Welcome to the 40th Special Issue of the SHAPE Journal entitled Entangled Universe: an extended review of an article in New Scientist (3046) of the same name, by Anil Anathaswamy.

The writer of the following extended review was presented with an almost impossible task. Let me explain what the difficulties were!

It’s as if we have researchers from two different planets, with completely incompatible ways of dealing with the identical natural relations pertaining in both their worlds. On one planet, the universally agreed method sought the purely formal relations for everything that occurs there. While in the other, they instead seek concrete substances, entities and their properties that determine physical causes concerning the very same phenomena. Clearly, the first group of researchers aim to reveal Formal Equations, which embody the Laws that drive the observed phenomena. While, the second group attempts to reveal the actual Physical Causes for those happenings. Such alternative approaches are certainly not trivial, as they amount to totally different philosophic stances by the two groups. Those aiming solely for presumed-to- be Driving Equations are clearly idealists. While those aiming for Causative factors are materialists.

Connections between the two groups for the purposes of explaining their findings, initially in this case of the idealists to the materialists, seemed incomprehensible to the recipients, and the latter’s responses were similarly meaningless to the delivering idealists.

Thus, this review (by a materialist scientist) has been undermined by the assumptions and indeed the full set of premises presented (or, more often, left unstated) by the idealists. What the original New Scientist article, which presents this account, does, is deliver the purely formal descriptions of a range of puzzling phenomena, while the reviewer naturally attempts to instead deliver Physical Explanations of the same phenomena.

Naturally allowing the article, with its contentious standpoint to dominate, as he must, has led to the initial Review. But, it was evident, throughout, that the attempted translations, between two totally incompatible languages would never suffice.

So, in addition, the reviewer has also produced a series of, hopefully, more coherent ancillary papers, to deliver as far as possible the alternative materialist view in a self- consistent way.