No, It Doesn\'t Have Profound Philosophical Significance

Via GNXP, the philosopher-king of the dinosaurs reminds us that while exploring the philosophical significance of theoretical physics may occasionally serve to impress college girls, it has no place in serious philosophical inquiry.

On the other hand, the ability the impress college girls is arguably preferable to anything serious philosophical inquiry has to offer.

Share this

I'm impressed. He manages to

I'm impressed. He manages to use the same panels in the same sequence over and over and doesn't run out of clever ideas. It reminds me of some of those Cartoon Network late night cartoons that combine old cartoons with new dialog.

In a way this partly

In a way this partly spinning off the Sokal Affair, and as such, I'd like to draw your attention to this article which details top physicists discussing the philosophical, psychological, etc. implications of modern physics: http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/sokalhoax.html

A snippet:

As telling examples of the views Sokal satirized, one might quote some other statements. Consider the following extrapolation of Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity into the political realm:

"The thesis `light consists of particles' and the antithesis `light consists of waves' fought with one another until they were united in the synthesis of quantum mechanics. ...Only why not apply it to the thesis Liberalism (or Capitalism), the antithesis Communism, and expect a synthesis, instead of a complete and permanent victory for the antithesis? There seems to be some inconsistency. But the idea of complementarity goes deeper. In fact, this thesis and antithesis represent two psychological motives and economic forces, both justified in themselves, but, in their extremes, mutually exclusive. ...there must exist a relation between the latitudes of freedom df and of regulation dr, of the type df dr=p. ...But what is the `political constant' p? I must leave this to a future quantum theory of human affairs."

Before you burst out laughing at such "absurdities," let me disclose the author: Max Born, one of the venerated founding fathers of quantum theory [3]. Born's words were not written tongue in cheek; he soberly declared that "epistemological lessons [from physics] may help towards a deeper understanding of social and political relations". Such was Born's enthusiasm to infer from the scientific to the political realm, that he devoted a whole book to the subject, unequivocally titled Physics and Politics [3].

Castillion, You know that

Castillion,

You know that whole wave/particle duality business has been used a lot to sell the idea that the world really behaves in self-contradictory ways. The only problem with this is that there really is nothing contradictory about wave and particle behavior. That's just a human predjudice that apparently Max Born shares. Seems he has bought into the idea that this is contradictory.

I actually don't see the contradiction. I know the expectation but I don't think things we are used to dealing with are grouped into either particles or waves due to issues of contradiction.

I also really don't see the problem with Born's comments if he is using it as an analogy, and he understands that the apparent wave/particle conflict is really and issue of improper expectations instead of true self contradiction.

The thing is I think we already have a partial systhesis of captitalism and communism within capitalism itself. Aren't corporations and families little communist subsystems within the overall framework of capitalist liberalism?