It seems you do not realise that the one leads to the other.
Two particles that once interacted remain entangled forever, and respond instantaneously whenever either of the pair interacts with any other particle. But all the particles in the universe have been involved in interactions with all the other particles all the way back to the big bang. This means that every particle reacts instantaneously to interactions between every pair of particles everywhere in the universe.
Superholism with a vengence!
Ugh - please, for the sake of all of us, don't read any more books on quantum mechanics. You have misunderstood what you have read.
Quantum entanglement is only observable under highly controlled conditions. It involves two particles which are 'entangled' and whose properties, when one of the particles properties are defined, will allow the properties of the other particle to be known and define the properties of the other particle. Quantum entanglement requires highly controlled conditions because if one particle in the pair interacts with any other particles, the 'connection' between the original pair will be less well defined. Once one particle of the pair has interacted with a relatively small number of particles the original connection is so insignificant as to be non-existant for any meaningful definition of entanglement. That is why controlled conditions are required - in the universe at large there are so many billions of interactions going on every second that a particle over
there (say, outside) has exactly
zero effect on a particle over
here (say, in your spleen). Or, more accurately, the particle over
there has as much effect on the particle over
here as my exhaling sharply into a glass jar would have on the rate Bellatrix consumes fuel.
Then, of course, there's also backward in time causation, where what happens in the future causes what happened in the past.
Which is intrinsically related to quantum entanglement (as far as I can recall). What the hell is your point?
Ah! I'm getting the Mobyspeak now:
Not true. Belz... has been rational and reasonable this whole time, he hasn't just started now.
Rather than go over this all again, I'm just going to formalise the following argument for you so you can see in plain logic just how wrong you are.
This argument:
"There is no god," is falsified by demonstrating the existence of god.
The existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not falsifiable.
Can be formalised as such:
g: The existence of god can be demonstrated.
n: "There is no god" can be falsified.
g ⊃ n
~g
∴ ~n
This is called
denying the antecedent and it is a logical fallacy. Your argument is
not valid.
Does having it written out for you like that
finally help you understand?
