Editorial
Volume 3 Issue 3
Harold Schuch*
August 02, 2023
Abstract
The easiest example of that entanglement is the emergence of nature, and humans within it. If one observes the most important natural food for humans, fruit was clearly shaped to work with humans. For example, our hands are not optimized for ripping oxen apart but shaped ideally for picking apples from a tree.
If we follow that thinking, we reap major benefits (energy, vitamins, fiber, clean water, etc.). The apple tree, since we are eating its gonads, benefits from our digestive system simply passing its undigested seeds along to Earth, surrounded by nutritious cover.
This eons-old parallel development could be accepted as casual and based on weak statistics, but any further analysis pushes us to consider a strong participation of creation, and entangled development within that.
Similar thinking can be used to look at fleas and humans, snakes and insects, whales and sardines, monkeys and bananas, etc.
If one brings this into the classroom, it may be that this would be a good introduction to quantum entanglement. The above entanglement would not exist if physics had no part in it.
After all, it is physics that teaches us about energy. But it does not teach us about the energy that exists, for example, when a dog nurses a newborn cat.
In the above examples, it is clear that creation demands a certain proximity to be relevant, like apple trees and humans over eons, but this is something that quantum entanglement has proven to be unnecessary. This suggests that nature has a way to act along certain rules of creation. Can one then expect that there are humans elsewhere in this universe, as long as the conditions of creation are similar? Is love a universal energy we can count on?
This means that we are not giving creation the proper amount of mention and respect. Science and engineering should be seen as extensions of creation.