Anil Ananthaswamy’s reportage of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory:
a critique by Jim Schofield.
For, the whole period of my published criticisms of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, the writer of this paper has had to deal with a regular series of articles in New Scientist by Anil Ananthaswamy, who trenchantly writes in support of this now generally accepted, but clearly idealist, view of Sub Atomic Reality.
In an important way, I have to thank Anil, for he not only presented me with diverse targets to deal with - such as in his contributions on Mathematics, but also, by such excursions, allowed my much wider philosophical and historical stances to be dealt with in tandem with my Physics-based criticisms. So, in his own seeking for wider confirmations of his preferred stance, he made my position all the easier to express.
And, this is because not only Copenhagen, but also the Classical stances in Mathematics and the Sciences, have all been stymied by the same illegitimate amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism, and Materialism - all of which (and also including Formal Logic) have persistently been further damagingly distorted by the universally agreed-to Principle of Plurality.
But, the most pernicious component, when it comes to dealing with the inevitable contradictions generated by this amalgam, has certainly been Pragmatism - “If it works, it is right!”, as the legitimising stepping-stones across each-and-every illegitimate transfer - always blanking-out the contradictions with a pragmatic by- pass.
As the reader can imagine, specialists usually rigorously keep to where they can justify their differing stances, and only make brief and narrow ventures into other disciplines to excuse their pragmatic hops over evident difficulties: but then finally, Copenhagen ended that old “solution”, for good.
Truly Major philosophical changes were unavoidable, which, in the case of Copenhagen, meant a dumping of the Materialist component in the amalgam, and a switch to considering Formal Equations as the primary, driving Truths of Reality!
The original source of all the problems, which finally came-home-to-roost in the 20th century, was, of course, the highly successful, pre-intellectual method termed Pragmatism, which was then coupled with the first of Mankind’s brilliant intellectual achievements - Mathematics!
For, this was wholly idealist from the very start - via the Euclidian Geometry of the Ancient Greeks.
So, as each pro-Copenhagen article appeared in New Scientist, I immediately responded via a dedicated review, so that now I have almost a dozen responses - all published on the SHAPE presence on the Web.
So, with the latest of these on the Origins of Mathematics, I felt a whole issue of the SHAPE Journal should be allocated to re-releasing these responses.
All of Anil’s original articles are clearly mentioned and available via New Scientist if required.
My ongoing investigation into a material Universal Substrate which explains magnetism, gravity and the propagation of light, has lead to the realisation that the sub-atomic realm must be divided into various levels, at colossally different scales.
The time has come to address these Internal Worlds of The Universal Substrate - that is the inter-relationships of the suggested different Substrate Units both with-each-other, and also with any macrocosmic events happening within that sub-macrocosmic Substrate as Universal Ground.
Now, from the outset, it must be made clear that these Various Units, though of the same basic mutually-orbiting, bi-particle construction, are, nevertheless, related to others of the very same kind in very different ways, and via diverse properties. AND, crucially, they are also of vastly different sizes. The lowly Electron Neutrino is some 600,000,000 times smaller than the Magnetons at the other end of this colossal scale!
My contention is that these effectively constitute very different “Worlds of the Underlying Cosmos”, below the macrocosm of the everyday world.
Taking issues and specials together this journal has now published 100 editions of cutting-edge marxist theory and science, since we launched back in 2009. This one has been compiled to celebrate that achievement and to initiate the vital discussion about where we go next.
This journal has become the primary outlet for the radical theories of philosopher Jim Schofield, whose seminal work The Theory of Emergence was published by SHAPE in July 2010, as Special Issue 1. Alongside his latest work on Logic, this important thesis is included here again, to reveal the trajectory of this work over many years, but also to demonstrate fully the profound limitations of Formal Logic when dealing with change, or the emergence of the entirely new.
In this challenging new work Jim looks at the dialectical resolution of contradictory concepts, via their natural appearances in concrete reality, predominantly within emergences.
When attempting to deal with someone like Žižek, you are constantly trying to cope with, both a way of thinking, and a whole consequent vocabulary, that are saturated, nay determined, by his still-idealist premises. He claims, of course, to be a Dialectical Materialist - a Marxist, but that is evidently just the coat-and-hat that he feels it necessary and comfortable to wear.
And, it is made even more difficult, when there are parts of his stance that you not only agree with, but would have to defend alongside him, against the massive consensus, which takes a very different position upon these shared premises.
The most evident shared premise is, of course, Dialectics. But, much more basic than that, is the shared subscription to the Principle of Holism, rather than the consensus belief in the exact-opposite - the Principle of Plurality.
The trouble is that Marxism, or more correctly Dialectical Materialism, was not totally and finally defined by Marx, for he had a Social Revolution to prepare-and-organize for, and much still had to be done to maximise the reach and power of this revolutionary attempt, to ultimately unify both Philosophy and Science, into a single coherent, comprehensive and consistent stance.
For, in spite of Michelet’s brilliant History of the French Revolution, the task not only required the full participation in such an epochal Event, but also the professional Knowledge and Understanding of a scientist, to be able to move towards a generalised, indeed, a true comprehensive stance.
And, the main trouble is with crude, basic Holism!
For Holism and Plurality are a Dichotomous Pair of alternative concepts - indeed, the extremes generated as the result of incomplete premises as Hegel himself had crystallised in his Dialectics - the more real-and-active alternative to Formal Logic, in dealing with Abstractions. Indeed, “Ultimate Holism” as embodied in “Everything affects everything else”, is true, but totally unusable, in almost all circumstances: for absolutely Nothing is fixed, and in its most basic application - absolutely everything changes along with everything else, all the time.
How could any sort of Reasoning be possible on that basis? And the answer is, “None!”.
The possibilities of a kind of Reasoning were, however definitely achievable with the opposite concept of Plurality. But, Plurality - as it is usually defined, is yet another crude concept, for it assumed that all elements to be used, in any way, MUST be fixed: so that they don’t change at all!
The cornerstones of Plurality are the ideal-fixed-forms of Mathematics, and the eternal Natural Laws of Physics. So, as long as these incorrect assumptions are made, some progress in dealing with complex mixes seem possible.
And, it certainly was in Mathematics, for a great deal of purely formal complication was, indeed, possible: a whole world of Pure Mathematics could be built.
But, it wasn’t our World!
Major “engineering” was necessary to make our real world fit-in with Plurality. In what became known as Science, literally nothing was possible, historically, until Mankind learned how to control, modify, and maintain limited situations to approximate to a pluralist state , but only for a given sought-for relation.
And, that wasn’t all! The Greeks not only gave us Pure Mathematics, but also Formal Logic - again made possible by making Statements fixed and unchangeable too!
Now, any thinking about these crucial areas had to be by Reasoning, and so it too was severely hog-tied by Plurality.
As before, it worked in “maintained circumstances”, where things were constant, but failed miserably, when things naturally changed into something else.
Now, the reader can imagine that these ideas could be pursued comprehensively, and we could and indeed would go a very long way, if I was to carry on with it.
But, this isn’t a treatise upon Epistemology, but merely “The trouble with Žižek”, and that is difficult enough!
Clearly, for him, and everyone else, crude Holism is a major problem, and his total solution, as you might expect, is Hegelian Dialectics. But, in dealing with quantum physicists, he cannot oppose them, as he should, with ‘The Full Monty’, so he uses a combined approach with Engels’ Dialectics of Nature methods of revealing resonances between Dialectics and unavoidable opposites in the Copenhagenists’ researches and theories: the “look we are the same” technique, while, at the same time accepting their idealist retreat from Materialism!
He can do it because that is his real position too - retreating from materialism into idealism at every turn!
Not himself being a real scientist, he cannot intervene, as a Dialectical Scientist would, by resorting to concrete Reality. He cannot do that because his Holism is of the crude type. He hasn’t had to, as a true Dialectical Materialist scientist would have to do, develop holism into a new Level involving long standing Stabilities, involving multiple processes, systems of processes and self-maintaining super systems that can then act, as if they are independent of context for long periods, but ultimately are, at first, just sorely-threatened, and then defeated by Crises, with an ultimate inevitable Collapse towards Chaos.
In other words, he should have further developed Dialectical materialism, first to explain why Stabilities occur, and then, how the major transformers of such seemingly permanent states - major changes usually termed Emergences, or in Social Organisation - termed Revolutions, can transform things radically!
How can I say this?
It is because I personally have done just that, via my:-
Truly Natural Selection
The Theory of Emergences
The Physical Theory of the Double Slit
The Theory of a Universal, yet undetectable, Substrate and my demolition of The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory via A Physical Explanation of Quantized Orbits
An Explanation of Energy Propagation though “Empty Space”
An Explanation of so-called Quantum Entanglement and Pair Creation and Pair Dissociation
That is what a real dialectical materialist scientist can do!
Slavoj Žižek is a world-renowned, self-proclaimed Marxist, and has produced an extensive body of work, with which he has built a world-wide set of supporters for his version of Marxism. But, as a Marxist myself, and also a fully qualified physicist, I had something of a shock when I read the chapter in his book Less Than Nothing, which he entitles The Ontology of Quantum Physics.
I had previously read his Chapter - called The Limits of Hegel, from the very same book: and though by no means in full agreement with him, did recognise his brilliant use there of Hegelian Dialectics.
He was certainly worth a read!
But, when it came to my specialism - Sub Atomic Physics, it was evident that we, immediately, parted company in a truly major way.
Žižek is no sort of Scientist!
And, that didn’t just undermine his ideas upon that subject: it undermined his purported Materialism too.
Looking back to his work on Hegel, it became clear that he certainly wasn’t as critical of Hegel as Marx had been. He hadn’t switched to a consistent Materialist stance! He was still a kind of Idealist - subscribing to Hegel’s Dialectic, but certainly NOT to Marx’s intended objective of unifying Philosophy with Science. He, like Marx before him, just didn’t know enough about Science. And, crucially he, also did NOT understand Materialism.
Niels Bohr
When the physicists Bohr and Heisenberg established the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, they were reacting to the contradictions, within their subject, due to a majorly flawed philosophical stance, by undertaking a major retrenchment - abandoning holist explanatory theories for pluralist formal equations only. They were abandoning Materialism for an amalgam of Idealism plus Pragmatism!
But, as a non scientist, Žižek didn’t even notice what that involved. He could “integrate” their ideas with his own contributions, particularly what he had taken on from Lacan.
I had to undertake a root-and-branch critique of Žižek’s position.
Žižek does not, and indeed cannot, equip the Working Class for their coming fight to overthrow Capitalism. That is a job for Marxists who are completing Marx’s objective of unifying Philosophy and Science, and providing the theoretical means to achieve that goal. But, Žižek’s version of that objective is, “If you can’t beat them, then join them!” - the opposite of Marx’s objective.
The contributions in this section are, therefore, a small set of preparatory papers giving some idea of the Ground that is, and will be, necessary.
Fuller, more-comprehensive theories are available, if required via SHAPE Journal, but if the reader is already fully prepared, reading these few grounding notes, will not be necessary.
This issue presents a collection of papers on Slavoj Žižek’s The Limits of Hegel from his book Less Than Nothing.
The introductory papers are important here, because without them the different stances of both Žižek and this critic would not be understood.
Jim Schofield, the author, feels that the various philosophic stances of both Holism and Plurality, and Hegelian Dialectics versus Marx’s Dialectical Materialism, would simply be confused by Žižek’s Limits of Hegel piece, either taken alone, or with a comprehensive criticism by Schofield.
The deterioration of Marxism has proceeded long- and-variously over the last century, to have left literally no-one with the wherewithal to “do a Marx” upon this “professed” Marxist, who casts a long Hegelian shadow over Dialectical Materialism.
A reasonable amount of ground must be attempted to be established, and a “quote-all-with-commentary” method of dealing with Žižek’s offering, along with three preparatory papers, constitute his attempt to deliver as much as possible.
“Why”, you may justifiably ask, “is this amount of effort necessary?”
It is because the World Working Class are entering the most dangerous period in almost a century, and are doing so without the real Marxist leadership it needs.
This issue is a discussion of the philosophical principals behind a new kind of 'aether theory' - one that is staunchly materialist but that transcends the pitfalls of classical physics.
Here is a new collection of papers examining some fundamental problems with the Big Bang theory, and the flawed philosophy of physicists that lead to it.
This edition attempts to define some of the properties of our posited substrate, a sea of particles we believe must fill the observable universe.
If we are to consider some sort of Universal (yet undetectable) Substrate, we must do a great deal more than explain the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, via such a deliverer. We must also investigate ALL of its properties, and consider whether we can build upon our initial objectives, or, perhaps, be forced to abandon the whole hypothesis.
We do, however, have an informed starting point.
In order to achieve undetectability, in our initial definition of a unit, from which to construct such a Substrate, we realised that any suggested unit, would have to involve a sub-structure, the sub-units of which might deliver undetectability, by providing cancelling of all properties occurring in the sub-partcles comprising our unit). But, of course, though such an objective would be essential, our unit wouldn’t be any use if it did nothing else!
Clearly, the delivered substrate, via these units, would also have to give us a whole range of results consistent with unexplained evidence that we already have. These units of Substrate would have to be able to absorb and release quanta of energy, both to and from internal structures within the substrate units.
The model for such a unit is everywhere: it is, of course, the atom. But the substrate units, though of a similar design to the atom, would also have major differences. It would have to be not only neutral in every respect, but also very small indeed.
The model that was finally settled upon was of a mutually orbiting pair of sub-particles - consisting of one electron and one positron. Clearly, the orbiting would not only keep these “antagonistic” units apart, but would also cause the joint unit to be neutral in charge, neutral magnetically and neutral in matter type too.
Yet, such a mutually orbiting pair could absorb energy by the promotion of the joint orbit, and release it by its demotion.
This definition also explained both Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations, and was justified as being possible by the discovery of this precise arrangement, albeit fleetingly, in the Tevatron at Fermilab.
Clearly, it could be a very productive first step.
The Entangled Universe article by Anil Anathaswamy in New Scientist (3046) tackles a range of supposedly connected ideas in current Sub Atomic Theory. But, as with that overall stance itself, he joined the increasingly accelerated rush into the mixture of facts, “Laws” and speculation that has become the norm in this confusing area.
Every suggested solution begets yet another “rule of thumb” - designed to enable some sort of regular paths through a limited area, and the overall description is of a plethora of such meta rules which alone defines what can and cannot be done.
Clearly, we are being guided through an alien land, and without the necessary signposts of Physical Ground, to resolve anomalies; we are forced to travel with a dependence upon local maps. You have no single theoretical stance, so you have to keep them all, and decide when and how to jump from one islet to the next!
It is an almighty mess – very like the proliferation of epicycles in the Ptolemaic version of the Solar System, It can give you useable answers but no coherent, consistent and overall Theory.
The Gordian Knot of invention must be severed with a goodly dose of Reality – but how?
Clearly this is easier said than done, and after a couple of re-reads and copious notes, I realised that attempting to follow Anathaswamy’s stepping stones between the various positions, would not clarify, but only confuse! I decided instead to write a series of separate papers- each one tackling a different bit of this messy article.
But it soon became a large response. I have written 13 short coherent papers each on a different topic, with a total length of some 6,000 words. But I still think it is the best way to deal with the New Scientist article as a helpful review.
This work is part of a long study, primarily into Sub Atomic Physics, but also, necessarily, taking a detailed philosophical look at the trajectory of ideas over significant stages in its recent history, which have, finally and irrevocably, moved it over, bodily, from a steadfast materialist standpoint to an almost completely idealist one.
This initial preoccupation has led to further research into specific extra areas, which are not the usual ground for Philosophy, but here, in this truly, momentous Crisis in Physics, they have become absolutely paramount. The Ground of Science is addressed particularly in its underlying key – The Principle of Plurality, but also in its congenital feature of Pragmatism, and its beliefs, taken from Mathematics, as well as its many purely pragmatic tricks, always justified by “If it works, it is right!”
The trigger for this set of papers was a criticism by David Deutsch in his paper, “Definitely not Maybe” in the New Scientist magazine (3041), about the role of Probability in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. And, this inevitably pulled in more general assumptions too. Clearly, this Special needs to be taken along with the whole extended body of work, by this philosopher, – all of which are available in the SHAPE Journal, Blog and Youtube Channel.
A limited edition, high quality print version of my Atom and Substrate work is now available to buy through Blurb books.
What if space isn't really empty? What if the entire universe is actually full of many different types of particles that we can't detect, even inside the atom itself? Jim Schofield's controversial new theory postulates that such a substrate exists and that its presence can explain the propagation of light through space, magnetism and even gravity. This publication is a print-to-order edition of the Shape Journal, compiling Special Issues 36 & 37 in one book.
The 37th Special Issue of the SHAPE Journal and the second in a landmark
series outlining an entirely new approach to Sub-Atomic Physics.
Clearly, if we are to seriously consider the
presence of a Universal Substrate (like the now discarded Ether, but of a
concrete composition), which is nevertheless undetectable by the
usually applied means, we also have to address the dominating emptiness
which, using all the current models, exists within the atom.
For, taking the known sizes of even the simplest
atom’s components, and their distances apart, it would be hard to
exclude any general substrate from filling those spaces too.
Now, if the consequence of such a substrate,
outside of all the “material components”, was a major rethink, then the
situation within atoms will certainly be even more demanding of a full
explanatory account. Indeed, the current Copenhagen Interpretation of
Quantum Theory is definitely NOT a physical description, never mind a
physical explanation of phenomena in that realm, but, on the contrary,
only a probabilistic description – involving only formal, abstracted
elements, supported by a great deal of unsupported speculation.
Now, in this theorist’s treatment of the famed
Double Slit Experiments, it was merely the presence of a Universal
Substrate, which enabled an adequate, coherent and comprehensive
explanation of all the confusing phenomena occurring there.
Thus, as we switch to the Sub Atomic Realm, we
simply must consider all the effects that would be caused by the
presence of that same substrate, on all phenomena occurring inside the
atom too. So, this Special Issue of SHAPE Journal has as its remit the
physical explanation of those phenomena – including, of course, the
quantization of the orbits of contained electrons, and the presence of
caused vortices in that substrate, which transform exactly how such
phenomena are caused and inter-related to one another.
This new issue of the journal is the first in a
landmark series outlining an entirely new approach to Sub-Atomic
Physics. This will consist of two substantial issues containing work of
truly great significance.
Such fanfare is not hyperbole. In the second of
these installments there will be a full refutation of the too long
incumbent Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, both in general,
and as a study of the Atom. Finally this regressive interlude in Physics
can be stopped and the science re-orientated upon a wholly new path.
For not only is this a debunking of Quantum Theory, but of the flawed
pluralist position that preceded it.
These two new issues will be published online in quick succession, starting here with The Substrate and followed by The Atom.
The issues tackled within are fundamental both philosophically and
physically, and present for the first time, a purely physical
explanation for quantisation.
The 33rd Special Issue of the SHAPE Journal is now available. It is the third and last part of our Unknown Ocean series, continuing our journey deeper into the
uncharted depths of reality, this time concentrating on the new methodology necessary for truly understanding it.
The second part of our Unknown Ocean series, and the 32nd Special Issue of
the SHAPE Journal, continues our journey deeper into the
uncharted depths of reality, questioning the impasses and anomalies proliferating in all areas of
Modern Science today, and endeavouring to construct a new and sounder
basis for our explorations of the world around us.
This is the 31st Special Issue of the SHAPE Journal, and the first in a three part series entitled The Unknown Ocean
- a body of work examining how little we actually know about Reality,
and how we will have to change our methods of exploration entirely, if
we are to go any deeper.
In pulling together this set of Special Issues
of the SHAPE Journal, the writer has a particular objective in mind. He
is not looking back at the past achievements of Science and Philosophy,
but looking forward to the still-pending investigations into Reality,
from a very different standpoint, which he is certain, will transform
both of these disciplines. The reason for this is that a major threshold
lies before Mankind, which so far they have refused to address, and
hence never transcended, and, instead, continue with the old views and
methods, which, in themselves, are incapable of transcending that
evident impasse.
In all the main intellectual disciplines the
old hang-ups are still well entrenched, underpinning both Modern Science
and Philosophy. These crucial areas are weighed down with the
abstractions, constructions, assumptions and even principles of a now
significantly failing past intellectual stance. For these are no longer
worthy of delivering a productive and developing standpoint, essential
at this time to produce any real progress at all. Science has run out of
steam. Since 1927 Physics has only moved backwards towards an even more
defunct idealist standpoint.
Yet, the way forward has been, at least,
indicated, for the last 2,500 years with both the Holism of the Buddha
in India, and the scepticism of Zeno of Elea.In spite of a long period
of stagnation, philosophically, finally, only 200 years ago, Frederick
Hegel, in his main philosophical undertaking, revealed the inadequacies
of our concepts, and why they were inevitably so. But, of course, Hegel
was an idealist (an obvious disadvantage in his own primary objective of
unifying Philosophy with Science) so that, not even his leading
disciples, namely Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, saw that Hegel’s gains
in the area of Human thinking just had to be re-established within the
alternative, materialist philosophical outlook, and, of course,
intimately wedded to Science. But, that just hasn’t happened!
Despite brilliant contributions by scientists
like Darwin and Wallace, and the major gains in Philosophy made by Marx,
the necessary re-construction of a consequent philosophy among
scientists did not occur. And, that has been a major problem. Now, the
situation is beginning to change, as this writer, and many others
worldwide, begin to question the impasses and anomalies proliferating in
all areas of Modern Science, and are endeavouring to construct a new,
and sounder basis, and this series of Specials deliver some suggested
steps in an advancing a wholly new understanding upon a, so far,
unimplemented standpoint in Science and in Philosophy together. It is,
of course, a presumptive claim, so he has broken the argument down into
three parts, commencing here in the first of these, with a series of
essays which establish his premises, before entering those uncharted
depths.
Although the following series of papers addresses the question, “What actually is Abstraction?”, in various ways, we must start by being absolutely clear what Man is always attempting to do with the processes of abstraction that he generally uses. For, he is, quite definitely, transforming what he can somehow extract from concrete Reality into purely, cerebral forms, suitable for “thinking about”. Reality-as-is is far too complex, inter-related and evolving to be grasped formally exactly as it appears. Also, Mankind is NOT naturally equipped to handle such complex things. In spite of this, Homo Sapiens is still well-named. His intelligence was a product of the brain’s evolution, due to its relation to more prosaic and everyday problems of survival. But, he then attempted to apply it to much more general problems.
Classically, throughout his evolutionary development, Mankind did not arrive at the sort of means he required to tackle why things came to be the way that they were. Indeed, to get anywhere at all, he had to effectively “pull himself up by his own bootlaces”, and indeed, somehow, “Make Himself”, in gradually beginning to equip himself to make some sort of sense of his World, via struggling to answer the remarkable question, “Why?”!
Naturally selected-for, as he was, as a hunter/gatherer, there was no mental implements available to tackle such questions, so it, unavoidably, turned into “How?” instead, and even in doing this, he had to both simplify and idealise what he observed, and such a general set of processes is termed Abstraction.
What were extracted from concrete evidence were not the required “reasons”, but instead the Forms suitable to be then thought about – conceptions, idealisations and even all-embracing principles, which he as a hunter/gatherer could think about and attempt to apply, as he did with his hunting.
He began to construct an entirely novel means of doing this via Language, and much later, writing, but the crucial developments were in how he abstracted from Reality, and thereafter, begin to think about such forms. Clearly, initially, all he could do was to attempt to fit the ideas he employed in his daily life to such questions, so all his determinators were like himself – a thinking Man. But, also clearly, the one-to-one correspondence with concrete Reality was impossible. Reality-as-is and the conceptions that Man managed to create were not the same things at all, and never could be. Man managed to reveal and extract ever more crucial aspects, views or components, which were turned into elements-of-thinking, and with his well developed mechanisms of sense, thought and subsequent action, that had been made so by selection as a hunter/ gatherer, he managed to use actions, based upon his concepts, to confirm or deny them to an increasing extent. But, they were always cerebral reflections of real things, so that the Absolute Truth of concrete Reality was never possible to be achieved. Let us therefore see what he heroically did achieve, and crucially where and why he failed!
This Special is somewhat different to our usual offerings of this form
in SHAPE Journal. It has a very different purpose! Indeed, the reader
may well be immediately aware of its unfinished nature, and take issue
with some of its note-like offerings. Good!
For this form is intended to encourage criticism and opposing
contributions by other present day Marxists out there. SHAPE gets over
100 hits a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, and an analysis of
the topics accessed (on the SHAPE Blog for example) indicates that it is
the philosophical works that are by far the most popular. There are
readers of our sites in 120 countries (Sorry, 121 – someone in Guatemala
added to the total today), and these include not only the usual
“surfing” nations, such as the USA, but also an increasing number from
Russia, Ukraine, Romania and many other ex-Soviet nations, as well as
literally the whole of South and Central America, and recently France,
Germany, Poland and Slovenia have arrived in significant numbers too.
But, when the usual outlets for other Marxists’ work are monitored, they
are, to say the least, disappointing. What is needed is a new
generation of serious and committed Marxist philosophers – constantly
extending and deepening the Marxist View. And, they should be addressing
the very areas where the non-Marxists are signally failing to make any
real contributions.
This Special, therefore, hopes to get a response from them! Comments and
even contributions are welcomed. And, as we don’t usually work within
the usual Social Networking methods on the Internet, it is suggested
that these should be sent direct to us by email: shape@bild-art.co.uk
If writers permit it, their contributions will be published in a Special
Issue, (so say which country you are from), and if we get sufficient
this could become a regular feature. None of contributor’s details will
be given to anyone else! Use nom de plumes if you want to. This
philosopher has written almost 650 papers over the last five years and
could do with some help tackling these difficult questions!
Couder and Copenhagen: Is the Sub Atomic Really A Different World?
The following paper has a fascinating, yet demanding objective.
It intends to relate two sets of phenomena occurring in very different physical realms, in order to necessarily undermine the consensus Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory by the analogy of the sub atomic phenomena that it is supposed to apply to, with a set of phenomena created by Yves Couder entirely at the macro level, yet showing amazing similarities with those at the sub atomic level.
Couder, himself, at first merely glimpsed certain resonances between the two areas, but, thereafter, worked consistently to construct an ever closer analogue of that micro world, but entirely at the macro level. His objective was clear!
At the level he was working, absolutely nothing would be beyond revelation and analysis, and via such detailed explanations, he hoped to throw a revealing light upon the current, perplexing detours being “explored” in sub atomic Physics.
And, his efforts produced results far beyond what his expectations. For, his materials and arranged-for performances were merely based upon a single silicone liquid and a series of different oscillations, chosen specifically to cause both resonances and recursions.
What remarkably emerged was a stable sub system, which he termed “The Walker”. And, thereafter, one-by-one, he proceeded to create and display behaviours that were supposedly uniquely confined to the sub atomic realm! And, all of them were occurring at the macro level!
Of course, such things would not normally occur at that level, for in normal circumstances much more energetic and dominant macro oscillations would swamp the sort he was purposely creating and promoting. But, clearly, his main purpose was being fulfilled. These were not only confined to the sub atomic level, and the unique theory associated with them, which was also re-writing many tenets of Physics as it did so, and could indeed be profoundly mistaken! Couder even managed to make his “Walkers” perform “quantized “orbits!
Now, of course, many “Supporters of the Faith” dismissed his creations as mere coincidences, but they were most certainly wrong! Couder had produced a worthwhile analogue at a directly observable and analysable level, without the quantum, and in so doing unavoidably put in question the main tenets of Copenhagen. The “Key Things” at the micro level were indeed the quantization of energy levels involved in sub atomic orbits within the atom, encapsulated in the ubiquitous Planck’s Constant, “h”!
Now, if analogous situations could be created at the macro level, the key tenet of the Copenhagen standpoint would most certainly be brought into question, as the quantum could NOT be the cause in any of Couder’s macro set ups. Let us clarify what were being compared.
At the sub atomic level there were the descrete energy levels involved in the electron orbits within atoms, along with the seeming Wave/Particle Duality in many related phenomena.
At the macro level Couder, using oscillations, resonances and recursions, managed to create a stable entity, which he called a Walker that was composed of a bouncing drop, and also included a Standing Wave associated with it in the oil bath substrate.
And this surprising amalgam could be set to perform what appeared to be quantized orbits.
Though, many other analogues of what happened at the micro level were also achieved, it was this quantization that was the clincher. If Couder could explain that solely in terms of oscillations, resonances and recursion in an integrated stable system, the myth of Wave/Particle Duality and probabilistic predictions due to naturally indeterminate features would be scuppered. You could not claim such features in his Walker, and yet it displayed very similar behaviours.
Now, the questions were posed, but how could the theory at the micro level be demolished?
Clearly, a complete explanation of Couder’s Walkers was necessary, and perhaps the data could also be addressed in the very same way, as had been done for the micro situation.
If this were done, we might well end up with equations very similar indeed to those for the micro level. Yet, instead of Planck’s Constant, “h”, there would be another, which could not be explained away as the Copenhageners had done for “h”.
So, the initial task is clear – it must be to display the currently-used equations for a basic case at the sub atomic level – those for the Hydrogen atom, and a single photon (quantum) of electromagnetic energy emitted from the atom, occurring when a promoted electron returned to its base orbit. The required equations are shown below :
Now, before we go any further, we must dispel the myth that these equations direct what happens in Reality. Of course they don’t! They are nothing but purely formal descriptions of what has been extracted from that situation: they are the Forms that occurred there!
And, crucially, they are not unique to that situation alone. But, are in fact Universal General Forms that can occur in many other places too. This being the established case, they cannot be the causes of what occurs, but merely formal representations or descriptions. So, it should be possible, if analogous forms appear elsewhere to fit those same general forms there too.
Hence, ultimately, we would have the same equations representing both the micro level phenomena AND those for Couder’s Walker! The only differences will be in the particular constants necessary. Clearly, if that could be achieved, there would also be possible a physical explanation to accompany the equations for the Walkers, for it would be straightforward at the macro level to explain all the generalised phenomena. Absolutely NO magic Universal Natural Constants would be necessary. Everything will be explicable in terms of physical properties and relations. So, then we don’t just have a similarity of Forms in the two disparate areas: we have sound, physical analogues!
And, an alternative, physical explanation of the micro phenomena may well be possible, using the same sort of reasons, as did the job at the macro level.
So. This is the task!
But, it would be wrong to limit this critique to this pair of situations alone. The victory of the Copenhagenists would not have been so complete, were it not for other major, and long-standing flaws and contentions in the then current standpoint in Physics.
There had always been a continuing case of what is usually called Cognitive Dissonance, ever since the birth of Modern Science many centuries ago.
At the heart of Science were two opposite assumptions, which most certainly contradicted one another, yet both had proved invaluable in certain contexts.They were essentially the Materialist standpoint, involving Matter and both its properties and its inter-relationships, and the Idealist standpoint, which believed that Reality behaved entirely in accordance with eternally-existing, abstract Laws. Now, these are, indeed, opposites, philosophically, but could be “lived with” quite well. For, the materialist view would look to explain Reality in terms of matter and its properties, while the idealist view would concentrate upon revealing the natural quantitative relations in the most concise language of mathematical equations.
Now, clearly these can exist simultaneously in most pragmatic situations, but they were at extreme variance in the Explanatory Theories extracted from Reality. But, the basis for such a continuing subscription to both standpoints was made possible by both sides subscribing to the very same Principle of Plurality. For, this defining rule insisted that Reality was indeed composed of many different factors, which came together in an almost infinite variety of different sums to actually produce very different phenomena. The Principle claimed that these factors were never changed by their associations in the various arrangements: they all remained exactly the same in their pristine eternal states.
All variety was caused merely by different sets of factors and their quantitative differences, and that alone was enough to generate such infinite variety. The individual component factors were always totally separate in their natures: they were completely unchanged by all possible contexts.
Now, this was crucial to BOTH standpoints, for by careful construction of the conditions, under which investigations could be carried out, it would always be possible to so select and control these to make possible a clear revelation of a targeted factor. All other confusing factors could be either eliminated or held constant, so that the selected one would be effectively revealed. Now, something was indeed always revealed by these methods, and could be extracted and fitted up to an appropriate Form, but the assumption of it being exactly as it would be in totally unfettered Reality, was a consequence of this Principle of Plurality. It could not be demonstrated as the actual case in Reality: it could only be used in the exact same conditions under which it was revealed and extracted.
And, of course, these features were enough for both tendencies in Science.
They both accepted the extracted rule as being the actual available-everywhere “truth”. And, this meant that the idea of Analysis was always possible, and hierarchies of such relations could be conceived of as acting in what was termed Reductionism.
An overall general picture of Reality was delivered to both tendencies in Science, which defined an Experimental Method, plus an arrangement for effective use, and a hierarchical system of such explanations. The materialists were quite content with this, but so were the idealists, who by these means built up ever more eternal relations, which were the causes of all phenomena.
NOTE:
This was proved when Wiles finally proved Fermat’s Last
Theorem, because he was able to bring together many relations from a
wide variety of real world investigations, and weave them into his
“complete and ideal Proof”.
The two tendencies learned to live together, though never considering the other’s philosophical standpoint as anything more then a Belief!
Now, for those interested in Philosophy, similar Dichotomies had been recognised for several millennia, at least starting with Zeno and his Paradoxes, and occasionally raising it head, throughout subsequent history, until Hegel defined such occurrences as Dichotomous Pairs – the clear emergence of which not only signalled a crisis in our conceptions, but could, nevertheless, still co-exist for remarkably long periods of time, totally unresolved.
Yet, significantly, without a resolution of such contradictions real progress could never be achieved.
NOTE:
That doesn’t mean, of course, that NO progress at all could be
made, for it certainly could, but it would be, inevitably, an
aberrant growth, with some useful content, but lacking significant
understanding to allow major gains to be made. These growths would be
like etiolated plants, getting ever weaker and thinner until they,
finally and unavoidably, perished. Real
progress required that these impasses had to be transcended!
So, for centuries these two opposing, yet partially complementary, strands did indeed continue to co-exist. The trouble was, of course, that the halt in real understanding would inevitably, at some point, be impossible to ignore. Papered-over cracks would widen into unbridgeable chasms, and Zeno’s Continuity versus Descreteness dichotomy came to smash Physics asunder in the so-called Wave/Particle Duality, as a result of the discovery of the Quantum.
Sub Atomic Physics was banging up against this dichotomy constantly, with NO integrating new conception in sight. As long as Plurality was sacrosanct, the problem could never be even realised. Both sides in the crisis never questioned Plurality: it was both common and indeed essential to BOTH – and hence never even questioned!
But, it clearly WAS the problem!
And, its alternative in yet another Dichotomy needed to be addressed.
This opposite to Plurality was Holism! But, with this having the principle of “Everything affecting everything else!”, not to mention, “Change is always occurring!”, no systematic scientific method of investigation, or of Analysis in the formulation of phenomena. seemed even remotely possible.
NOTE:
Interestingly, the main exponent of Holism, The Buddha, had
lived at about the same time as Zeno – about 2,500 years ago.
All the methods occurring in Mathematics, Logic and later in Science, had been developed only via a belief in Plurality. Progress had been possible compared with the situation prior to this consciously-chosen Principle, NOT by addressing Reality-as-is, but by farming Reality via modified, filtered and then rigorously maintained Domains, in which relations could be both clearly displayed AND applied to achieve some intended purpose. To throw that away, for what appeared to be holistic chaos, seemed wholly reprehensible. So though artists, writers, religions and philosophers never totally abandoned Holism, it certainly had NO place in Logic, Mathematics and Science. Until, that is, Charles Darwin broke the prohibition with his entirely holistic theory of The Origin of Species!
So, with that entirely necessary diversion, perhaps we can return to the major crisis facing physicists in the early years of the 20th century? There was no getting away from it, current ideas were foundering upon the rock of Wave/Particle Duality. What had been seen as continuous waves, now sometimes only made sense as descrete particle-like gobbets of pure energy, or quanta, which became known thereafter as Photons. And, to compound the felony, particles like the electron, occasionally acted as if they were waves.
How, on earth could they be integrated into a new all-inclusive set of conceptions? They couldn’t! The real bases for these emerged dichotomies were NOT understood, so the physicists had to have a “revolution”: it seemed that they had to dump one or the other of their two co-existing standpoints! They chose Form, and totally rejected Explanation! They embraced Equations as the real essences of Reality – the actual drivers of all phenomena. They, and they alone could be trusted as being Truth itself! Explanation was demoted to fairy tales, which might give the appearance of truth, but were in fact totally man-made inventions. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory was precisely this new standpoint!
Now clearly, several things were necessary to retrieve the situation. The most difficult of these to get across, was undoubtedly the philosophic one of explaining and then debunking Plurality, and in its place promoting Holism: no one, at this stage would possibly “but that”, if only because Holism could not compete in supplying a delivering scientific method. So, it would have to be tackled initially experimentally with set-ups that totally torpedoed Copenhagen, and theoretically by showing fully working explanations in the relevant areas without any retreats into the Idealism of the Copenhagen standpoint. Two cases can be shown to have been successful in fulfilling these necessary objectives.
The first was by, this theorist, was the explanation of the seeming Wave/Particle Duality in the famous Double Slit Experiments, without any of the Copenhagen revisions.
And, the second was the Yves Couder, macro level experiments to reveal similar quantization features to what was occurring in the Sub Atomic level, yet existing wholly at the macro level, where the physical causes were clearly evident, and purely physical explanations could be extracted. The former of these two has been published as a SHAPE Journal Special Issue on the Internet, entitles The Theory of The Double Slits, and as a YouTube animation on its SHAPE Channel. While Yves Couder’s revelations are by now well known via his various academic journal publications, and have even featured on Morgan Freeman’s Through the Wormhole on TV.
This collection of papers might be the most siginifcant contribution in the work towards a holist approach to all the sciences. It advances what Hegel set as his primary goal, which was to develop a ‘Logic of Change’ to take over where Formal Logic had always failed - during interludes of significant qualitative change.
Even 200 years ago Hegel had identified crises in many disciplines where the prior assumptions and principles on which they were based, had run out of steam, and were beginning to come apart at the seams. He, in particular, recognised the appearance of what he termed Dichotomous Pairs - which were principles that though effective in certain areas, were in fact, mutually contradictory, and could therefore never be unified into a single principle covering both. Indeed, though crises may be considered to be typically of short duration, Hegel realised that such situations could persist for very long periods. Man learned to switch between the Dichotomous Pairs to use whichever principle worked in a given situation.
Hegel argued that by such methods, real understanding had been brought to a halt, and that any solution gained by such switching was merely pragmatic and needed to be transcended. He insisted they should be addressed with a view to revealing, criticising and ultimately replacing the assumptions on which they were based, resolving the impasse to a new level. This was Dialectical Reasoning, and the transcending to a new level was termed an Emergence.
The papers in this issue attempt to outline these methods in eight different disciplines, occasionally being profound enough to demolish the older methods of analysis and attempted understanding, for a more comprehensive approach that covers not only periods of stability, but crucially, the transforming interludes that we term Emergences.
