Quantum Mechanics and Mind Games: Part I

Quantum Mechanics and Mind Games: Part I

In my investigation of Quantum Mechanics, I found several bizarre passages in popular books such as Stephen Hawking’s books and in the more specialized, and mathematically oriented, books such as Roger Penrose’s book, “The Road to Reality.”  

I will assert in these essays the following: 

• In science, we are not allowed to violate the Laws of Logic under any circumstances. 

The corollary is that,

• When theories violate the Laws of Logic, the theories are defective.

In any serious conversation, the above two bullet points are the basics for any discussion.  Without these two points, there is no hope for rational debate or discussion.  Furthermore, without these two points, anything goes, which we will get to later on.

Christopher Norris, in his book, “Quantum Theory and the Flight from Reality” points out several problems with the Orthodox interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, referred to as the Copenhagen Interpretation.  In summary, it is a debate about the nature of Ontology and Measurement.  Ontology deals, in part, with “questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist.”  Measurement is simply the observation of a physical quantity, i.e., I have 12 gallons of gasoline in my car.

Einstein does not like Dominoes

Albert Einstein famously objected to the Copenhagen Interpretation by saying something along the lines of “God does not play dice” when Niels Bohr interpreted the results of Quantum Mechanics as some mysterious theory that violated the basics laws of logic and mathematics, but was highly successful in predicting what would happen in a particular experiment.  Most physics books suggest that Einstein was wrong.  However, no book shows the chain of reasoning necessary to show Einstein was wrong.  Perhaps they refer to some mysterious consensus of witch-doctors who got together and issued a pronouncement against the heretic Einstein.

Multiple Universes just in front of your Nose

Some physicists have since then taken absurdity to a new level and have posited multiple universes for every possible state of a particle that exist in some realm alongside our present universe (whatever the hell that means).  So, in the next several seconds, for every possible future state of my being, it splits off into an infinite amount of universes of possibilities in the cases, such as, I both had coffee and did not have coffee this morning – and every other option in between.  Needless to say, but this is pure stupidity, and completely inappropriate for anything calling itself science.  This is not science; this is astrology or perhaps some LSD induced wild trip.

Electron’s Doppelganger messing with your head

One famous piece of nonsense is that the famous two-slit experiment of shooting photons or electrons through a couple of slits with a screen behind them suggest that the particle passes through both slits at the same time.  Almost every book or course on Quantum Mechanics uses this example, but we are never told why they think this is so.  Apparently nobody forces them to justify this with a solid chain of reasoning.  We are back to astrology where Mercury and Mars conspire to mess up your day when the moon is not watching out for you.  Now, one electron is out to get you, and uses his doppelganger to threaten you with a complete experimental screw-up.

Philosophy of Science

There is this strange idea among many scientists that metaphysical speculation is not part of what science does.  The idea is that science is to stick to the results of observable experiments and leave metaphysical speculation alone.  However, in the case of Quantum Mechanics, the following ideas are purely metaphysical:

• One particle passes through both slits at the same time in the double slit experiment

• Multiple universes exist as a result of the conclusions of Quantum Indeterminacy

So, these two conclusions are a direct violation of the principle of sticking only to the observable measurements of an experiment.  These two points are metaphysical claims.

So, we are in the realm of metaphysics.  We are now doing philosophy.  Thus, the rules of philosophy apply.  Physicists cannot, contrary to Stephen Hawking, claim that philosophy is dead.  They are doing philosophy.

Laws of Logic

What are the rules when doing philosophy?  There are many.  But, the basic ones are the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. 

• Everything is either A or not-A (contradictions are not allowed)

• The case of something being A and not-A is impossible (middle is excluded)

Other powerful tools of philosophy, mathematics, and even engineering are the use of logic gates.  For example, to have a fire, we must have all of the following three conditions:

• Sufficient heat
• Fuel
• oxygen  

If you are investigating a fire, you can consider these conditions one big AND gate: Fire = (sufficient heat) AND (fuel) AND (oxygen).  Without any one of these three, we have no fire.  In the investigation, you must trace the events leading up to the fire and plug them into this AND Gate to determine the logical sequence of events.

Double Slit Conclusion is Wrong

So, in the double slit experiment, nobody is allowed to logically say that one particle passed through both slits at the same time without a solid chain of logical justification, which seems impossible.  Any arguments to the contrary prove that the arguments are wrong, not that basic logic is wrong, or that Quantum Mechanics is just “weird.”  The logical setup is as follows:

Event A = (Particle A passed through slit X at time t) OR (Particle A passed through slit Y at time t)

I will grant the following: that if one claims that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, the claimant must provide a logical explanation of the claim without violating the laws of logic.  Perhaps time can be redefined locally, or space can be redefined locally.  But, the claimant must provide logical justification in any case, and not stop at a whimsical or “weird” claim that things just “don’t make any damn sense here!”

Arguments from Authority are Wrong

Nobody is allowed to say, “The overwhelming majority of physicists agree with the conclusion of the double slit experiment.”  This is a logical fallacy – the Argument from Authority, which is bogus.  One has to explain themselves with a logical chain of reasoning.  If they cannot do this, they have not made their case.

Conclusions

To make a logical, mathematical, or scientific claim, one must build a chain of reasoning going backward from the conclusion to the premises without any violation of the Laws of Logic.  We will be investigating some of the more bizarre claims and conclusions on Quantum Mechanics in this series of essays in the upcoming weeks and months.  We will find that the experiments themselves are usually straightforward, but some of the interpretations, claims and conclusions are not necessarily connected to the experimental results.  Quantum Mechanics needs a scientific clean-up crew to polish up the findings.

Freddy Martini

Debate: Playing Games with Equivocation

Debate: Playing Games with Equivocation

Sunday, August 03, 2014

Over the past 20 years I have studied philosophy.  I have read the greats like Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Locke, Hume, etc, along with some current thinkers like John Searle and Christopher Norris.  Outside of philosophy – and often inside – a recurring theme happens in debates among intelligent people.  That is Equivocation.   Equivocation is using the same word in differing senses, often with the intent to deceive, although I would prefer to say it is self-deception; people often want to deceive themselves on an unconscious level in order to avoid grappling and facing the Existential Vacuum.  Making drama out of nothing is a common way to distract ourselves from our looming death and the (possibly) meaninglessness of everything.

One encounters equivocation in debates when one person is using words in one sense and the opponent uses words in a different sense.  Then a “debate” happens, and those who are paying attention notice clearly that a debate is not happening, but an emotive ritual where people pretend to debate, but all is theatrics and rhetoric. 

Equality

The most common example of equivocation is the use of the word equality.  I have rarely, if ever, seen this word used in any consistent manner in any debate I have observed.  Furthermore, I have never seen anyone clearly define or even describe this term. 

Let us tease.  What is equality?  Is it equality of income?  Is it equality of power?  Is it equality of talent?  Is it equality under the law?  The shocking truth is that none of these concepts exist in the real world: they are impossible.  So, what are we talking about when we say equality?  Socioeconomic equality?  Perhaps, but that is not possible either.  The only equality that I am aware of is in Chemistry where four hydrogen atoms here equal four hydrogen atoms there.  Physically, this is about the closest we can come.  In mathematics, we can argue that x = 2.  But, in debates about equality, there are no debates about math or Chemistry.  So, we return to the ill-defined term equality where debaters enter into a pretentious ritual of combat, when there is no real debate happening.

Quantum Mechanics

Recently I have decided to restudy Quantum Mechanics.  Scientists claim that it is a counter-intuitive world of paradoxes.  However, upon closer inspection of the “scientific” writings, one sees a problem of equivocation and lack of clear thinking.

Stephen Hawking is his most famous book, “A Brief History of Time,” in the section on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes a very basic error in thinking clearly.  He explains the measurement uncertainty of a particle’s velocity and position.  This is, of course, a very simple principle; there is nothing mind-blowing about the width of a light wave, its velocity, and its capability and limitations in measuring a particle’s position and velocity simultaneously.  It is like having a ruler with centimeter tick marks: I cannot measure accurately anything more precise than within a centimeter with such a ruler.  It is that simple – in principle.

But, Hawking takes a simple-minded measurement limitation and then makes a metaphysical claim that the position and velocity of the particles are indeterminate.  This is not a justified conclusion, and is a basic error of equivocation from someone who is esteemed for his intellect.  Perhaps he is trying to shock the audience for advertizing effect; let us hope this is the case.

Philosophy of Science

Of course, we philosophers know what is going on here, but the scientists are, as usual, clueless.  There was a strong influence among scientists at the beginning of the 20^th century toward Empiricism.  You must keep your eye on the measurements, and the theory must accurately predict measurements, and that is all you do.  Do not make metaphysical speculations about the physical reality!  Well, it is a physical scientist’s job to make claims about physical reality; a physicist had better make physical claims about reality or he is not a physicist – or a very bad one.  I have an idea!  Let us speculate about the reality of parallel universes – something we can never measure!  Uh, oh…

Of course, these are old problems in the Philosophy of Science, but it gets hilarious when scientists attempt to get into philosophy without the proper training.  Again, we can hope they are merely trying to shock an audience, and that they are not being serious. 

The Path Forward

So, what do we very smart people do about this?  We must be very clear about the definition of every term within a statement.  However, we do not want to get caught up in the opposite: analysis paralysis - where concrete-bound minds get stuck in the weeds of irrelevant details (I call this weighing turds).  But, we want to be clear within context of the study. 

What if someone is using rhetoric?  Well, play their game against them.  Smart people can wield the weapons of rhetoric like a nuclear weapon when we study the basics of Rhetoric.  Learn how to stand in front of a crowd and move them – it is not that hard.

Freddy Martini

Crash Course Introduction to Analytical Psychology

Crash Course Introduction to Analytical Psychology

Are your kids acting crazy?  Are your family members seeing you in a new bizarre fashion? 

Everybody you know does not exist.  Your mind and soul impresses an imprint of a personality upon all monkey-humans you interact with.  They are just animals – high level monkeys.  But, your mind has a package of characters inside – like a fairy tale or a bed time short story.  Your mind takes these monkey-like animals that we call humans and impresses an image upon these people and you see them as the image in your mind impresses them with.  They are a substrate upon which your mind creates a character.    All the people you know exist only in your own mind.  This is what analytical psychologists call Projection.  The problem with the popular meaning is that only damaged people have projections of a mother-type on a non-mother person, or a father type on a person that is not their father.  This is wrong.  Everyone sees others as the characters created within their own minds.  Your lover?  Wife?  Husband?  They are characters in your head, but impressed upon a particular monkey-human in reality that your mind has associated with mental image with.  This is why when you were young, your father and mother were larger than life, but when you are middle-aged, they appear weak and frail, and completely different.  These images of Mother and Father are archetypes within your psyche created by your psyche and projected onto real life monkey-humans when you were young, but when you are old, the archetype is different since there is no longer any need for the old one – the old one fades into a wistful memory.

This also explains the strangeness of your child’s occasional behavior toward you.  They have characters in their heads of Father and Mother, and these characters are inside their heads, and not a representation of you.  You are only the monkey-human substrate upon which your child’s mind operates and associates these images with.  So, when they accuse you of wild and crazy things, just remember they are not see you – the substrate monkey-human – but a character story within their heads.

So, you think you are in a crowd of people you know, but, you are not.  You are alone with your mind’s camera making up all kinds of crap you think is real.

Freddy Martini