Implications of Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory for ''Marxist'' Philosophy

[neosyndic]

How do Marxists from different perspectives approach Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory ?
[/URL]


[URL="http://www.marxist.com/science-old/chaostheory.html"]Marxist perspective on Chaos Theory (http://wn.com/Musings_On_Chaos_Theory_And_Possible_Philosophical _Implications)

[renzo_novatore]

I'm not a marxist, I am an anarchist, but I do think that quantum mechanics has profound implications for the left, very positive ones. Namely since no one has a hold on "objective" reality, this means that we've got to think for ourselves instead of blindly following our leaders who claim this "objectivity." Not to say that we should be against science, science is always fallible, that's what makes it science. People who think that they're infallible are our leaders who think that they're universally right and can never be questioned - quantum mechanics in my opinion takes away that supreme vantage point that they have over people's minds and shows that the only person who can think for you is yourself (not even marx can think for you lol).

[ckaihatsu]

Here are a couple of excerpts from past postings on this topic:





While complexity theory *is* abstract, it's *not* a model, as much as it's an *approach* to the study of natural or social systems, akin, or counterposed to, reductionism or a holistic ("whole-istic") approach to scientific investigations.


Complexity Pages

A non-technical introduction to the new
science of Chaos and Complexity

complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/intro.html





[S]ince it's an approach, and not a school of thought, or a 'theory' in its usual meaning, it doesn't have to be *separated* or institutionalized in any way from our regular dealings with political matters. It's really more a matter of deciding whether to describe a person based on their foot-movements alone, to do so based on their movements and communications, or some combination of the two, including their body-language movements as well. (This analogy is meant to correspond to reductionism, holism, and complexity approaches, respectively.)





In my experience I have found that the education "industry"'s institutional enthusiasm for the technical fields of math and science serve not only to engender obedience into the future workforce, but it also promotes a Western- and reductionist-biased scientific culture that is compatible with an authoritarian ideological culture.

Students, in learning about the history of established science and scientific practices, are not encouraged to think in terms of overall systems, as in the areas of chaos, complexity, and connectionism. Rather, science is presented as that which fits under a microscope, removed from the context in which it's found. Granted, this reductionistic approach to science has yielded tremendous advancements, but it has also obscured much as well.

Applied to the domain of the humanities this approach to inquiry makes people myopic, examining instances on their own, in a void, without seeking to grasp the larger-frame and longer-period historical forces that are at work.

tinyurl.com/6kxcuvp

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How exactly does quantum theory impact Marxism with any significance? Quantum theory describes the universe at vastly smaller scales than Marxism does, with quantum effects approximating to classical physics long before reaching the scale of individual humans, let alone entire societies which is the purview of Marxism.

On the other hand, chaos theory is more generally applicable, and societies can reasonably be considered chaotic systems. I see no reason why a synthesis of Marxism and chaos theory cannot happen, or at least I see no reason for conflict between the two.

[neosyndic]

I'm not a marxist, I am an anarchist, but I do think that quantum mechanics has profound implications for the left, very positive ones. Namely since no one has a hold on "objective" reality, this means that we've got to think for ourselves instead of blindly following our leaders who claim this "objectivity." Not to say that we should be against science, science is always fallible, that's what makes it science. People who think that they're infallible are our leaders who think that they're universally right and can never be questioned - quantum mechanics in my opinion takes away that supreme vantage point that they have over people's minds and shows that the only person who can think for you is yourself (not even marx can think for you lol).

insofar as Chaos Theory demonstrates that long-term prediction is impossible it reinforces Karl Marx's argument against utopian socialism. insofar as Chaos Theory demonstrates that the apparently deterministic nature of a system does not make it predictable it reinforces the anarchist perspective that "...Power is not GIVEN , it is TAKEN. Which implies: Revolution is there IMMEDIATELY at any time under any circumstances..."


as to quantum physics: the discovery of the so-called ''quantum realm'' where the classical laws of physics do not apply, deals the final death blow to notions of scientific realism that discualify ''the unknown, unknown''. the related Heisenberg uncertainty principle (give a pair; precise measurement of one property negates precise measurement in its analogue) destroys the final ramparts of formal logic. insofar as the dialectics of Karl Marx are counterposed to mechanistic logical positivism; dialectical materialism is reinforced by HUP.

[Meridian]

the related Heisenberg uncertainty principle (give a pair; precise measurement of one property negates precise measurement in its analogue) destroys the final ramparts of formal logic[/SIZE][/FONT]
What makes you think this?

By the way, I and, I think, the other people reading your posts, would be very grateful if you just wrote in the ordinary font and size of this forum. It makes it easier to read and quote.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neosyndic:


as to quantum physics: the discovery of the so-called ''quantum realm'' where the classical laws of physics do not apply, deals the final death blow to notions of scientific realism that discualify ''the unknown, unknown''. the related Heisenberg uncertainty principle (give a pair; precise measurement of one property negates precise measurement in its analogue) destroys the final ramparts of formal logic. insofar as the dialectics of Karl Marx are counterposed to mechanistic logical positivism; dialectical materialism is reinforced by HUP.

This is a widely held myth among Dialectical Marxists, but the truth is that the HUP has not bearing at all on Formal Logic, as Meridian suggests.

Or, if you think it has, perhaps you should explain why.


insofar as the dialectics of Karl Marx are counterposed to mechanistic logical positivism; dialectical materialism is reinforced by HUP

Quite apart from the fact that Marx held no opinions about the 'dialectic' as applied to nature, the opopsite is actually the case. And that is because, as Lenin noted (but in another context), it suggests that humanity will never know the 'thing-in-itself', that is, that there is un unbrigeable limit to human knowledge.

[neosyndic]

x

[neosyndic]

How exactly does quantum theory impact Marxism with any significance? Quantum theory describes the universe at vastly smaller scales than Marxism does, with quantum effects approximating to classical physics long before reaching the scale of individual humans, let alone entire societies which is the purview of Marxism. On the other hand, chaos theory is more generally applicable, and societies can reasonably be considered chaotic systems. I see no reason why a synthesis of Marxism and chaos theory cannot happen, or at least I see no reason for conflict between the two.

perhaps you can elaborate on the last point ?


as to the issue of Marxist Theory and Quantum Mechanics i offer the following reference:


Against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics – in defence of Marxism (http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm)

SNIP: "...Quantum mechanics has given scientists and engineers a new and deeper understanding of physical reality. It explains the behaviour of electrons, atoms and molecules, the nature of chemical reactions, how light interacts with matter, the evolution of stars, the bio-chemistry of life and the evolution of mankind itself. Despite its successes it remains an intensely controversial theory. It suggests that very small objects such as electrons or photons behave in ways that contradict the common sense ideas. Yet many scientists to this day refuse to accept the fact that contradiction is an essential part of all matter..."

incidentally this article offers a Marxist reply to the denial of the existence of physical reality currently in vogue among certain sectors of the Scientific community who have become influenced by post-humanist trends.

i want to clarify that i am not an advocate of denying material reality, i only ask that those who are materialists should develop arguments proving the existence of material reality (specifically proving the existence of the human body), as cogito ergo sum does not work anymore.

[Meridian]

precise measurement is ultimately not possible in the absolute sense of the term. there is always uncertainty.

the very definition of chaos implies uncertainty: infinitesimal variations in initial conditions lead to large variations in behaviour.

there are implications also for socialist conceptions of economics. how to control initial conditions so as to produce a relative outcome (because an absolute outcome is rendered impossible by uncertainty); than can erase relative scarcity and create an economic basis for ''the freedom of all'' ?

leaving aside the issue that legitimate Scientific theories cannot contain an a-priori bias for a given political agenda; and relative to the issue of Quantum Physics and Chaos Theory some questions for those who are interested in exploring the possibility of deploying the methodological tools of dialectical materialism to help discern permutations of natural phenomena: (assuming that dialectical materialism might be applicable as a methodological approach sui generis)

1) how to account for motion of particles in the realm of quanta ?
2) how to reconcile the theory of relative motion in four dimensional space-time with quanta phenomena ?
3) how to account for uncertainty (as in the uncertainty principle involving measurement of pairs) ?
4) assuming that differences in initial conditions relative to phenomena yield different outcomes; how would the conceptual tools associated with dialectical materialism answer the questions posed by Quantum Chaos ? (the manner in which classical and quantum mechanics interact in the borderline between ''our realm'' - a matter of perception, because there is really no ''boundary'' - and that of quanta.)

the notion of quantum chaos in particular: at what ''point'' (if such can be construed to exist), does classical mechanics cease to be applicable and quantum mechanics becomes applicable ?
None of this has an implication on Formal Logic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

perhaps you can elaborate on the last point ?

Chaos theory is silent on the material nature of historical development, one of the most important tenets of Marxism. If a Marxist were to use chaos theory in their calculations, I suspect the only difference from a non-Marxist application would be that the Marxist would only account for material factors.


incidentally this article offers a Marxist reply to the denial of the existence of physical reality currently in vogue among certain sectors of the Scientific community who have become influenced by post-humanist trends.

The Copenhagen interpretation is far from universally accepted.


i want to clarify that i am not an advocate of denying material reality, i only ask that those who are materialists should develop arguments proving the existence of material reality (specifically proving the existence of the human body), as cogito ergo sum does not work anymore.

Proving the existence of material reality is like proving that water is wet - there is no need because it is self-evident.

The challenge is proving that there is anything other than material reality.

[black magick hustla]

a lot of analytic metaphysicians adapted modal logic and the talk of possible worlds to talk about quantum mechanics. Personally, i think its silly and modal logic is contingent to a particular, realist interpretation of QM but to say QM killed formal logic, is like saying QM killed math.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neosyndic:


precise measurement is ultimately not possible in the absolute sense of the term. there is always uncertainty.

What has this got to do with Formal Logic?:confused:


leaving aside the issue that legitimate Scientific theories cannot contain an a-priori bias for a given political agenda; and relative to the issue of Quantum Physics and Chaos Theory some questions for those who are interested in exploring the possibility of deploying the methodological tools of dialectical materialism to help discern permutations of natural phenomena: (assuming that dialectical materialism might be applicable as a methodological approach sui generis)

1) how to account for motion of particles in the realm of quanta ?
2) how to reconcile the theory of relative motion in four dimensional space-time with quanta phenomena ?
3) how to account for uncertainty (as in the uncertainty principle involving measurement of pairs) ?
4) assuming that differences in initial conditions relative to phenomena yield different outcomes; how would the conceptual tools associated with dialectical materialism answer the questions posed by Quantum Chaos ? (the manner in which classical and quantum mechanics interact in the borderline between ''our realm'' - a matter of perception, because there is really no ''boundary'' - and that of quanta.)

In fact, Dialectical Mterialism has nothing to offer here, other than even more confusion.

Of course, you are welcome to show otherwise...

[black magick hustla]

I think people here have weird interpretations of chaos theory. Chaos theory is mathematically deterministic - it is "chaotic" because a small disturbance in the initial conditions yields wildly different solutions to certain very difficult non linear partial differential equations. I would imagine it could be applied to historical materialism, because it is simply a framework used to analyze dynamic systems.

[neosyndic]

Chaos theory is silent on the material nature of historical development, one of the most important tenets of Marxism. If a Marxist were to use chaos theory in their calculations, I suspect the only difference from a non-Marxist application would be that the Marxist would only account for material factors. The Copenhagen interpretation is far from universally accepted. Proving the existence of material reality is like proving that water is wet - there is no need because it is self-evident.The challenge is proving that there is anything other than material reality.

that is the problem though. what is ''the nature of matter'' at the point when the classical laws of physics cease to be, and the physical laws which govern the realm of quanta become. the notion of "wave particle duality of matter'' posits a dialectical juxtaposition. there is no established concept of what matter is in the first place.

the copenhaguen interpretation is a cop out: it boils down to ''it cannot be explained''. the problem is not methodological, but technological. there needs to be developed instrumentality which could: 1) measure the movement of protons (the Heisenberg approach) -or- 2) an instrumentality which could observe both wave and particle behaviour (the Bohr approach).

as the reference i offered states:

"...The whole point is that the laws of formal logic break down beyond certain limits. This most certainly applies to the phenomena of the subatomic world, where the laws of identity, contradiction and the excluded middle cannot be applied. Heisenberg defends the standpoint of formal logic and idealism, and therefore, inevitably arrives at the conclusion that the contradictory phenomena at the subatomic level cannot be comprehended by human thought at all. The contradiction, however, is not in the observed phenomena at the subatomic level, but in the hopelessly antiquated and inadequate mental schema of formal logic. The so-called "paradoxes of quantum mechanics" are precisely this. Heisenberg cannot accept the existence of dialectical contradictions, and therefore prefers to revert to philosophical mysticism— ‘we cannot know’, and all the rest of it.” [link to reference source] (http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm)

even if you choose to believe that ''material reality is self evident'', you still need to explain how exactly with an emphasis on proving the how. it is perfectly valid to ask what makes water ''wet''. otherwise you end up falling back on the a-priori dogmatics and the faith that you as a materialist are not suppossed to depend on.

[neosyndic]

I think people here have weird interpretations of chaos theory. Chaos theory is mathematically deterministic - it is "chaotic" because a small disturbance in the initial conditions yields wildly different solutions to certain very difficult non linear partial differential equations. I would imagine it could be applied to historical materialism, because it is simply a framework used to analyze dynamic systems.


yes !

deterministic behaviour that is sensitive to initial conditions, intrinsic error leading to variations in the behaviour of the said system. error increasing exponentially. not predictable. uncertain. counter-intutitive from the perspective of formal logic. the challenge is to explore creative ways in which historical materialism could be deployed as a methodological conceptual tool to analyse the phenomena you describe.

...and in the process deliver a black eye to the conservative professoriat who claim that marxism is not useful for anything in the natural sciences.

[neosyndic]

a lot of analytic metaphysicians adapted modal logic and the talk of possible worlds to talk about quantum mechanics. Personally, i think its silly and modal logic is contingent to a particular, realist interpretation of QM but to say QM killed formal logic, is like saying QM killed math.

of course that QM did not kill math ! the question: is at what point does formal logic becomes not useful in the process of explaining phenomena that behaves in a counter-intutitive manner ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

that is the problem though. what is ''the nature of matter'' at the point when the classical laws of physics cease to be, and the physical laws which govern the realm of quanta become.

You seem to forget that all those spooky quantum mechanical effects that New Agers love to trumpet as confirmation of their worldview only happen at really small scales - as much I would love the ability to teleport everywhere through through the effect of quantum tunneling, it's just not possible for such large objects as myself, which are millions and billions of times larger than a helium nucleus.

Furthermore, quantum mechanics isn't magic. If it were possible to for quantum-scale effects to somehow manifest on the macroscale, then the laws of physics would still hold.


the notion of "wave particle duality of matter'' posits a dialectical juxtaposition.

Not really. There's no such duality with macroscale objects because they're made out of multiple trillions of fundamental particles which collectively average out into an reasonable approximation of classical physics. A ball sitting in a dimple at the top of a hill will never tunnel to the bottom of the valley, not a in a trillion cosmological lifetimes.


there is no established concept of what matter is in the first place.

So what? We know enough about it anyway, and no doubt we'll come to solve the mystery in time.


the copenhaguen interpretation is a cop out: it boils down to ''it cannot be explained''. the problem is not methodological, but technological. there needs to be developed instrumentality which could: 1) measure the movement of protons (the Heisenberg approach) -or- 2) an instrumentality which could observe both wave and particle behaviour (the Bohr approach).

as the reference i offered states:

"...The whole point is that the laws of formal logic break down beyond certain limits. This most certainly applies to the phenomena of the subatomic world, where the laws of identity, contradiction and the excluded middle cannot be applied. Heisenberg defends the standpoint of formal logic and idealism, and therefore, inevitably arrives at the conclusion that the contradictory phenomena at the subatomic level cannot be comprehended by human thought at all. The contradiction, however, is not in the observed phenomena at the subatomic level, but in the hopelessly antiquated and inadequate mental schema of formal logic. The so-called "paradoxes of quantum mechanics" are precisely this. Heisenberg cannot accept the existence of dialectical contradictions, and therefore prefers to revert to philosophical mysticism— ‘we cannot know’, and all the rest of it.” [link to reference source] (http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm)

Except that it was formal logic that helped us to discover the weirdness of the quantum world in the first place. That we haven't worked everything out right off the bat is simply an appeal to ignorance.


even if you choose to believe that ''material reality is self evident'', you still need to explain how exactly with an emphasis on proving the how. it is perfectly valid to ask what makes water ''wet''. otherwise you end up falling back on the a-priori dogmatics and the faith that you as a materialist are not suppossed to depend on.

It's not a matter of "choosing to believe" that material reality is self-evident - it really is self-evident. The universe to all intents and purposes behaves and responds in a materialistic manner. The fact that weird things happen at extreme boundaries such as the quantum scale is only to be expected - material conditions are different in such contexts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neosyndic:


"...The whole point is that the laws of formal logic break down beyond certain limits. This most certainly applies to the phenomena of the subatomic world, where the laws of identity, contradiction and the excluded middle cannot be applied. Heisenberg defends the standpoint of formal logic and idealism, and therefore, inevitably arrives at the conclusion that the contradictory phenomena at the subatomic level cannot be comprehended by human thought at all. The contradiction, however, is not in the observed phenomena at the subatomic level, but in the hopelessly antiquated and inadequate mental schema of formal logic. The so-called "paradoxes of quantum mechanics" are precisely this. Heisenberg cannot accept the existence of dialectical contradictions, and therefore prefers to revert to philosophical mysticism— ‘we cannot know’, and all the rest of it.” [link to reference source]

Well, dialecticians often say things like this, but they have yet to show how Formal Logic 'breaks down beyond certain limits'.

Now, Harry Nielsen, from whom this quotation of yours has been derived, plainly pinched these ideas from Woods and Grant. Unfortunately, in their book (Reason in Revolt), these two have demonstrated that they haven't a clue what Formal Logic is -- as, indeed, I told Alan Woods in an e-mail exchange we had a few years back. Their book is full of the most basic errors about Formal Logic.

[Alas, many of these errors have been left in the second edition of the above book, despite the fact that I pointed them out to Alan back in 2004.]

I have detailed several of them here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2004.htm

Use the search function in your browser to find "Woods" or "Grant" (without the quotations).

And several more here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/appendix_to%20page%20seven.htm

As far as the alleged 'paradoxes' of quantum mechanics are concerned, I posted this here at RevLeft a few years back, here it is again:


For example, dialecticians often argue that the wave-particle duality of light confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this case, light is supposed to be a Unity of Opposites, wave and particle. Precisely how they are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter at this level is fundamentally particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left entirely obscure.

Exactly how this phenomenon helps account for the material world is even less clear.

Even though all dialecticians refer to this 'contradiction', not one has explained how and why it is a contradiction, nor less how and why it is a 'dialectical contradiction' ( even if we knew what these are (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_03.htm)).

Consider these two propositions:

Q1: Light is a wave.

Q2: Light is particulate.

Now, Q1 would contradict Q2 if the following were the case:

Q3: No wave can be particulate.

Q4: Light must be one or the other, wave or particle.

[Q4 is required or Q1 and Q2 would merely be inconsistent.]

But is Q3 true? Surely not, for if physicists are correct, light is both!

However, independently of that, there are plenty of examples of waves in nature which are particulate; e.g., sound waves, water waves and Mexican waves. So, Q3 is in fact false!

Moreover, Q4 could be false, too. Light could turn out to be something else about which we do not yet have a concept. That, of course, would make Q1 and Q2 merely inconsistent. Do 'dialectical logicians' know what to do with 'dialectical inconsistencies'?

But, even if in some way this were a 'contradiction', it does nothing to explain change -- unless we are supposed to accept the idea that the fact that light is a particle changes it into a wave, and/or vice versa. Are we meant to conclude that these two states/processes are 'struggling' with one another? But what is the point of that? What role does this particular 'contradiction' play either in DM or in Physics? At best it seems to be merely ornamental.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]

At worst, of course, all the problems we met earlier (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html) in connection with the DM-'theory' of change would apply here too.

Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say, Superstring Theory, there are in fact many Physicists -- with, it seems, a more robust commitment to scientific realism than the average dialectician can muster -- who believe that this 'paradox' can be resolved within a realist picture of nature. [Evidence can be found at my site (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm).] Whether or not they are correct need not detain us since DM-theorists (if consistent) ought to advise these rather rash realists not to bother trying to solve this riddle. This is because dialectics has already provided them with an a priori solution: since nature is fundamentally contradictory there is in fact no solution --, which paradoxical state of affairs should, of course, simply be "grasped".

As we have seen several times, dialecticians are in a bind here: on the basis of their theory, it is impossible tell the difference between 'contradictions' that supposedly reflect nature accurately and contradictions that are the product of a defective theory, the retention of which would hold up the progress of science.

This is just one more example.

So, if we listened to DM-fans, it could permanently halt the development of physics.

[Kronsteen]

There are pro-capitalists who claim chaos theory justifies an unregulated market because chaos theory deals in areas of unpredictability in deterministic system - and therefore unregulatability.

In short: They say the market can't be controlled, so it's wrong to try.

There are pro-socialists who claim chaos theory proves the market under capitalism is untamable therefore inherantly unfair and maybe self-destructive, therefore needs replacing.

These two groups have several things in common:
1) They're talking rubbish. They're both misdescribing chaos theory.
2) They're doing so to give a false gloss of scientific proof for their ideological allegance.

It's probably inevitable that capitalists do this, because they don't have much genuine justification. But socialists who do it are being opportunistic, dishonest, and counterproductive.

If socialism is true, it doesn't need false proofs.

It's the same with quantum theory. Capitalists take bits and pieces that sort-of sound pro-capitalist when ripped from context, and socialists make an equal but opposite dogs dinner of the terms for themeselves.

Marxism is a science of politics, economics, and the fight for human freedom. It can't be applied to subatomic physics, nor can quantum notions be applied to it. The result would be gibberish.

Comforting gibberish maybe, but unhelpful in the class struggle.