setting, existing universally, where portions of space were acting as oscillating point-localities. Then the oscillating elemental points transitioned to vibrating elemental units, forming an ether which co-exists with the (remaining) parts of space that had "provided the room" between the oscillations of other, elemental, portions of space.

The ether that formed after that is vibrational. The oscillations no longer exist. That state of space had transitioned to a new kind of space containing an ether.

So-called Quantum Entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in the phenomenon, with the quantum units kineticaly "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, ether mechanism.

The key concept in this model is that quantum units and atoms, like everything else in our world, are made of the same elemental units as those that make up the surrounding ether matrix.
That would imply, if I understand you correctly, that the "if-then" process that resulted in the "ether" means the "ether" had a beginning. If that is the case, and we are assuming this, then the ether has a temporal nature which is conducive to flux. This "flux" would imply a deficiency in stability or "unity" which would eliminate it as the ether.

I believe you are describing something of value, I don't think it qualifies as the "ether" however.

Michael MD
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

The ether would not be subject to the kind of flux processes that occur with quantum systems.

Our scientific observation and the deductions derived from them all involved quantum systems, which in our atomic world are the only energy systems we are aware of, and our scientific "rules" apply to. Quantum forces operate via spin, vectors, and waves, and field effects, such as the fluxes that develop, are a reflection of this.

The ether described in my Model would operate in a completely different way. This ether underlies quantum systems, but it operates via a vibrational mechanism. The elemental units of the ether matrix function like a smooth purring uniform background system, but the elemental units of the ether matrix also can produce interactions having "peripheral" effects, such as producing larger-scale units, or what could be called particle "capacities" (rather than discrete "particles," since they are actually made up of multiple elemental units.) The way quantum systems develop from the ether would be complex to describe. -Basically, the idea is that quantum units and atoms are formed when multiple elemental ether units become entrained with each other, via their vibrating resonational interactions.

If creational design, using etheric forces, was indeed what led to our structured quantum/atomic world, as proposed in my Ether Model, the way this could have happened would have been that mentally, the tiniest (or "electronic") etheric units were projected into space, then they entrained with each other into larger units, which were slower ("neutronic" and "protonic") units, and which "sat" inside the new atoms which formed, while the speedier smaller electronic units curved around and past the new atomic nuclei.

But the underlying ether matrix, with its innumerable elemental units, would still be present and function as the background matrix for this new structured universe.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

Michael MD wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:14 pm
The ether would not be subject to the kind of flux processes that occur with quantum systems.

"Would the ether be subject to "flux" at all?" is my point. Any form of flux, at all, implies a duality of "actuality" and "potentiality". In these respects, the ether, would be subject to movement. This nature of "potentiality" is a deficiency in "actuality" and in these respects is a deficiency in being itself. The ether would no longer be "unified".

If this is true, and the ether does contain these elements of flux through vibration, then their must be a synonymous dimension which keeps the ether unified. This would in effect be another "ether", and we arrive at either a paradox or contradiction (depending on which direction you want to take it).

Michael MD
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

The question of whether fluxes can exist with a universal ether is more complex than discussed so far.

My Ether Model is that our present structured quantum/atomic world was preceded by an "ether world" where such structuring and magnetically-balanced stability did not exist. -That would have been the reason for creational transition to an atomic structured world, in which magnetic conditions would be more balanced.

Going back to the conditions that existed in that earlier ether world, there likely would have existed "fluxes" of ether forces which got built up by entrainment of vibrational interactive elemental ether units. Such energy build-ups would not have been under any controlling macrocosmic magnetic setting around them such as exists in our world, so it's logical to believe that random "fluxes" of energy existed at that time. -In such an "energy overdrive" situation, fluxes could have resulted in foci of intense etheric energy that we can't even imagine from our present world of quantum forces. An energy "overdrive" location like that could even have produced dynamically-unidirectional magnetic monopoles, which could have stimulated the very beginning of life and intelligence.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

Michael MD wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:32 pm
The question of whether fluxes can exist with a universal ether is more complex than discussed so far.

My Ether Model is that our present structured quantum/atomic world was preceded by an "ether world" where such structuring and magnetically-balanced stability did not exist. -That would have been the reason for creational transition to an atomic structured world, in which magnetic conditions would be more balanced.

Going back to the conditions that existed in that earlier ether world, there likely would have existed "fluxes" of ether forces which got built up by entrainment of vibrational interactive elemental ether units.

If the ether observed a particulate nature as "interactive elemental ether units", what would distinguish its interactions from the science of "quantum mechanics"? It appears to me, that what you are observing is not the ether but rather the "apeirion" (or a dimension similiar too it, which is strict "chaos". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology). The "apieron" is strictly "nothingness".

The reason I bring this up is that the ether, or at least what I understand of it as the common understanding, is strictly "being" in and of itself. A God dimension, could be an approximate definition of this. This "ether" in order to maintain itself as stable, or "deficient in flux", manifests itself through a continual self-reflection, with this reflection being synonymous to stability (think of any geometry form being stable through the reflection of "points"). This self reflection in turn not just maintains itself but manifests further structures as extensions or "approximates" of itself.

However these approximates, by their very nature as being deficient in original unity, contain an element of deficiency which is synonymous to "randomness" or "chaos". In this respect, through the self-reflection of the ether, and approximate dimension of the "apeiron" (which seems closer to what you are describing) came into being. "Came into being" is a poor word as technically it always existed as the "limit" of "limitless" ether .

(this would imply the ether by definition being best describe as a 1 dimensional point from which the 2 dimensional "circle" as "apeiron" would extend. This circle, as a sign of constant flux, evidence by the metaphor of the self- eating snake Ourboroshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros)

The "apeiron", as a dual dimension to the "ether", would be one of continual flux which this flux manifested as the continual relation of "particulate" as grades of "unity" or "fractals". These particulate in turn would exist through actual relations, as a "part" cannot exist unless it moves towards "unity". defined in turned by their potential relations. In this respect we observe the nature of "time" as an extension of the "apieron" through "actual" and "potential" particulate.

This "apieron" taking on the form and function of the particles which composed it, has infinite potential (which is equivalent to "non-being", in the respect that the "time" it produces fluxes and comes to an end before another one "pops up". Time in this respect can be viewed as a particle in that it is both actual and potential and "fluxes" or is metaphorically the "beating heart of the ether".

In this respect the "apieron" fluxes in order to "relate" or "move/flux towards" the ether as an act of continual relation.

In these respects, one could argue that the "ether" is a dimension of "stable reflection" as the universal mind or Logos. The "apieron" (which is what I believe you are closer to describing, and it is easy to confused since both are highly "symmetrical") one could argue is a dimension of "fluxing relations" or "relativity" as the universal "body" as matter.

One could extend the nature of Descartes mind/body dualism to the "macro" as an example of this.

However the dualism fails as all polarities result in and "either/or" flux. The question of what happens when an "immovable object/ether" faces and "unstoppable force/apeiron" comes to mind.

The only logical result of this dualism would be "synthesis" resulting in "being" which consciousness or "axioms" as the middle points. This is an important point to observe because the processes you are observing are what inevitably resulted in the consciousness allowing our "discussion". So in many respect that nature of "space" behaving in the manner we are observing are the fundamental building blocks of not only the empirical universe but the "axioms" we develop.

This synthesis, in turn as the manifestation of axioms (or human consciousness), is simply the manifestation of both "dimensional limits" (from which order as "space" begins and ends) and "possible dimensional limits" (possible non-existing order from which "space" begins and "ends"). It is from the nature of the axiom, or "axil" of measurement/being, that we come to the understanding of the center as a "third" dimension through the "sphere" as a synthesis of the 1 dimensional reflective ethereal point and the 2 dimensional relational apeironic circle (or Ouroboros).

The nature of the ether being observed as a universal "point" (which we observe everywhere), the apeiron as a fluxing or rotating circle (which is further argued as necessary due to the spin cycles found within quantum mechanics and the cyclical nature of all "movement"), and the median point as 3 dimensional existence embodied fully through the "sphere", observes the necessity of observe all reality through the nature of the point/circle/sphere as three in 1 and one in three. These 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 "spaces" are all Universal in both form and function and show an unavoidability in observing basic geometry as the foundations for "being" itself.

Such energy build-ups would not have been under any controlling macrocosmic magnetic setting around them such as exists in our world, so it's logical to believe that random "fluxes" of energy existed at that time. -In such an "energy overdrive" situation, fluxes could have resulted in foci of intense etheric energy that we can't even imagine from our present world of quantum forces. An energy "overdrive" location like that could even have produced dynamically-unidirectional magnetic monopoles, which could have stimulated the very beginning of life and intelligence.

To build upon both our points further, what we are describing (and I stick by my argument that you are describing the "apeiron" rather than the "ether") is not only "reality" but "consciousness" itself. In these respects these are the "universal principles" of space, which space composing everything imaginable, including imagination. This "nature" of circularity, or "poles" is unavoidable whether we look at the macroscopic stars or microscopic atoms. The median point, us, manifests fully through the nature of "axiom" which observes the inherent "paradoxical/rotary" nature of all observations and logic we use. We cannot even observe "logic" without eventually coming to terms with the "paradox" as a "progressive cycle" or "contradiction" as regressive cycle. Even when one argues, we observe "axioms" as "points". In these respects the process both of us are describing are not only of the "physical" but are transcendental universal properties of "space".

It is in these respects that all "space" as "being" I would argued, and I believe you would agree based upon the form of your argument, is the study of "points/circles/spheres" as the "universal nature of space".

osgart
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

### Re: Is our collective reality held together by quantum entanglements?

universal in the sense of omnipresent?

an undetectable substance, or energy is the ether?

are very essence of being is potentialities in all possible states?

and then actualizing this potential manifests itself in spacetime?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests