Cosmos Café [8/13] - Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Coherence and Quantum Consciousness

Great to have you on board, Blake, and welcome to the Infinite Conversations site!


Hi, Blake. I just finished Wendt’s book and am just starting Karan Barad. I find the intra-active a fascinating idea although I am far from understanding her. Wendt is really making me review my assumptions about our social worlds. We look forward to learning what you are learning.


This is a clear presentation of some difficult ideas. We will not leap into a new cosmology without gathering some motifs from the old cosmology. We need to create a bridge. Maybe we are preparing ourselves to make a metaphorical transition? I imagine Aurobindo might agree. Thanks, Marco.


“Consciousness is more like music” YES! Looking forward to this.
(If I comment here and now, will I get notified when vid recording is posted?)


Hi Maia,

Where you see a button that says “Watching,” “Tracking,” or “Normal,” there you can control whether and what kind of notifications to receive on specific topics.

I so agree with your YES.

Hear, hear!
I hear consciousnesss singing!


Looking forward to this conversation. I thank you for setting up this Café as you did @Geoffreyjen_Edwards and @MarcoMasi (and thank you again for providing your own work free of change, Marco Masi; your effort in bringing difficult subjects into a clear light answers every layperson’s “prayers”). I expect a few future strands of conversations and other deep dives to arise on our forum out of the deep waters we explore this Tuesday.

Wendt’s book has this particular reader working overtime…:sweat: …but well worth it. Definitely the most rewarding book I have encountered in a long while. I am trying to work my way to at least the chapters @johnnydavis54 recommended a few months back on quantum semantics, language and meaning. I understand our Café has Wendt’s work listed as supplemental, but I just can’t put this one down. Though the pieces have not all come together yet for me, it should fall into place by the end of the book.

I hesitate to quote from the book based on my low-level comprehension and its (possible) irrelevance to this particular thread. I only bring it up to make a few connections with recent conversation around Timothy Morton and to make introductory and explicit headway into what is a generally implicit discussion that has yet to be voiced in our forum, around some of the names listed in the quote below (can’t read and discuss them all!):

This ontology (vitalism) has both affinities with and differences from an important new movement in critical social theory, associated with Jane Bennett, Gilles Deleuze, Graham Harman, Bruno Latour and others, known variously as New Materialism and/or Neo-Vitalism. A common starting point for this otherwise heterogeneous body of scholarship is a re-thinking of the nature of matter, from the inert and passive substance of classical physics to a productive and active force in nature. A provocative effect of this move is to reveal the essential continuity, not of living matter with dead (as in Old Materialism), but of dead matter with living, such that, in varying degrees, we can attribute to inanimate objects (sic) many of the intentional qualities we normally associate just with human beings…
My proposal for a quantum vitalism has important elements in common with New Materialism. It too aims to re-think matter into a less “material” and more active force. In its panpsychist basis it also sees an essential continuity between living and dead matter. And in its claim that all organisms are subjects it shares a non-anthropocentric, post-humanist view of reality, which would deny to human beings a privileged ontological position from which to justify abusing nature. —Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology, p.146

He goes on to note a few differences in his approach, showing that the New Materialists neglect both a study into consciousness and into quantum theory. He does state that Karen Barad is a likeminded soul, an author JOhnny has mentioned before and @Blake_Poland mentions above. Also Timothy Morton may fit the bill as a “quantum panpsychist” as Wendt labels himself below. In Hyperobjects Morton references quantum theory throughout, adding to what Wendt says is missing from the New Materialist toolkit (and adding a healthy does of what seems to be Tim Morton’s signature style of serious playfulness…or is it playful seriousness?).

The ultimate problem here is that by failing to come to grips with the hard problem of consciousness, the New Materialists/Neo-Vitalists remain caught up in the limits of the classical worldview - in short, by the Old Materialism. Making a quantum panpsychist turn enables us to abandon materialism once and for all in favor of a broader, vitalist physicalism that can accommodate that which is most distinctive about life, namely its subjective aspect — p. 147

I will be going about my days “as if” I am a quantum panpsychist, just to see what arises in this physical stratum. So far it has been a fun ride!


Let’s not stress out about Wendt’s book. I can feel my blood pressure start to rise, hoping against hope, that this meet up on Tuesday will focus on the paper written by Marco, which is just a few pages long. I intend to listen to the conversation between the two physicists and post pone Wendt for another day. He is way too big a chunk, dear Doug, for those who are less athletic in the literary leaps they wish to take. Wendt is probably for a study group, not for a Cafe.

I will be going about my days “as if” a quantum gossip. Let us drop all the names we please at the Cafe, but let’s do not give anyone a reason to feel that they are not up to speed it they haven’t read the book or heard of the author. No one is up to speed. So, relax, breathe, feel your feet on the floor. This is not a race to a finish line. There is no way anyone is going to finish any of this. And Tim Morton is another full length study. If you want to develop Morton for a Cafe I recommend that we listen to podcast ( not a read book!) I have a dozen easy to follow podcasts by him to recommend if you want to do that. Let’s find a pace that is easy for everyone to keep up.


I agree largely with @johnnydavis54, it’s why I didn’t want to require the reading of Wendt. You can’t even begin to tease out the arguments raised by Wendt until you understand entanglement. That said, I learned some important things about how to think about entanglement from reading Wendt. It is definitely relevant, but let us say Wendt is cappuccino, and we’re going to sample coffees in general. Some of the discussion will turn to Wendt, but not before people get some sense of entanglement, which is not an easy concept to grasp (maybe entanglement is caffeine - after all, it’s everywhere!)!


It was but only a friendly post :mailbox: with no intent on cluttering the desk with junk mail. As mentioned, I read Wendt as a personal supplement to what will be offered Tuesday.

And as most of you may have noticed there is a grand difference between reading ability and reading comprehension…as one with the former skill, I come to this Tuesdays discussion all ears and a grateful heart.



I thought that the clips @Geoffreyjen_Edwards posted were the primary reading and that Marco’s was in addition to that, as quantum biology was a secondary issue we would get into if we don’t fry our brains on Entanglement (and Coherence?) first. At least that’s how I read the original notification page, and was trying to tick of the prep items in that order. But, I plan on doing more listening than talking anyhow.


I didn’t read Wendt’s book myself, only went through some reviews to get a glimpse on what it is about. Sounds very interesting for the mystic in me but raises also questions for the scientist. I’m willing to discuss it nevertheless, even though I have not gone through the details. Of course we can focus on my paper, but it assumes the reader being already aquatinted with concepts like quantum superposition, entanglement, decoherence, nonlocality, etc. (these are two short concluding chapters of a book in preparation which explained these concepts in several preceding chapters). Just wondering if that is the case here? If not, the best way to begin might be that to discuss the seed questions first.
Or, as yet another alternative, let it flow spontaneously without our (indeterministic quantum?) minds trying to pre-determine and predict how the meeting shoud develop.


Hmmm … seems to me the clips and seed questions might be the best way in, so that ALL of us get up to some "minimal " common level (not of comprehension, but of exposure) and see how far the discussion gets. Those who have read Marco’s paper would benefit from that further discussion, should it present itself.

But, hey, let the actual organizers make the command decisions. I’m willing to put my fate in their hands. :grimacing:


Amen to SLOW. I am coming to feel it as a holy word… a blessing.


Yes, here, too, going about as if a QP, to see and sense and feel and be grateful for and learn from…what arises, the shit hitting the sparking blades and the flowering breezes and the inbetweens we can’t name…yet…or ever.


Ed, which Marco’s paper? How do I get there? Thanks!


Third post in the thread, Maia @Ariadne.

I agree with Marco @MarcoMasi that his paper kinda builds on existing understanding of quantum things, and I hope to not make such a presupposition. The experiments that lead to the demonstration of quantum entanglement are perfectly understandable as a description, anyone can follow the discussion at that level. Even the conclusions can be presented without any more than a lay person’s knowledge of quantum physics. The problem arises when trying to make sense of the results of these experiments. At that point, we will have to draw on some theoretical considerations, in order to understand why certain things are being discussed. But again, familiarity with, say, the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment will help, even without any deep knowledge of physics.

We will do the best we can. It will be somewhere between free-wheeling and some kind of question-and-answer, with multiple viewpoints. Just the way it always is :slight_smile: !

Oh, here is a figure I pulled out of Zurek’s 2003 paper on decoherence. A kind of map…


Hi everyone, I can only be present for the first hour today. If nobody minds, I will just make sure all is going well (enough) technologically and listen quietly for as long as I can.

On the connection between music and the quantum social mind, some may enjoy this related fiction:

The letter Q is having its moment in our culture. What does it mean?


Temporary link to media files from today’s event:

It will take a few minutes for things to show up; they are uploading right now.


Here’s the text chat from the call, to complement the video :

00:11:44 Blake Poland: turned off my video feed briefly because internet signal is not good…

00:13:01 Blake Poland: yep

00:37:24 Blake Poland: Fascinating…

00:37:41 Blake Poland: Would folks be willing to post links here to the things they’re referring to?

01:00:48 Heather Fester: I have to move on to my next meeting at 1:00. Sorry to miss out on the rest–I’ll listen to the recording! Thanks for sharing all of this with us. I am learning!

01:26:51 Blake Poland: sorry I missed the latter part of what you said Michael. Annoyingly my internet chose that moment to konk out…

01:50:52 Blake Poland: That’s very interesting Geoffrey… A lot to digest there…

01:54:33 Blake Poland: Yes. That’s where quantum science ultimately leads us.

01:55:40 Blake Poland: Joe Dispenza talks about how the quantum field actually enables us to change the future by using a combination of intention and emotion to align in resonance with that particular future among the full diversity of possible futures waiting to be articulated

01:56:12 Michael: YES YES!

01:56:42 Blake Poland: We will realize that we are not victims but co-creators

01:57:40 Blake Poland: But transfer of information is classical view

01:58:02 achronon: @Blake: can you post in the forum a ref/link to Dispenza?

01:59:33 Blake Poland:

02:01:26 Blake Poland: What about out of body experiences and life-after-life experiences (e.g. Anita Moorjani; others)

02:03:05 Blake Poland: But so-called butterfly effect is that it happens instantaneously, not a transfer thru space and time

02:04:40 Blake Poland: I would love for us to explore the more spiritual and mystical implications of quantum science…. Maybe for another session??

02:05:37 achronon: Propose a CCafé session, and I’m sure you’ll find folks who would be willing to show up.

02:06:02 Blake Poland: I love that: “Random is just a word for our ignorance”

02:07:38 Blake Poland: I need to sign off soon. Thank-you for including me in this interesting discussion. And Geoffrey lovely to reconnect with you in this context - a whole side of you I was not aware of when we worked together. I love it!

02:08:06 Geoffrey Edwards: Let’s stay in touch, Blake!

02:08:14 Blake Poland: Yes! :slight_smile:

02:09:39 Blake Poland: Marco this is so interesting. Relates to the saying “An idea whose time as come”. And also what Otto Scharmer (with Theory U) and others talk about doing social change differently by learning how to “align with the future that wants to be born”

02:10:28 Blake Poland: It’s also what David Bohm (who I was very fortunate to study with as a teenager) referred to as the Noosphere

02:10:33 Blake Poland: ??

02:11:03 Blake Poland: Well said John

02:11:31 Blake Poland: Lynn McTaggert covers a lot of the experimentation around parapsychology from a quantum perspective