Bell’s Theorem and Panexperientialism

I’m not a theoretical physicist, but I do like to think about the implications of the ideas behind quantum mechanics and general relativity. The math is super complicated. Some of the mathematics I can figure out over time, but often I get very lost and need easy-to-read resources to help me out.

Image from University of Oregon

Recently, I really wanted to understand Bell’s Theorem in the world of physics simply because it has really weird physical as well as metaphysical implications. It shouldn’t be a super complicated theory to comprehend, but I have had problems understanding it.

I found a great resource about Bell’s Theorem from Dr. David Harrison at the University of Toronto which I have liked here. His explanation is wonderful, and he goes into all sorts of about metaphysics and logic. A very good read.

Here is my limited understanding of Bell’s theorem. Basically, it seems to prove that information exchange between entangled particles is faster than the speed of light (called “non-local”) and doesn’t seem to have any particular secondary mechanism (called “hidden variables”) to explain the information exchange. By “entangled”, I mean that involved particles are all in the same quantum system in superposition. Information exchange in this setting can be described as follows: if an entangled particle is measured as “spin up”, the other entangled particle will be measured “spin down”. This spin up – spin down correlation demonstrates immediate information exchange and is faster than the speed of light!

Illustration of quantum entanglement — not a real image

We can think about this idea in the setting of a pretend story of two coins. I wrote about this over the weekend (which eventually will be part of my next book).

 “One can propose that two coins are entangled.  One coin is mailed in a sealed envelope to Alice in New York City, New York; one coin is mailed in a sealed envelope to Bob  in Los Angeles, California.  When Alice opens the envelope, she immediately flips the coin and reports the first coin side she sees (‘heads’ or ‘tails’).  If these coins are truly entangled, then Bob will immediately see the other coin side when he opens his envelope and flips his coin.  This effect will occur even if Alice and Bob are on different sides of the Milky Way galaxy; thus, the information transfer of entanglement is faster than the speed of light…From a metaphysical perspective, the idea that all entities are interlinked as a part of the natural world is intriguing.  There appears to be no mechanism or hidden variable to explain this effect.  Entanglement just ‘is.’ Alice or Bob are not observers.  They are part of the whole entangled system, possibly defined as ‘participators.'”

It should be noted that there is good experimental data to back this idea up. See here and here. The experimental data comes from entangled photons and polarizers. The photos are the “coins” while the polarizers are basically the “envelopes / coin flips.”

So. Weird.

Okay, so let’s try to link the objective scientific evidence with subjective metaphysical thought. In this setting, the metaphysical thought involves a bit of theology.

In the world of process theology / open & relational theology which has been my area of study, panexperientialism is a known concept. Panexperientialism is really a philosophical idea for which theology has tagged on to it. Simply put, everything experiences — from the smallest entity to the largest. A particle experiences spin, mass, and charge. A galaxy experiences rotation, gravity and the effects of dark matter. These concepts are not (necessarily) consciousness / quasi-consciousness as could be seen in the ideas surrounding panpsychism. Panpsychism is an interesting philosophical / theological idea, but I think panexperientialism makes more potentially objective sense to me if we think all entities “experience.”

So in a world of entanglement, not only would all entities have the ability to share information immediately (at least at the particle level), but they would then experience each other. The objective world of entanglement would then bridge to the subjective idea of panexperientialism. This objective-subjective bridge would then lead to the following theological ideas:

1. If everything is entangled and panexperiential, then God would experience all.
2. The entangled, panexperiential nature of reality involving God would mean that we exist with a God that is panentheistic. Panentheism suggests that all is in God. Our universe is in God. All singular entities in the universe are in God. God is in, through, and always with all entities, including us, in real time and through eternity.
3. From a religious perspective, if God experiences all, then God has the capacity to love all creation. This love would be God’s primary attribute.
   

I am not saying that these theological ideas are provable. Indeed, they are not. However, I feel strongly that we can look at the world around us in order to think about metaphysics — theologically based or not. It is part of the human tradition to look at nature and to wonder if there is more than we will ever know. Ideas surrounding Bell’s Theorem and panexperientialism would suggest that we are part of something very special.

Here is a way of considering panentheism using the human microbiome as a model. I made this diagram for God and Nature Magazine in the past.