Evolution of love

Biocentrism

“There is,” wrote Thoreau, “always the possibility . . . of being all.”
How can this be true? How is it managed, as in our actual experiments with electrons, that a single particle can be at two places at once? See the loon in the pond, the single mullein or dandelion in the field, the Moon, or the North Star? How deceptive is the space that separates them and makes them solitary? Are they not the subjects of the same reality that interested Bell, whose experiment answered once and for all whether what happens locally is affected by nonlocal events?
The situation is not unlike the one in which Alice found her- self in the Pool of Tears. We are sure we are not connected to the fish in the pond, for they have scales and fins and we don’t have any.
Yet, “non-separability,” theorist Bernard d’Espagnat has said, “is now one of the most certain general concepts in physics.”
This is not to say that our minds, like the particles in Bell’s experiment, are linked in any way that can violate the laws of causality. We may imagine two detectors situated on opposite sides of the universe, with photons from some central source flying off to each of them.
If an experimenter changed the polarization of one beam, he might instantaneously influence events 10 billion light-years away. But no information can possibly be transmitted from point A to point B or from one experimenter to another through this process. It unfolds strictly on its own.