Quantum Mechanics: Rethinking Materialism

[DrFreeman09]

Slavoj Zizek, in a lecture at the European Graduate School, brought up the point that quantum mechanics comes into direct conflict with both religion and the traditional interpretation of materialism and, more specifically, "dialectical materialism." The reason for this is that both theology and "DM" rely on a complete universe.

One the one hand, theology looks at events as part of a bigger plan. For example, when dealing with bad events, they say, "if you look at a painting too closely, you might see a stain, but when you move back, you see the whole picture." It's hard to make that argument when dealing with a subject like, say, the Holocaust. "Oh, it's just a stain that's part of the bigger harmony."

On the other hand, you have the modern interpretation of materialism that relies on the real being only defined by definite matter. This leads to the conclusion that the real source of the world's problems is the material conditions that lead to those problems, etc. Historical materialism is obviously a good way to look at the world. I am not denying that.

But quantum mechanics, as was correctly pointed out by Zizek, comes into conflic with both of these philosophies because a) there is no "bigger picture or harmony," and b) not even matter is 100% real. It is incomplete; it takes a definite state when we measure it, but until that point everything exists in multiplicities.

The idea that the universe is incomplete, and that nature sort of "fills in the gaps" when we are in a position to measure it contradicts the "big plan" philosophy and the materialist philosophy to some extent.

So how are we to react?

Zizek claims that we must accept that the universe is incomplete, and that instead of definite matter being the base state, i.e. "real," multiplicities become the definite reality of things.

But I'd like to hear what people think on this issue, assuming I've worded it in a way that makes sense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Does this have to do with reductionism as an "internal" challenge for revolutionary Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/internal-challenges-revolutionary-t70556/index.html) (specifically with the question of base-superstructure analysis)?

On the other hand, does that mean that the whole idea behind creating "models" as representations of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#Scientific_model) or whatever is flawed?

[jake williams]

Amateur philosophers need to cut the shit out about "QM means the universe isn't real, so my crackpot theory must be right!"

You don't understand the physics or what's going on at all. I mean, hell, there are professors who quite clearly don't get what's going on, and the brighter ones admit it, but a lot of them don't. The science of QM is way too early to start declaring that we need to rewrite our theories so inside-out purple clowns from the planet Xeno are really your grandchild and your great-uncle. In fact it's way too early to draw much any conclusions at all, except that the universe is kind of quirky and mind-boggling, which really shouldn't have taken analyses of wave properties of light to sort of notice.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There are far more serious threats to 'dialectical materialism' than QM:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nti-dialectics-made-t67725/index.html

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What is the difference between a complete and incomplete universe?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well theorists use this word to describe a theory that can account for the course of nature that does not leave gaps and inconsistencies, or which does not rely on human observers (as some interpretations of QM would have it).

The universe, of course, is what it is and can neither be described as complete or incomplete (unless we suppose 'God' rested on day six, and not day seven...).

[DrFreeman09]

Amateur philosophers need to cut the shit out about "QM means the universe isn't real, so my crackpot theory must be right!"

You don't understand the physics or what's going on at all. I mean, hell, there are professors who quite clearly don't get what's going on, and the brighter ones admit it, but a lot of them don't. The science of QM is way too early to start declaring that we need to rewrite our theories so inside-out purple clowns from the planet Xeno are really your grandchild and your great-uncle. In fact it's way too early to draw much any conclusions at all, except that the universe is kind of quirky and mind-boggling, which really shouldn't have taken analyses of wave properties of light to sort of notice.


Theoretical physics has been an interest of mine for a very long time, so I doubt the problem here is that I "don't understand the physics." The phenomenon of quantum entaglement and the success of quantum teleportation add a significant amount of viability to the theory, so I don't think it's "too early" to at least bring it up.

Zizek is a "Lacanian-Marxist" so he's a materialist, and he's not going about trying to sell crackpot theories on the basis of QM. Rather, he is asking us to think of the world in a new way.

Zizek doesn't say "the universe isn't real," but what is real and what is not becomes much fuzzier when dealing with QM. For example, let's take a look at Hawking Radiation. We know that black holes emit radiation and the smaller ones, unable to draw in more energy than they emit, will eventually evaporate. The reason for this (according to Hawking) is a complicated one, so I will not go into it here. But it deals with virtual particles that are "boosted" by the intense gravitational field and become "real" particles (pairs of particles and anti-particles). One of the pair falls into the whole and the other escapes. To fill the energy gap created from this action, the black whole releases some of its mass in the form of a particle (seen from an outside observer).

Scientists have measured particles popping in and out of existence in space (i.e. "vacuum fluctuations"), which appears to support the existence of virtual particles. It's not that the universe isn't real; it's that "what is real?" becomes a less simple question.



There are far more serious threats to 'dialectical materialism' than QM:


Fine. That doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the question.


The universe, of course, is what it is and can neither be described as complete or incomplete (unless we suppose 'God' rested on day six, and not day seven...).

Zizek put it that "God" was lazy. He underestimated the human race and didn't expect us to look into things as closely as we have. It's kind of like a video game. It doesn't draw the whole map; it only draws the areas you are currently in.

But that's not really relevant. While this may not be as "serious" as "anti-dialectics made easy," that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the relation between QM and philosophy food for thought and at least attempt to discuss it. I will have more later.

[gilhyle]

Its perfectly reasonable to ask the questioin. I guess I am tempted by a view of materialism that is entirely critical - purely a rejection of idealism with no postive proposition of its own at all. On this view, science can go ahead and figure out the rules of the universe (or the rules of the regions of the universe and whatever is common to the regions). m not bothered - best of luck to them. But I say that as a materialist - although one who refuses to articulate any positive materialist thesis.

I observe that quite often now the theories are significantly untestable and often seem to fall into being theories about the character of the theory of reality rather than about any observable reality. This is fine - I dont think it makes the theory illegitimate, but it should surely make us very slow to draw any conclusions. Particularly since a lot of the weirder stuff seems predicated on the idea that it doesnt impact much on us. day-to-day.

[ComradeRed]

But quantum mechanics, as was correctly pointed out by Zizek, comes into conflic with both of these philosophies because a) there is no "bigger picture or harmony," and b) not even matter is 100% real. It is incomplete; it takes a definite state when we measure it, but until that point everything exists in multiplicities. By "bigger picture of harmony", I assume you referring to the..."interconnectedness" of a subsystem with the "super"-system.

In which case, our dear Zizek is quite wrong.

It's well known in quantum mechanics that you can seperate out subsystems of a "super"-system, provided the "super"-system is closed.

That was the basis of von Neumann's mathematical explanation of the "measurement problem".

It's actually still a problem with quantum gravity's "problem of time" and the seperability of a "time" subsystem of a given relativistic system. Nevermind that now...

As for part (b), I have no clue what Zizek is referring to as "real". I suspect that it's something Kantian, "It's only real when measured/observed" kind of an argument.

Quantum mechanics doesn't really state that.

Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics argue that position.

But this position is not really integral to quantum mechanics...quantum theory can stand without it perfectly fine, as a matter of fact.

It's just that philosophers cannot.

One should also note Van-Hoves and Groenewald's "no-go" theorem which states: 1) you cannot quantize certain systems, more specifically anything with terms beyond quadratic (x^2, x*p, p*x, p^2) cannot be quantized without ambiguities ("operator ordering ambiguities"); 2) if you have one system and change coordinates then quantize you get a physically different theory than if you didn't change coordinates and quantize, so it's background (coordinate) dependent.

That's with "conventional" quantum mechanics with operators replacing variables and so forth.

There is an alternate approach which is largely mathematical, and has been gaining more attention within the mathematical community, which is "geometric" (or "deformation") quantization.

I'm afraid it's getting too technical to adequately discuss the differences between the two :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DrF:



That doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the question.



Sure, but it's a bit like asking about the late arrival of your meal on a sinking ship.



Zizek put it that "God" was lazy. He underestimated the human race and didn't expect us to look into things as closely as we have. It's kind of like a video game. It doesn't draw the whole map; it only draws the areas you are currently in.



Well, Zizek is a confused, pop-philosopher.