This Isn't Quantum Physics. Wait. It Actually Is. OK, Maybe Not Really...

I don't know why I sometimes feel inclined to take decent, working, knowledgeable scientists to task, but there could be something Freudian there. Y'know: we don't really know ourselves, and we don't know what motivates us to do the things we do. Of course, that doesn't really explain much, does it? And perhaps claiming that "...really everything is quantum physics" doesn't explain much either or maybe it's simply a mistaken point of view to take.

I mean, it seems to me here's an example of mistaking the map for the territory. Sure, yeah, it seems that, when observed in a suiting manner, the universe and all the stuff in it is "... all happening by the interactions of tiny particles," which also happen to sometimes be waves (again, seemingly dependent upon the mode of observation)--a result which, in part, led to the development of Quantum Theory. Yet, "...the rules of quantum mechanics" are the (current) map by which we assess, experiment with, and otherwise observe the going-ons of the stuff in the universe in its seemingly "fundamental (by which we seem to actually mean "smallest scale")" expression. In other words, the interactions of the stuff of the universe--currently observed at very small scales as "tiny particles" and waves--is the territory and Quantum Mechanics is the map. And it's likely a "category error" to say that the interactions of the stuff of the universe are identical to Quantum Mechanics: they are not the same thing. One is a bunch of stuff, the other is a bunch of symbols: territory and map.

For a long time--maybe around two-thousand years--many of the people inclined to study such things thought that Aristotelian physics could explain most (or maybe some thought all) of the stuff of existence. Of course, a few people came along and ended up knocking all that down, and what ended up in its place was Newtonian physics. And maybe some people thought that Newtonian physics could or would explain most or all the stuff of existence. And of course they were mistaken since Quantum physics came along and supplanted the Newtonian version of physics. And no, they are not the same thing.

So, maybe once upon a time some people thought that everything was explainable by Aristotelian physics, and we know now that they were wrong. And then once upon a different time it's likely that some other people thought that everything was explainable by Newtonian physics. Well, we know now that they were wrong too. Now it so happens that currently there seems to be some people who feel like everything is explainable by Quantum physics (or some slight modification of it--gravity being the main trouble-maker here), and we know now that they are...?

History repeats itself, (ad infinitum) as some say, and I'm willing to wager everything I own (although myself and any takers on the bet may not be alive to collect the payoff) that some day something else--some other theory--will explain, well, some things anyway. Because, let's be realistic here, when we ask, "[w]hat is not quantum physics," well, there's a whole slew of things that aren't. And many of those things--at least seemingly so--can be collected under the general heading known as Qualia.

For instance, Quantum physics has nothing at all to say about my taste of, for example, chocolate--let alone whether or not my taste of chocolate is identical to yours. And what's Quantum physics got to say about my like or dislike of Tarantino films: it certainly won't predict if I like his next one or not. And y'know those days where you simply feel like pulling the covers back over your head and staying in bed (well, I know those days, anyway)? I don't think Quantum physics has much to say about that either.

Hossenfelder writes, "[i]f it wasn’t for Pauli’s exclusion principle, you’d fall right through the ground."

Y'know, I don't recall learning about anyone ever having a problem with falling through the ground before Pauli formulated the exclusion principle, but maybe that's a result of some sort of historical revisionism covering up some grand conspiracy or other? I mean, what if people used to fall right through a flat earth or something? But I digress...

Now I can't speak for Hossenfelder's point of view in general (not really knowing her personally or anything), but this particular article appears to reflect a kind of scientific reductionism that I find distasteful, and I suppose that neither Quantum physics nor Freudian psychology are going to explain that particular aversion. Perhaps this hostility towards scientific reductionism--at least in some self-reflective and (semi) self-conscious sort of manner--goes some way to informing my apparent compulsion to take decent, working, knowledgeable scientists to task.

Shrug. I dunno'.

Science is cool, science is fascinating, science is a worthwhile human endeavour and has clearly aided the human race (yet also helped our seemingly insatiable appetite for self/other destruction as well...yet that's not science's fault--or is it? Perhaps if we hold that everything is quantum physics, then, yes, maybe science can be held morally accountable for all the atrocities it's helped to create...oh, sorry, again, my tendency to sometimes digress). But, at least currently, science isn't everything--can't explain everything, at any rate. And when it comes down to the fine grained details none of the stuff of existence is science. Science seems to be a method which produces a body of knowledge: together these inform investigations over a specific and limited range of human-based experiences.

Maybe one day science can and will explain everything there is to human experiences, but I guarantee that from our current position in the timeline we would not understand whatever that will be as science: its theories would likely seem to us as gibberish and its results as some form of sorcery. As it currently stands with or without Quantum--or any other formulation of physics--there are still milkshakes, weight loss, basketball, and Noam Chomsky. Sorry, Sabine.

E = mc^2

In my less than scientifically rigourous and not necessarily physical formulation of a particular variation on "Relativity Theory," well, the formula in the title can be interpreted as:

Entertainment = misanthropy (times) cynicism (squared).

With that in mind, I present unto you:

The Wall

or

The Philosopher King (For a Day)

If I had my way, I'd have all of ya' shot.

Now, I don't care what "race" ya' are, what the colour of yer skin is, or what yer appearance and features are in general: we're all human beings.

And I don't care what religion you practice (or not): we all have ways to make sense of the world, our place in it, and a means to create meaning from an otherwise seemingly meaningless existence.

And I don't care what you do to yerself: smoke pot; take drugs; drink; do yoga; eat only vegetables; drink too much coffee, man; or whatever else. We are each free--if indeed we are in any sense "free"--to make our own choices regarding our own particular lifestyles insofar as those choices effect (mostly) our own being (and here the qualification of "mostly" because simply through relating our lifestyle choices may effect others, but that is a whole 'nother "can of worms"--let's allow a degree of simplification here--for entertainment value--thanks).

And I don't care what yer sexual orientation is or what kinks you have: see above regarding "what you do to yerself." So long as what we are doing is consensual, well, everyone else can mind their own fucking business and stay the fuck out of another's undies (unless, of course, there's mutual consent there, then, go on, dive right in).

And I don't care what yer position is in the social hierarchy: good, decent people can be found within all the socially defined (however so) "castes."

What I do care about is how each and any of us relate to other people, and this can be often expressed specifically via our "profession," or "career choices," or "jobs" in general.

And I do, more or less, agree with Shakespeare:

Let's kill all the lawyers first.

But of course, we can't simply generalize over all the lawyers, 'cause at least some of them are going to be good, decent human beings who use their profession as a means to help and assist others, so:

Let's kill some but not all the lawyers first.

Get 'em up against the wall.

And then there's the politicians. Again, it's going to be some but not all.

'Gainst. The. Wall.

And some but not all religious leaders.

Get 'em up against the wall.

And some but not all (but probably most) bankers.

'Gainst. The. Wall

Actually, let's do the bankers second--right after the lawyers.

And the landlords: some but not all.

Get 'em up against the wall.

CEOs and other board members, well, most of you, I'd reckon:

'Gainst. The. Wall

War mongers, military chiefs of staff, generals, and people who command large groups of other people to kill yet other people:

Get 'em up against the wall.

My, it's getting pretty bloody in here, isn't it? The air is thick with the smell of gunpowder--let's make sure we are all wearing respirators--and I do hope you are all also wearing protective gear for yer ears.

And what are we gonna' do with all these corpses? I suppose incineration will be the most practical solution: fire up the furnaces, comrades!

I am sure I've left out some other general categories of people as defined by their professions. This is merely an initial sort of modest proposal and we can hash out the fine details as we incinerate the bodies, OK?

Now, the important part, obviously, is coming up with a fair and reasonable criteria that can--much more often than not--separate the "some" from the "all."

How do we do this? It is a tricky affair to be sure, and, well, we're likely gonna' have to break a few eggs, now and then, if we want to make an omelet. Sorry families and friends of the wrongly put down: we'll make sure you are well compensated by the redistribution of wealth this endeavour will certainly entail. Simply think of it in the same light as when you mash a mosquito that hasn't even bitten you yet: there'll always be more of them along that will bite you.

So, the criteria.

I say, as yer pretend philosopher king fer the day, we let people draw the line themselves and then wait for their own hypocrisy to make them cross it.

Yes, each of us is free to be as helpful or not helpful with regards to everyone else as we so chose, but when we take direct action and willfully engage in behaviours that harm others, well, that's gotta' be a strike against us, yes?

You want freedom of speech? You want freedom of thought? You want freedom to express yourself? Have it. Have it all. Stand on a soapbox in the market place and cry out your hate, your hardship, your pain, your frustration, and whatever else: I don't care.

Act on those same things in ways which harm others, well, that's gotta' be a strike.

Paint pictures, make movies, build monuments, write manifestos and tracts, create whatever you want: I don't care.

Take advantage of others via whatever means in order to exploit them, well that's a strike.

Three strikes?

Up against the wall.

It's simple, really: "treat others as you would have them treat yourself, and do not treat others as you would not have them treat yourself."

And, yes, that itself is likely too simple, but, hey, everything looks better on paper--even digital representations of paper--then it does when put into practice; regardless, this is all only entertainment anyway: I have little interest in cleaning up the mess--hypothetical or otherwise.

That said, let's start with the lawyers: get 'em up against the wall.