In the fourth episode of Legends of the Philosophy of Science, Professor Arup K. Chatterjee and Dr. Sudip Patra venture into one of the most mystifying and misrepresented concepts in modern science—quantum entanglement. Moderated by PhD scholar, Shobhit Mohan, and titled Quantum Entanglement and (Mis)-Uses, this episode builds upon the metaphysical provocations of the previous discussions, turning the spotlight on a concept that is often oversimplified in both popular culture and interdisciplinary discourse.
As Professor Chatterjee notes in the introduction, entanglement is everywhere in the public imagination—used, misused, and often abused. The conversation seeks to uncover not only what entanglement is, but what it is not. “Is there any truth to this misuse?” Chatterjee asks, challenging the tendency to flatten such rich and nuanced ideas when they migrate from quantum mechanics into the humanities or daily speech.
Dr. Patra begins by clarifying the quantum mechanical roots of entanglement. Unlike classical systems, where each part retains its own separate identity, entangled systems have only a global identity. Even when particles are separated by vast distances—a condition known in physics as space-like separation—a measurement on one immediately reveals information about the other. This phenomenon defies the classical principles of separability and localizability, leading Einstein to deride it as “spooky action at a distance.”
The conversation then takes a philosophical turn. Professor Chatterjee provocatively asks: “Are the particles entangled, or is it our cognition of the particles that is entangled?” This question reframes the issue: is entanglement a feature of reality, or of how we perceive reality? Dr. Patra responds by distinguishing between physical entanglement, as understood in quantum theory, and cognitive or conceptual entanglement, which arises in domains like decision science and cognitive psychology.
Drawing on recent developments in quantum cognition and information theory, Patra notes that certain concept combinations in the mind mimic quantum entanglement, even though they may not represent actual physical phenomena. This opens the door to non-physical, informational interpretations of entanglement that can be useful—but only if handled with care. “We must avoid physicalism,” he cautions, reminding listeners that metaphors must not be mistaken for mechanisms.
As the episode closes, Shobhit Mohan summarizes the key insights:
- Entanglement challenges our most basic assumptions about separateness and locality.
- Popular uses of the term must be critically examined, lest they dilute its profound implications.
- The act of measurement may itself be entangled with the object of measurement—a notion that collapses the boundary between observer and observed.
This episode reveals entanglement not just as a quantum property, but as a mirror to our epistemological habits, raising questions about how we know, what we assume to be distinct, and where the limits of our perception lie. As always, the conversation ends with an invitation—an openness to further questions, further entanglements, and a promise to return. In Professor Chatterjee’s words, “One short conversation is never enough for entanglement.”
Arup K. Chatterjee 