Re: explanation for teleportation/entanglement?

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Kevin and all,

Re: this part of your post:

Kevin de Laplante wrote:

> Philosophers have discussed the issue of to what extent we have, or can
> have, an "explanation" of nonlocal quantum correlations.  All of the above
> authors address the question in some form or anothere.  There's no concensus
> on this issue, partly because it remains unclear what would, or should,
> count as an explanation for the correlations.  The issue, ultimately, is
> tied up with the broader issue of how to interpret the quantum formalism,
> and there's no dearth of candidates on that topic.

Is a relational systems approach a la Rosen and Rashevsky
part of any of these discussions? It would seem to me a
natural fit. If for example the metric and topological
properties of the universe are qualitatively different, it could
be that topological or relational properties could help
explain dynamics in metric properties (standard, measurable,
quantitative, physical aspects of matter, energy, time, space,
etc.) that other metric properties themselves cannot explain.
Maybe like a blind spot or self-referential limit like trying to
look at your own eyeball.

A relational "space" in which dynamics of correlations and
communication are born, grow, evolve and die at least partly
independent of dynamics in a metric space of physical and
material dynamics could be a general approach to explaining
non-locality and seeming instantaneous/simultaneous events.
In a relational space there might be no "distance" between two
"particles" - they might occupy the same "coordinates" and be
subject to the same relational "environmental context" and
thus the same "relational forcing functions". The distance in
relational space could be qualitatively different from distance
in physical space.

Speculating on an angle by which Rosen theory might be
important...

Dan