Philosophical lessons of entanglement

International Journal of Theoretical Physics

In physics, entanglement ‘reduces’ the entropy of an entity, because the (von Neumann) entropy of, e.g., a composite bipartite entity in a pure entangled state is systematically lower than the entropy of the component sub-entities. We show here that this ‘genuinely non-classical reduction of entropy as a result of composition’ also holds whenever two concepts combine in human cognition and, more generally, it is valid in human culture. On the basis of these results, we make a ‘new hypothesis’ on the nature of entanglement, namely, the production of entanglement in the preparation of a composite entity can be seen as a ‘dynamical process of collaboration between its sub-entities to reduce uncertainty’, because the composite entity is in a pure state while its sub-entities are in a non-pure state as a result of the preparation. We identify within the nature of this entanglement a mechanism of contextual updating and illustrate the mechanism in the examples we analyse. Our hypothesis n...

Many experiments have shown that quantum entanglement is physically real. In this paper, we will discuss its ontological origin, implications and applications by thinking outside the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics. We argue that quantum entanglement originates from the primordial spin processes in non-spatial and non-temporal pre-spacetime, implies genuine interconnectedness and inseparableness of once interacting quantum entities, plays vital roles in biology and consciousness and, once better understood and harnessed, has far-reaching consequences and applications in many fields such as medicine and neuroscience. We further argue that quantum computation power also originates from the primordial spin processes in pre-spacetime. Finally, we discuss the roles of quantum entanglement in spin-mediated consciousness theory.

Synthese, 2016

Quantum entanglement is widely believed to be a feature of physical reality with undoubted (though debated) metaphysical implications. But Schrödinger introduced entanglement as a theoretical relation between representatives of the quantum states of two systems. Entanglement represents a physical relation only if quantum states are elements of physical reality. So arguments for metaphysical holism or nonseparability from entanglement rest on a questionable view of quantum theory. Assignment of entangled quantum states predicts experimentally con…rmed violation of Bell inequalities. Can one use these experimental results to argue directly for metaphysical conclusions? No. Quantum theory itself gives us our best explanation of violations of Bell inequalities, with no superluminal causal in ‡uences and no metaphysical holism or nonseparability-but only if quantum states are understood as objective and relational, though prescriptive rather than ontic. Correct quantum state assignments are backed by true physical magnitude claims: but backing is not grounding. Quantum theory supports no general metaphysical holism or nonseparability; though a claim about a compound physical system may be signi…cant and true while similar claims about its components are neither. Entanglement may well have have few, if any, …rst-order metaphysical implications. But the quantum theory of entanglement has much to teach the metaphysician about the roles of chance, causation, modality and explanation in the epistemic and practical concerns of a physically situated agent.

American Journal of Physics, 2000

This article presents a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. It extends the meaning of "measurement" to include all property-indicating facts. Intrinsically space is undifferentiated: there are no points on which a world of locally instantiated physical properties could be built. Instead, reality is built on facts, in the sense that the properties of things are extrinsic, or supervenient on property-indicating facts. The actual extent to which the world is spatially and temporally differentiated (that is, the extent to which spatiotemporal relations and distinctions are warranted by the facts) is necessarily limited. Notwithstanding that the state vector does nothing but assign probabilities, quantum mechanics affords a complete understanding of the actual world. If there is anything that is incomplete, it is the actual world, but its incompleteness exists only in relation to a conceptual framework that is more detailed than the actual world. Two deep-seated misconceptions are responsible for the interpretational difficulties associated with quantum mechanics: the notion that the spatial and temporal aspects of the world are adequately represented by sets with the cardinality of the real numbers, and the notion of an instantaneous state that evolves in time. The latter is an unwarranted (in fact, incoherent) projection of our apparent "motion in time" into the world of physics. Equally unwarranted, at bottom, is the use of causal concepts. There nevertheless exists a "classical" domain in which language suggestive of nomological necessity may be used. Quantum mechanics not only is strictly consistent with the existence of this domain but also presupposes it in several ways.

International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 2010

In this paper we give a logical analysis of both classical and quantum correlations. We propose a new logical system to reason about the information carried by a complex system composed of several parts. Our formalism is based on an extension of epistemic logic with operators for “group knowledge” (the logic GEL), further extended with atomic sentences describing the results of “joint observations” (the logic LCK). As models we introduce correlation models, as a generalization of the standard representation of epistemic models as vector models. We give sound and complete axiomatizations for our logics, and we use this setting to investigate the relationship between the information carried by each of the parts of a complex system and the information carried by the whole system. In particular we distinguish between the “distributed information”, obtainable by simply pooling together all the information that can be separately observed in any of the parts, and “correlated information”, obtainable only by doing joint observations of the parts (and pooling together the results). Our formalism throws a new light on the difference between classical and quantum information and gives rise to an informational-logical characterization of the notion of “quantum entanglement”.

Actual Problems of Mind, 2024

Idea of quantum entanglement is discussed in the context of debate about the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and some theoretical studies of quantum systems. It is noted that Schrödinger invented this idea in 1935 in order to fix some features of the quantum-mechanical description of two systems with temporary interaction. However, he did not grasp essence of these features really. In view of the concepts of mixture and statistical operator proposed by von Neumann and adopted by Schrödinger in 1936, it is argued that the idea of entanglement and related terminology are not necessary in quantum mechanics. One can use this idea and terms "entanglement" etc. as "visual" surrogates for the "mixture – statistical operator" pair. Deeper comparative analysis of several theoretical works by Schrödinger, von Neumann, and Landau showed that the modeling of non-trivial complex quantum systems as quasi-classical aggregates has been gradually overcome. Instead, wholeness of such quantum systems was actually recognized step by step. Thus, wholeness is immanent not only to quantum phenomena, as Niels Bohr had argued, but also to the quantum systems themselves, objectively. The pair "mixture – statistical operator" and especially the pair "mixed state – density matrix" similar to it appear to be adequate tools to comprehend and describe wholeness of diverse quantum reality. It is insisted, it is advisable to understand the surrogate idea of entanglement and relevant terminology in the same sense. In mature quantum paradigm, they are possible but not necessary theoretical tools to grasp wholeness of reality. Respectively, acceptable understanding of quantum entanglement must be based on recognition of quantum wholeness. Philosophically speaking, the idea of entanglement is understandable and conditionally acceptable in the view of contemporary rational holism, or holistic rationality. The clarified understanding of quantum entanglement, as well as Bohr's substantiation of wholeness of quantum phenomena, demonstrates irreducibility of the Universe to any quasi-classical aggregate. Moreover, all this supports the view of the Universe as real wholeness, which rational holism intends to grasp. It is concluded, further development and regular implementation of rational holism have the undoubted potential for revolutionary replacement of the hitherto widespread worldview in the spirit of Democritus and pure analytical methodology of knowledge. Key words: quantum entanglement, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, wholeness of quantum system itself, wholeness of the Universe, contemporary rational holism.

Synthese, 2016

According to quantum mechanics, statements about the future made by sentient beings like us are, in general, neither true nor false; they must satisfy a many-valued logic. I propose that the truth value of such a statement should be identified with the probability that the event it describes will occur. After reviewing the history of related ideas in logic, I argue that it gives an understanding of probability which is particularly satisfactory for use in quantum mechanics. I construct a lattice of future-tense propositions, with truth values in the interval [0, 1], and derive logical properties of these truth values given by the usual quantum-mechanical formula for the probability of a history.

On the Counter-Intuitiveness of Quantum Entanglement, 2012

There is a rather common dictum that quantum entanglement, a key feature of quantum mechanics, is counterintuitive. This assertion can be assigned not only to laypeople, but also to scientists engaged in quantum mechanics. How can we make sense of this? I elaborate the issue based on four intertwined aspects: First, on a theoretical level by introducing the fundamental differences between classical physics and quantum mechanics. This is mainly carried out along the lines of the EPR thought experiment and the corresponding perspectives of Einstein et al. and Schrödinger. Second, on an experimental level by illustrating the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement in the context of a specific field of research. Namely quantum opto-mechanics, and more particularly the experimental setup of the research group Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the Nano- and Microscale at the University of Vienna. Third, on a personal level by utilizing my interviews conducted with members of this very research group. Fourth, on a philosophical level by exploiting key concepts of Gaston Bachelard’s epistemology, such as epistemological profile or scientific reason being instructed by fabricated experience. All of these four aspects are brought into contact to accomplish two tasks: On the one hand to flesh out the specifics and characteristics of counter-intuitiveness in the context of quantum entanglement. On the other hand to consider the question whether and how experimenting with quantum entanglement could assist in coping with its counter-intuitiveness, for example by familiarization. Overall, this thesis does not provide an in-depth analysis of these two main issues, but a plausible approach to and depiction of the subject matter.

Foundations of Science, 2021

and the United States, to animate an interdisciplinary dialogue about fundamental issues of science and society. 'Entanglement' is a genuine quantum phenomenon, in the sense that it has no counterpart in classical physics. It was originally identified in quantum physics experiments by considering composite entities made up of two (or more) sub-entities which have interacted in the past but are now sufficiently distant from each other. If joint measurements are performed on the sub-entities when the composite entity is in an 'entangled state', then the sub-entities exhibit, despite their spatial separation, statistical correlations (expressed by the violation of 'Bell inequalities') which cannot be represented in the formalism of classical physics.

Eprint Arxiv 1011 6331, 2010

In the following we revisit the frequency interpretation of probability of Richard von Mises, in order to bring the essential implicit notions in focus. Following von Mises, we argue that probability can only be defined for events that can be repeated in similar conditions, and that exhibit 'frequency stabilization'. The central idea of the present article is that the mentioned 'conditions' should be well-defined and 'partitioned'. More precisely, we will divide probabilistic systems into object, environment, and probing subsystem, and show that such partitioning allows to solve a wide variety of classic paradoxes of probability theory. As a corollary, we arrive at the surprising conclusion that at least one central idea of the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of the meaning of probability. More precisely, the idea that the "observer influences the quantum system" is obvious if one realizes that quantum systems are probabilistic systems; it holds for all probabilistic systems, whether quantum or classical.