Quantum Physics

I've recently decided to get into cosmology again. This is partially motivated by a desire to be more of a citizen of the world and indeed of God's universe. Spirituality necessitates a good understanding of the cosmos. In fact, I would not hesitate to blame ignorance of cosmology for a good number of the problems our civilization faces. After all, nothing stops greed or self interest in its tracks quite like contemplating the vast size of our galaxy and then realizing that it is only one among several thousand probably composing a tiny fragment of a several-billion-light-year-long filament of galaxies, that filament itself bordering a region of strange emptiness several more billion light years across. Human civilization is nothing compared to the sizes and time scales of these galactic structures.

But that's not what I wanted to write about here. Instead I want to turn to quantum physics - an important part of cosmology. From what little I've read of quantum physics I've come to understand that it discusses ideas like the following:

• Particles may be understood both as particles and as waves.
  
• Attempting to determine the position of a particle will affect its momentum and thus upset it
  

The Whore

It seems that quantum physics has been abducted and forced against her will to perform all manner of cheap parlor tricks for the gullible and ignorant masses which, as evidenced by the huge sales of books like "The Secret" and films like "What the Bleep do we Know?", comprise a generous part our society. Quantum physics can be found propping up claims on the websites of some spammers. Why take a university course on the subject of quantum physics when a financial guru can explain the basics to you, allowing you to "learn exclusive secrets of Quantum Physics, Mind Secrets, Psychic Powers, Real Magic, Astrology, Wealth Creation, Miracle Healing, The Meaning of Life?"

In the minds of many members of the public, quantum physics may be considered to be among the pseudo-sciences.

The Idol

The idolization of science as a kind of standard by which all of our thinking is to be weighed is not difficult to see in our society. The young-earth creationist is idolizing the secular establishment she claims to be dismantling when she tries to appeal to this or that scientific theorem in order to disprove evolution. Science's rejection of metaphysical beliefs as a part of reasoning is echoed in the Christian apologist's charge that the atheist is in fact a man of faith. Pots and kettles are both black, so there is evidently little harm in one calling the other on its colour.

Furthermore, the stamp of approval from the scientific community is highly prized. One need only consider advertisements for products like drugs or toothpastes to see the stamp and the implicit message that "our product is approved by scientists and is thus best for you."

Kom's Response

Since we are taught to idolize the sciences it only makes sense that we should make use of them as a kind of anchor for our optimism. Forget that the collapse of the probability wave is random and not dependent upon the state of mind of the observer. It just sounds better when I say that events which cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty, when observed by me, coalesce in response to my observations and so I therefore create the universe around me.

Patri Jia Kom, along with the fictional characters in The Lair of the Gods, would agree with me when I suggest that in fact quantum physics is being used by many a credulous fool as a kind of belief to promote positive thinking. If my state of mind influences the events around me by virtue of some unknown theorem of quantum physics then why not always remain an optimist?

But Kom is correct only so long as her hypothesized method of anchoring emotional states inside of beliefs allows for its user to detach himself from the beliefs and set them aside when it is time to return again to reality. Otherwise she is advocating the subjugation of the masses to ignorance and superstition.

Conclusion

I thought I'd write this tired little rant to appeal to all past or present students of the sciences (whether science majors or just aficionados) to please please please familiarize yourselves with the basics of quantum physics, if only to ensure that there is a counterbalance to the credulous masses (whose existence was arrived at earlier in this post through indirect observation) who apparently think that positive thought and the right attitude are all you need in order to rearrange the cosmos for your benefit.

God

In a recent documentary Richard Dawkins asserted something to the following effect: A lot of people, when they give up God feel a great sense of release and freedom. When I became an atheist I did so in response to and with respect to a certain individual / figure. With respect to the God of Neil Anderson I suppose I am an atheist since, returning again to Dawkins, we are all atheists with respect to untold pantheons of gods. With respect to the God of doctrine or of catechism or of any other kind of barrier which prevents immediate one-on-one contact with this person I am an atheist.

What I am not, however, is an atheist with respect to God, a figure whose definition and essence I shall leave to the reader's imagination. I hope the reader will be courteous enough to return the favour.

To those I have hurt over this past year, I am very sorry.

Submission and All That

1. A woman who asserts that women ought to submit to their husbands should not say "women should submit to their husbands," but rather she should say something like the following: "I want my man to dominate me. I want him to tell me what to do and I want him to make the decisions for me."

2. Similarly, a man who advocates the submission of men to their wives should not say this of all men but rather he should say it thus: "I want my woman to dominate me. I want her to press upon me her demands day and night and I wish no choice in the matter of my obedience to her every whim."

3. One who does not agree with the marriage between two gays should not press others to side with him. Rather, he should say, "I do not want to marry a man. I only want a woman." Likewise, a woman who does not agree with marriage between lesbians should not discourage it in lesbians but instead be content to say, "I don't want to marry a woman. I only want a man."

4. That God is to be found not in something outside of the human mind but rather in the noise of the crowd is most loudly demonstrated by the Christian's demands for this or that law to be passed or repealed in order to further the Kingdom of God. In so acting, the Christian says quite clearly that God is either incompetent or lazy. I will leave to the reader the task of determining a third possibility for I fear that my Christian readers might catch the vapors were I to put it into words.

5. Most terrifying to the Christian is the specter of a Creation Mandate which demands not only that the Creation be cultivated and developed by human beings but also that God himself be so evolved and gestated. Yet where is there a Christian who does not practice at least the second half of this latter mandate?

6. It is a very insecure experience to be beautiful in the dark.

December Musings

1. There once was a river whose name now escapes me. At the centre of this river there was a massive and imposing rock, standing in defiance against God's Creation. All round it the vibrant waters flowed, not an atom of them awed by the rock's grandiose presence. No, for each particle of the water life moved on and change was a comforting norm. But the rock stayed, left behind by each molecule, pieces of it gradually drawn into the current.

Every now and again this or that wise sage would pass by the river at the spot wherein the rock's edifice proudly stood. The less observant locals would note that the rock had changed, growing smaller and smoother with each passing year. But the sages knew better. Change was not the rock's doing but rather the slow and relentless progression of a thousand brisk individuals living and dying and carrying aloft fine, stale particulates.

2. That atheism is finest which has as its object something in which to refuse to believe. That atheism is most religious which boasts of a positive assertion - that is, which drops the "a" from its name.

3. An atheist may be just as lazy as a theist. That is, he may refuse all his life to experience first hand the consequences of his metaphysics and elect instead to beat a hollow drum of dogma.

4. It is a mistake to believe that only higher learning requires a long and laborious process of inculcation. A person may be trained in stupidity with as much fervor as she may in truth and wisdom.