No, that's not the argument. Entanglement behaviour is part of the quantum formalism, the basic framework of QM. It's possible, although unlikely, that QM is an incorrect model that just happens to match all the experiments we've ever done - or that every experiment ever done just by chance coincides with QM, or that the choice of measurements that physicists do is predetermined in such a way as to make it appear as if these are solid rules (QM is counter-intuitive enough that these options have been seriously considered by serious physicists).
I'm not suggesting that QM is wrong, I'm suggesting that QM supplies us with a 'mechanism' that travels faster than C. Call it whatever you like, but something travels faster than C, at least 10,000 times faster than C in that study I cited.
Never mind the fact that you haven't demonstrated that "awareness" (whatever that might be) is limited to C, or the fact that not *all* mechanisms in nature are limited to C, you still expect me to hand you empirical evidence that it is possible for any form of intelligence (including one much greater than our own), to figure out a way to use that mechanism to it's advantage with respect to the transfer of information. That's quite a tall order you're expecting of me, certainly a much taller order, and a much more empirical demand than 'scientists' apply to the topic of cosmology. How you justify such a *blatant* deviation from the scientific method?
When did the mainstream ever empirically demonstrate that "space expansion" has a tangible effect on a photon in real experiments with real control mechanisms? Never! Ditto for three more of the *their* claims. What's up with such a blatant double standard?
However, even if you know the state of the entangled property of each particle after you entangle them, you still have to send them to their destinations by classical means before you can demonstrate that measuring one ensures the complementary measurement result on the other. IOW it still doesn't get you FTL communication, you just know the values in advance. Do try to think these things through - or do a QM 101.
Spare me the cheap shots with respect to QM. I understand our personal (human) limitation with these issues, but you can't demonstrate that such limitations apply to all forms of intelligence, for all eternity.
Try to stay on topic - that red-herring has nothing to do with the flaws in your 'cosmic brain' idea.
It does demonstrate that you're *hugely* deviating from the current "scientific" standard of evidence with respect to cosmology theory. There's no red herring in the comparison based on the way I'm using that comparison. You're not applying the same standard of evidence to Panentheism than "scientists" apply to cosmology theory in general!
That fallacious argument again - if their physics is crap, yours can be too?
Er, no. If their standard of evidence is less than you're demanding of me, why should I care what you think? At worst case I've demonstrated a "faster than C" mechanism that does have a tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment. I simply haven't personally demonstrated a way that humans have figured out how to use that mechanism to send information faster than C.
Meanwhile the mainstream hasn't even demonstrated that "space expansion" has any effect on any physical thing in *any* experiment at all, but you're perfectly fine with them applying that claim to events in space. Notice a double standard there?
They've got *three more* such claims in their cosmology theory that do not even apply to Panentheism. It's a 4 to 1 ratio at worst possible case, *in my favor*.
What kinds of "standards of evidence" are you personally requiring? At least I've demonstrated a cause/effect *mechanism* that does travel faster than C in real experiments. When did the mainstream ever do that with respect to any of their metaphysical elements?
Occam's Razor is a ceteris paribus rule of thumb; you apply it when two competing hypotheses are on roughly equal terms - those are not competing hypotheses.
You're right. It's 4 to 1 in my favor at worst case, not 2 to 1, or even 3 to 1, so they were never even close to "equal" to begin with. Panentheism isn't introducing four supernatural constructs, just one non-demonstrated claim at worst case.
I'm well aware of your opinions on LCDM, and that you can't help contaminating unrelated discussions with them.
It's only really related in the sense that it demonstrates that you're not applying a "scientific" standard of evidence to Panentheism. Whatever standard you're applying isn't logical or consistent with "science" to begin with.
Papers, schmapers; you have a complete crock, I've explained why, and you haven't been able to refute any of the arguments against it, even by invoking some imaginary future breach of QM.
I'm not suggesting any "breach" of QM, in fact I used QM to demonstrate the existence of a faster than C mechanism in nature. The only thing that's a complete "crock" is your personal need for me to physically use that mechanism myself to send information faster than C. That's your own personal pet peeve apparently.
There you go again - the fallacious tu-quoque. You think their science is 'nonsense on a stick', so why can't yours be rubbish too... well congratulations, it is
Cute. You still have a problem in your logic. We can write off *four* hypothetical mechanisms which have *never* been shown to have a tangible effect on anything, but that is quite different than writing off a *known mechanism* that does travel faster than C in various experiments.
You're essentially making personal proclamations about what may or may not be possible for any form of intelligence with respect to tapping into that *known mechanism*. Sorry, it's not the same thing, not even close.
Space expansion isn't even a "demonstrated mechanism" to begin with. See the physical difference?
It is physicists who demonstrate entanglement and it is physicists that propose dark energy and dark matter.
Ya, but entanglement shows up in the lab, whereas dark matter has eluded detection in *billions* of dollars worth of experiments to date. See that physical difference?
JFYI the idea of instantaneous quantum state transfer by entanglement is not required by all QM interpretations; other interpretations can account for the entanglement observations without any transfer or communication at all
How so? I cited a published reference and a specific study that came up with a minimum speed limit. Can you cite a published reference that refutes it?
