Is quantum mechanics antithetical to marxist 'philosophy'?

[ColonelCossack]

Recently, i've been trying to reconcile Marxist dialectical materialism, with the philosophically idealistic side of quantum field theory, or quantum mechanics.

The main reason for this is because of two of the main features of quantum theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and wave-function. The former states that you can never know everything about a particle at the same time (i.e. its position and velocity). The latter is a property of all quantum-scale particles, and a quick definition of it is that it is the probability of a particle existing in any place at any time, and when we observe that particle this collapses. Taken together, one interpretation is that these both contradict Marxist materialism, which states that existence creates consciousness.

This interpretation is the copenhagen interpretation, and for a time I thought that this was the only interpretation. This interpretation states that, before we observe a particle, the wave-function is all that exists of that particle, and as a result the act of observing it causes that particle to exist. This can be enlarged to say that the act of observing anything causes it to exist- note that being conscious of our own existence counts as observation of ourselves. This is clearly opposed to materialism.

However, after becoming aware of this, I discovered that there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics- the most relevant here being the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. This states that the wave-function is real and actually exists, and that every particle exists in each of those places at the same time, and that the reason that the reason we can never know everything about a particle at the same time is merely down to our own ignorance. This interpretation gets around the problem of quantum mechanic's idealism.

However, there is also the problem of quantum physic's indeterminism. This states that you can never know enough about a system to accurately predict what will happen in it in the future. This is opposed to dialectics and historical materialism, in that it makes the revolution far less certain, because even though the materialist conception of history points towards a revolution, that does not at all mean that that revolution will happen.

If any of you guys has any objection to this , has anything to add, or can reconcile the second problem I put forward, please do so.

If you're going ZOMGWTF :confused::confused::confused: that's ok. That's what my mum did too.

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism does not need a "philosophy" or a "worldview" which would aim at a comprehensive system of postulates and propositions which explain every existing phenomenon and, at the same time, relate to theoretical aspects of physics.

And I don't think you can relate the Heisenberg principle to the historical materialist maxim that "social existence determines consciousness". In any case, if you'd wish to relate the two, you'd most probably come up with worthless, useless conclusions.

Concerning the indeterminism part, yes, it is true that no one can know whether a world revolution will happen. Where's the problem?
I for one don't think revolutionaries should exhibit a psychological need for deterministic panaceas in the form of theories and "proofs" that world revolution is inevitable. It is not inevitable and something like that cannot be proven (in other words, such a proposition would be an unscientific one).

[¿Que?]

However, there is also the problem of quantum physic's indeterminism. This states that you can never know enough about a system to accurately predict what will happen in it in the future. This is opposed to dialectics and historical materialism, in that it makes the revolution far less certain, because even though the materialist conception of history points towards a revolution, that does not at all mean that that revolution will happen.

I don't know, a lot of this stuff is over my head, but here, you ignore the idea of probability. In this case, you can never really have a probability of 1, but you can of .5 or .7 or even .999. If I hold a ball in my hand and let it go, the probability is pretty high that it will fall. I'm not sure if the indeterminism problem only applies to quantum level systems, but you can accurately predict some things with a certain degree of probability.

[ColonelCossack]

It is true that quantum theory only really relates to unimaginably small objects like quarks and photons, and that historical materialism only really applies to human history, a much larger system, but still... a philosophy should cover everything. Maybe the fact that dialectics is all about syntheses has something to do about it, and materialism is not the whole story. And in answer to the indeterminism problem, maybe that, although historical materialism does not make the revolution inevitable, as such, it makes it very probable. I'm still a little bit uneasy. But I still agree with the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation.

[pranabjyoti]

It is true that quantum theory only really relates to unimaginably small objects like quarks and photons, and that historical materialism only really applies to human history, a much larger system, but still... a philosophy should cover everything. Maybe the fact that dialectics is all about syntheses has something to do about it, and materialism is not the whole story. And in answer to the indeterminism problem, maybe that, although historical materialism does not make the revolution inevitable, as such, it makes it very probable. I'm still a little bit uneasy. But I still agree with the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation.
Quantum theory is applicable to such an world where very much common laws that govern our everyday life is just non-existent. So far, what you have asked can only be possible when quantum theory can be understood with greater extent and can be related to physics and physical laws of the universe surrounding us.

[Blake's Baby]

1 - revolution is not inevitable, it never has been; it's just necessary;
2 - the Copenhagen Interpretation is probably not the best interpretation of quantum theory;
3 - matter and consciousness is a dialectical relationship; without consciousness there is no 'world' to speak of, because it is our relationships to it and each other that give the world meaning; this isn't idealism, I don't know why you think it is;
4 - if Marxism is really incompatible with quantum theory (it isn't), we'd better find a different political theory, because quantum mechanics is demonstrably the best way of describing the physics of the tiny that we have.

EDIT: just noticed that you said 'marxist dialectical materialism' which should have set the alarm bells ringing. Do you mean, Marxist historical materialism, or do you mean 'dialectical materialism, a la Stalinist Russia'? If it's the latter, feel free to ignore any answers in this post.

[pranabjyoti]

Do you mean, Marxist historical materialism, or do you mean 'dialectical materialism, a la Stalinist Russia'? If it's the latter, feel free to ignore any answers in this post.
In that case, better search some kind of Fox Science kind of website to start the debate.

[Blake's Baby]

Because, Stalinists watch Fox? I don't get you.

'Marxist dialectical materialism' is some bizarre hodge-podge put together by the Stalinists in the '30s. If the OP is a Stalinist, I don't mind if they ignore everything I say because they won't understand it, not accepting many of its premises, and I'm not interested in any critique they may have of my exposition, as I don't share any of the premises on which their critique may be based.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

There was a famous physicist, I can't remember his name, who once said "If you think you understand Quantum Physics, then you don't."

[Blake's Baby]

No he didn't. He said, 'anyone who is not shocked by the implications of quantum mechanics hasn't understood it'.

It was Neils Bohr, the guy who kept proving Einstein wrong, and the main driving force behind the Copenhagen Interpretation (which is also, I think, wrong). Also, the man who allegedly was supposed to let the Allies know that the Germans weren't going to build the atom bomb (according to Heisenberg, but there's some uncertainty about that; Bohr reckons no-one looked, so how can you tell?)

[ColonelCossack]

It was Neils Bohr, the guy who kept proving Einstein wrong, and the main driving force behind the Copenhagen Interpretation (which is also, I think, wrong).

Then why is it still taught to university particle physics students? Although I disagree with the copenhagen interpretation, it could be argued that there is no one correct interpretation, simply because of the fact that at those kinds of scales, things become in-interpretable. There is also the argument that various interpretations of quantum mechanics don't have anything to do with marxist philosophy, because of the huge difference in scales.

i'm also not a stalinist- I was referring to the materialist conception of history as a dialectical system. Dialectics is not a term belonging to any single 'sect' of marxism, nor even to marxism itself.

[pranabjyoti]

Because, Stalinists watch Fox? I don't get you.
Anti-Stalinists watch that, I am pretty sure.

'Marxist dialectical materialism' is some bizarre hodge-podge put together by the Stalinists in the '30s. If the OP is a Stalinist, I don't mind if they ignore everything I say because they won't understand it, not accepting many of its premises, and I'm not interested in any critique they may have of my exposition, as I don't share any of the premises on which their critique may be based.
If you want to live in your own created world and just ignore anything pro-Stalinist, then better chatter somewhere else. Afterall, hodge-podge is something tasty and nutritious, as far as I (and many like me) consider it.

[Kamos]

What in the hell do physics and Marxism have to do with each other?

[ColonelCossack]

What in the hell do physics and Marxism have to do with each other?

because the philosophy of one interpretation might oppose the philosophy of marxism.

[Kamos]

because the philosophy of one interpretation might oppose the philosophy of marxism.

But how could it? Physics describes how stuff works and happens in the world. Marxism is about how we should set up our society. Those hardly have anything to do with each other.

[ColonelCossack]

But how could it? Physics describes how stuff works and happens in the world. Marxism is about how we should set up our society. Those hardly have anything to do with each other.

This is what I was saying previously... here:

"It is true that quantum theory only really relates to unimaginably small objects like quarks and photons, and that historical materialism only really applies to human history, a much larger system"

[pranabjyoti]

But how could it? Physics describes how stuff works and happens in the world. Marxism is about how we should set up our society. Those hardly have anything to do with each other.
Actually, Marxism is just expression of DM in the Sociological field. The basic theories of DM can certainly be applied to physics, specially astronomy, cosmology and many other branches.
But quantum theory is still a fuzzy world which we still understand very little IMO and therefore, until and unless we began to understand it with greater extent, at least I don't want to find the relation between DM and quantum physics.

[chegitz guevara]

But how could it? Physics describes how stuff works and happens in the world. Marxism is about how we should set up our society. Those hardly have anything to do with each other.

Where are we going to set up our society if not in the world?

[Revolution starts with U]

The main reason for this is because of two of the main features of quantum theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and wave-function. The former states that you can never know everything about a particle at the same time (i.e. its position and velocity). The latter is a property of all quantum-scale particles, and a quick definition of it is that it is the probability of a particle existing in any place at any time, and when we observe that particle this collapses. Taken together, one interpretation is that these both contradict Marxist materialism, which states that existence creates consciousness (emphasis mine).
It doesn't. Perhaps you would like to expand upon why you think that?


This interpretation is the copenhagen interpretation, and for a time I thought that this was the only interpretation. This interpretation states that, before we observe a particle, the wave-function is all that exists of that particle, and as a result the act of observing it causes that particle to exist. This can be enlarged to say that the act of observing anything causes it to exist- note that being conscious of our own existence counts as observation of ourselves. This is clearly opposed to materialism.
Not in the physical sense, and certainly not any scale that effects the micro or super macro universe.
Observation is a terrible choice of words for pop physicists to try to explain this. A much better term would be interaction. An electron bouncing off another electron isn't exactly what I would call "observation."

[Blake's Baby]

Then why is it still taught to university particle physics students? ...

Probably because I don't set the syllabus in most university physics departments. I'll let you wonder if I actually set the syllabus in any university physics departments.



...Although I disagree with the copenhagen interpretation, it could be argued that there is no one correct interpretation, simply because of the fact that at those kinds of scales, things become in-interpretable....

That makes some sense, but I think there are other interpretations of quantum physics which more sense than the Copenhagen Interpretation.


...
i'm also not a stalinist- I was referring to the materialist conception of history as a dialectical system. Dialectics is not a term belonging to any single 'sect' of marxism, nor even to marxism itself.

No, you said in your first post 'Marxist dialectical materialism'. You said it here:


... i've been trying to reconcile Marxist dialectical materialism, with the philosophically idealistic side of quantum field theory, or quantum mechanics...

Dialectics is not the same as 'Marxist dialectic materialism'. I would challenge the notion that there is a 'Marxist dialectical materialism', there is only 'dialectical materialism' which is not Marxist (as in, found in the works of Marx and Engels). It is pretty much Stalinist (and Stalinism's offshoots, perhaps). I'm fairly sure it isn't found in other branches of Marxist thought such as Council Communism, Left Communism or Marxian Socialism. Not sure if it's found in Trotskyism, it may be, because I believe it was Plekhanov who introduced the term, and it may be in common use among the groups that came out of the RSDLP - but I don't think so.

[black magick hustla]

of course they are compatible. historical materialism is a method, it is not an ontology.

[ColonelCossack]

That makes some sense, but I think there are other interpretations of quantum physics which more sense than the Copenhagen Interpretation.

...like the de Broglie-bohm interpretation, which is the one I wholly support.



No, you said in your first post 'Marxist dialectical materialism'

The Marxist application of dialectics and materialism, i.e. Historical Materialism.


fairly sure it isn't found in other branches of Marxist thought

I thought that Lenin wrote about it... and Lenin was definitely a Marxist. Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember it in the State and Revolution... :confused:

[ColonelCossack]

I would challenge the notion that there is a 'Marxist dialectical materialism', there is only 'dialectical materialism' which is not Marxist (as in, found in the works of Marx and Engels).

It could be argued that marxist theory is based on a dialectical system, and therefore it would be marxist dialectical materialism.

[Blake's Baby]

It can be but it isn't, except by Stalinists. As I said, Plekhanov introduced it into the RSDLP, of which Lenin was a member. However there is no 'Leninist' current descending from the RSDLP. There are two currents that survived - the Trotskyists and the Stalinists. Both claim Lenin's heritage.

What you wrote about was 'Marxist dialectical materialism', not 'historical materialism'. I agree historical materialism is an important part of marxist thought, for all Marxist tendencies. Not 'dialectical materialism'.

[pranabjyoti]

It can be but it isn't, except by Stalinists. As I said, Plekhanov introduced it into the RSDLP, of which Lenin was a member. However there is no 'Leninist' current descending from the RSDLP. There are two currents that survived - the Trotskyists and the Stalinists. Both claim Lenin's heritage.

What you wrote about was 'Marxist dialectical materialism', not 'historical materialism'. I agree historical materialism is an important part of marxist thought, for all Marxist tendencies. Not 'dialectical materialism'.
As far as I can understand, "historical materialism" is nothing but application of DM to explain human historical movement. So far, none have said that there is anything in "historical materialism" that contradicts the basic rules of DM.

[Blake's Baby]

Except, you know, historical materialism came first, and DM wasn't invented until after Marx died. Clever of him to anticipate the way other people would use his work in the future.

[pranabjyoti]

Except, you know, historical materialism came first, and DM wasn't invented until after Marx died. Clever of him to anticipate the way other people would use his work in the future.
Among this "other people" were Frederich Engels, the person who can be considered second only after Marx. So, this kind of rhetoric is just useless. Instead of pointing on what Marx had done, better stay on the scientific basis of DM.

[ColonelCossack]

.
An electron bouncing off another electron isn't exactly what I would call "observation."

No-one knows how any kind of "observation" or "interaction" determines a quantum system... that is the purpose of all the interpretations, any one of which may be true! humanity just doesn't know!

[ColonelCossack]

.
. A much better term would be interaction. An electron bouncing off another electron isn't exactly what I would call "observation."

Are you referring to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? That particular principle doesn't say that we don't know the velocity/position of a particle because the photons or electrons used to detect them change it- i.e. the problem is merely in the apparatus. It states that the nature of the quantum-scale particles themselves means that we can never know both the velocity and the position etc.!

[ColonelCossack]

Except, you know, historical materialism came first, and DM wasn't invented until after Marx died. Clever of him to anticipate the way other people would use his work in the future.

But historical materialism is a dialectical and a materialist system... And it's Marxist. therefore it's Marxist Dialectical Materialism!

Let's not squabble over names... It's the meanings that are important in revolutionary discussion.

[Blake's Baby]

.. Instead of pointing on what Marx had done, better do whatever Stalinists tell you.

Fixed.

Historical materialism is part of Marxism, used by all currents, unlike dialectical materialism, which is only used by Stalinists as far as I can tell.

[Blake's Baby]

But historical materialism is a dialectical and a materialist system... And it's Marxist. therefore it's Marxist Dialectical Materialism!

Let's not squabble over names... It's the meanings that are important in revolutionary discussion.

No, it's historical materialism.

Let's not quibble over names, just call it what it is, historical materialism. Unless you really do want to conflate it with 'dialectical materialism'/DiaMat. But if you do, I don't have to accept it.

[ColonelCossack]

.


main reason for this is because of two of the main features of quantum theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and wave-function. The former states that you can never know everything about a particle at the same time (i.e. its position and velocity). The latter is a property of all quantum-scale particles, and a quick definition of it is that it is the probability of a particle existing in any place at any time, and when we observe that particle this collapses. Taken together, one interpretation is that these both contradict Marxist materialism, which states that existence creates consciousness (emphasis mine)It doesn't.


Perhaps you would like to expand upon why you think that?



Idealism considers spirit (consciousness, concepts, the subject) as the source of all that exists on earth, and matter (nature and society, the object) as secondary and subordinate, Materialism recognizes the independent existence of matter as detached from spirit and considers spirit as secondary and subordinate.

-Dialectical Materialism, Mao Tse-Tung

[B0LSHEVIK]

Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and wave-function. The former states that you can never know everything about a particle at the same time (i.e. its position and velocity). The latter is a property of all quantum-scale particles, and a quick definition of it is that it is the probability of a particle existing in any place at any time, and when we observe that particle this collapses. Taken together, one interpretation is that these both contradict Marxist materialism, which states that existence creates consciousness.

This is what is taught in most physics courses in universities. But you explain it so well!! And really interesting too.

Having only a yr of general physics under my belt, Im in no place to answer this question. But we do learn that you can never predict neither the location
of a electron nor its path. Its the uncertainty principle you speak of. We just usually work around it. We've created really complex orbitals of statistical 'averages' to more or less show electrons positions. But that Broglie-Bohm is interesting too and I had never heard of it until this post. Its quite sensible too. We are still rather ignorant. But being able to predict at the most fundamental level of particles Im sure will come.


However, there is also the problem of quantum physic's indeterminism. This states that you can never know enough about a system to accurately predict what will happen in it in the future. This is opposed to dialectics and historical materialism, in that it makes the revolution far less certain, because even though the materialist conception of history points towards a revolution, that does not at all mean that that revolution will happen.

Not necessarily. Though I can recall a video we viewed during lecture which kind of put into the question the idea of free will and determinism. I'd always had it understood that being able to predict at quantum levels would not give us the ability to predict the future, in other words philosophy is completely independent of scientific fact.

And actually, on the contrary (speaking generally) in a Newtonian world-view there are only causes/effects. Every event is caused and completely determined by preceding events. Which means that either the choices of individuals are determined in this way (because we are after all nothing but matter in a physical universe), making them un-free. Any way you look at it, according to Newton free will is an impossibility.

Quantum physics actually changes the Newtonian picture of the world. In it there appears to be room for randomness. Moreover it appears that this randomness is somehow connected to people, because observers are credited with collapsing the wave-function, which is what gives rise to it (because Newton never accounted for the fact that somebody else may observe the universe from a completely different point, something that Einstein DID DO). And some take this to make room for the exercise of free will.

[bezdomni]

But how could it? Physics describes how stuff works and happens in the world. Marxism is about how we should set up our society. Those hardly have anything to do with each other.

Not the case at all!

Physics is about "how stuff works and happens" in the world of physical objects, and Marxism studies "how stuff works and what happens" in the social world of human objects.

Marxism says profoundly little about anything concrete we should do in terms of organizing society.

Instead, it provides an explanation of how society is organized and what the dynamics are so that we can understand social organization and improve conditions for everyone (via revolution).

You may think of it like this. We can use what is known about mechanics and dynamics to get an idea about how we should build a bridge, or what is known about quantum physics to get an idea about how to build better particle accelerators.

Similarly, we can use what is known about Marxism to get an idea about how we can organize a revolutionary movement/society.

[RedTrackWorker]

Bohm's interpretation is deterministic. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/.

[∞]

I for one don't give a flying shit. I guess if you think along those lines then maybe relativity is similar to Dialectal Materialism. Is it the uncertainty of QM that scares, you? I think the only reason there is such a reliance on probabilities in QM is because of how new this particle-science is. It does in a way oppose a kind of deterministic quality in Dialectical Materialism, I care for whats real, not a philosophy (which in all honesty), isn't a key a factor to the real world emancipation of the proletariat. With that said no one here should ever relate DM to QM. QM is a science attempting to unify itself with Einstein's general theory of relativity, whereas it has been unified by the special theory of relativity (though the interaction of photons which travel through time, etc.) . And to be honest, put in your terms SR is not antithetical to DM. But, who cares? Let science do it's thing, we shouldn't try to associate it with 19th century philosophy.

[∞]

Another reason why you can't associate the two ontologically is because they both use different methods to come to different conclusions. DM is a philosophy fueled primarily by logical outputs and necessarily makes sense to a human mind. Whereas Quantum Mechanics is an empirical science that reaches it's conclusion through rigorous mathematical proofs and empirical data, it's existence is primarily to understand the material world around us, not assign it some sort of ontological principal.

[ColonelCossack]

Another reason why you can't associate the two ontologically is because they both use different methods to come to different conclusions. DM is a philosophy fueled primarily by logical outputs and necessarily makes sense to a human mind. Whereas Quantum Mechanics is an empirical science that reaches it's conclusion through rigorous mathematical proofs and empirical data, it's existence is primarily to understand the material world around us, not assign it some sort of ontological principal.

i wasn't attempting to reconcile the science of QM with DM. i was trying to reconcile DM with certain interpretations of QM.

However, I do see your point about the irrelevance of the two in relation to each other.