#quantum darwinism

[natureintheory]

Quantum Darwinism • Physics Illustration • 2019

Quantum Darwinism is an idea to explain how the quantum world decoheres into our own through a process of Darwinian-like selection.

The mirrors represent reality and the foreground a fantastical quantum world with a wave in superposition. When it decohered, only blue remained.

[quantummindclassicalheart]

It's International Non-Binary People's Day (July 14th), so here's to everyone for whom the transition is the destination.

To my siblings in between and outside the lines, to those who queer the binary and those who fuck (with) it. Whatever pronouns you may use and titles you may claim, whoever and however you love, however you choose to do and redo gender, you are seen and you are known and you are not alone. 💛🤍💜🖤

[aneverydaything]

Day 1594, 3 November 2022

[non-conventionnel]

Facebook Page

[johninrags]

The Age of Earth

Determining the age of Earth presents a significant challenge due to the intrinsic nature of time itself.

Our contemporary understanding of quantum physics, coupled with Einstein's theory of relativity, unequivocally demonstrates that time is not an absolute constant but rather a fluid and dynamic entity.

According to current scientific understanding, time is subject to various influences, including gravitational effects, wherein time elapses more slowly in intense gravitational fields such as those surrounding black holes. Another well-documented aspect is relativistic effects, wherein relative motion and acceleration induce time dilation.

Recent advancements in quantum physics even suggest that our consciousness contributes to the perception and processing of temporal information.

Taken to its extreme, the very essence of our perception of time implies that it is more illusionary than commonly acknowledged.

In the domain of cosmology, where vast distances and immense timescales prevail, the relative nature of time becomes notably accentuated. The universe, replete with billions of galaxies and innumerable stars, might have undergone epochs that surpass human comprehension. However, our endeavors to gauge and quantify Earth's age are hindered by our subjective experiences and understanding of time.

By embracing time's malleability and acknowledging its multifaceted nature, we might gain insight into the biblical passage in 2 Peter 3:8, which asserts: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

This perspective also fosters an appreciation for poetry, such as the verse: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)

Moreover, time even nurtures our faith, leading to profound truths like: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

[vishumenon]

Against and For Evolution

WHY STATISTICAL MECHANICS NEGATES EVOLUTION Found on Facebook by Mark Champneys There are 3 billion base pairs in human DNA sequences. This is an arranged molecule of staggering size. The information content of DNA is rooted in the extreme improbability of those relatively few arrangements that code for life, in stark contrast to the vast number of possible sequence arrangements that are…

[cyrusthedragon]

Hughie’s dad got quantum instability

A terrifying super power

He’s basically noclipping through matter

Everyone who survived should get treated for radiation sickness immediately

He seemed to have some kind of subconscious control over it otherwise he would have fallen through the floor

Basically he made himself intangible but the moment he becomes tangible whatever matter he was “standing” in gets pushed outwards to make space for the “new” matter just popping into existence

I'm WILDLY sorry but it made me a little bit 🤏 horny now /jk, JK!!!

In fact, the scientific side of The Boys is so fascinating to me, I'd really like to know how much of what they write they actually discuss at a professional level. Biology? Chemistry? Anatomy? EVOLUTION literally happened here - someone call Charles Darwin! Technically, V as an injection/serum is already not needed for the Boys universe, because V not only did sink into the ground in the last episodes (making it impossible to completely destroy it's molecules), but it also runs in Ryan’s, let’s say, factory settings.

We have a whole new branch of human evolution. He's a damn miracle, Sage was absolutely right. And with that in mind, V, woven into his genes, will most likely be dominant, which means that all of Ryan's offspring, if any, will have superpowers. Not “made by men,” but born on equal terms with everyone. That's insane.

Returning to the topic of Hughie's father - it's so funny that Mr. Campbell is like "I CAN WALK THROUGH WALLS"

And he's son is literally "AND I CAN TERELPORT THROUGH SPACE"

Hughie basically can destroy the space-time continuum. Lmao. Best boy.

[thebardostate]

What Does Quantum Physics Imply About Consciousness?

In recent years much has been written about whether quantum mechanics (QM) does or does not imply that consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos. This is a problem that physicists have hotly debated since the earliest days of QM a century ago. It is extremely controversial; highly educated and famous physicists can't even agree on how to define the problem.

I have a degree in physics and did some graduate level work in QM before switching to computer science; my Ph.D. addressed topics in cognitive science. So I'm going to give it a go to present an accessible and non-mathematical summary of the problem, hewing to as neutral a POV as I can manage. Due to the complexity of this subject I'm going to present it in three parts, with this being Part 1.

What is Quantum Mechanics?

First, a little background on QM. In science there are different types of theories. Some explain how phenomena work without predicting outcomes (e.g., Darwin's Theory of Evolution). Some predict outcomes without explaining how they work (e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity.)

QM is a purely predictive theory. It uses something called the wave function to predict the behavior of elementary particles such as electrons, photons, and so forth. The wave function expresses the probabilities of various outcomes, such as the likelihood that a photon will be recorded by a detection instrument. Before the physicist takes a measurement the wave function expresses what could happen; once the measurement is taken, it's no longer a question of probabilities because the event has happened (or not). The instrument recorded it. In QM this is called wave function collapse.

The Measurement Problem

When a wave function collapses, what does that mean in real terms? What does it imply about our familiar macroscopic world, and why do people keep saying it holds important implications for consciousness?

In QM this is called the Measurement Problem, first introduced in 1927 by physicist Werner Heisenberg as part of his famous Uncertainty Principle, and further developed by mathematician John Von Neumann in 1932. Heisenberg didn't attempt to explain what wave function collapse means in real terms; since QM is purely predictive, we're still not entirely sure what implications it may hold for the world we are familiar with. But one thing is certain: the predictions that QM makes are astonishingly accurate.

We just don't understand why they are so accurate. QM is undoubtedly telling us "something extremely important" about the structure of reality, we just don't know what that "something" is.

Interpretations of QM

But that hasn't stopped physicists from trying. There have been numerous attempts to interpret what implications QM might hold for the cosmos, or whether the wave function collapses at all. Some of these involve consciousness in some way; others do not.

Wave function collapse is required in these interpretations of QM:

The Copenhagen Interpretation (most commonly taught in physics programs)

Collective Collapse interpretations

The Transactional Interpretation

The Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation

It is not required in these interpretations:

The Consistent Histories interpretation

The Bohm Interpretation

The Many Worlds Interpretation

Quantum Superdeterminism

The Ensemble Interpretation

The Relational Interpretation

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, there are a boatload of other interpretations (e.g. Quantum Bayesianism). None of them should be taken as definitive since most of them are not falsifiable except via internal contradiction.

Big names in physics have lined up behind several of these (Steven Hawking was an advocate of the Many Worlds Interpretation, for instance) but that shouldn't be taken as anything more than a matter of personal philosophical preference. Ditto with statements of the form "most physicists agree with interpretation X" which has the same truth status as "most physicists prefer the color blue." These interpretations are philosophical in nature, and the debates will never end. As physicist M. David Mermin once observed: "New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear."

What About Consciousness?

I began this post by noting that QM has become a major battlefield for discussions of the nature of consciousness (I'll have more to say about this in Part 2.) But linkages between QM and consciousness are certainly not new. In fact they have been raging since the wave function was introduced. Erwin Schrodinger said -

And Werner Heisenberg said -

In Part 2 I will look deeper at the connections between QM and consciousness with a review of philosopher Thomas Nagel's 2012 book Mind and Cosmos. In Part 3 I will take a look at how recent research into Near-Death Experiences and Terminal Lucidity hold unexpected implications for understanding consciousness.

(Image source: @linusquotes)

[grandhotelabyss]

Why are you not a materialist?

We live inside of ideas concretized as sculpted landscapes, physical structures, technologies and tools, and language itself. In spite of Marx, the working class keeps voting on the basis of culture; in spite of Darwin, we still choose strange-looking lovers. Even Marx allowed that human beings, unlike bees and beavers, build freely and in accordance with beauty rather than necessity. Even Freud granted that most of human sexuality is, strictly speaking, perverse, not focused on the reproductive organs and their function but on all manner of fetishes, literally from head to toe. Scientists can't seem to prove that the brain is the locus of consciousness, nor do they seem to know what consciousness even is. The quantum physicists, if I understand them, posit a reality defined at the subatomic level by the observer. The archaeologists keep pushing the advent of civilization further and further back into the past, with deterministic models (e.g., civilization requires agricultural settlement) increasingly challenged and cult and cultus appearing to be the driver. Every third or fourth person has seen a ghost. What material interest of yours is served by your desire to know why I'm not a materialist? Almost everything in human life is beautifully gratuitous, irreducible to need and program. That there is something rather than nothing remains both a miracle and a mystery.

[dan6085]

Here's a list of 20 of the greatest scientists of all time, along with their accomplishments and years of life:

1. **Isaac Newton (1643-1727)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation; developed calculus; made significant contributions to optics.

2. **Albert Einstein (1879-1955)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed the theory of relativity; explained the photoelectric effect, which led to quantum theory; E=mc² equation.

3. **Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Improved the telescope; made pioneering observations in astronomy; formulated the laws of motion and inertia.

4. **Charles Darwin (1809-1882)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed the theory of evolution by natural selection; wrote "On the Origin of Species."

5. **Marie Curie (1867-1934)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Conducted pioneering research on radioactivity; first woman to win a Nobel Prize; only person to win Nobel Prizes in two different sciences (Physics and Chemistry).

6. **Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed alternating current (AC) electrical systems; invented the Tesla coil; made significant contributions to electromagnetism and wireless communication.

7. **James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Formulated the theory of electromagnetism; developed Maxwell's equations, which unify electricity, magnetism, and light.

8. **Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed pasteurization; made groundbreaking discoveries in germ theory and vaccination.

9. **Michael Faraday (1791-1867)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Discovered electromagnetic induction; invented the electric motor and generator; contributed to the field of electrochemistry.

10. **Thomas Edison (1847-1931)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Invented the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the long-lasting electric light bulb; held over 1,000 patents.

11. **Niels Bohr (1885-1962)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed the Bohr model of the atom; made foundational contributions to quantum mechanics and the understanding of atomic structure.

12. **Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Formulated the three laws of planetary motion; made significant contributions to the field of optics.

13. **Aristotle (384-322 BC)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Made foundational contributions to numerous fields including biology, physics, metaphysics, logic, and ethics.

14. **Stephen Hawking (1942-2018)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed theories on black holes and cosmology; wrote "A Brief History of Time"; contributed to the understanding of singularities and Hawking radiation.

15. **Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Founded the field of genetics; discovered the basic principles of heredity through experiments with pea plants.

16. **Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Made significant contributions to anatomy, engineering, and hydrodynamics; renowned for his scientific observations and detailed anatomical drawings.

17. **Richard Feynman (1918-1988)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed quantum electrodynamics (QED); made contributions to particle physics and superfluidity; known for his lectures and books.

18. **Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Developed the system of binomial nomenclature for naming organisms; laid the foundations for modern taxonomy.

19. **Alexander Fleming (1881-1955)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Discovered penicillin, the first widely used antibiotic, which revolutionized medicine.

20. **Max Planck (1858-1947)**:

- **Accomplishments**: Originated quantum theory; formulated Planck's law of black-body radiation; contributed to the understanding of energy quanta.

These scientists have made extraordinary contributions to their respective fields, shaping our understanding of the natural world and advancing human knowledge in profound ways.

[dreams-of-mutiny]

MORTIMER ADLER’S READING LIST (PART 2)

Reading list from “How To Read a Book” by Mortimer Adler (1972 edition).

Alexander Pope: Essay on Criticism; Rape of the Lock; Essay on Man

Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu: Persian Letters; Spirit of Laws

Voltaire: Letters on the English; Candide; Philosophical Dictionary

Henry Fielding: Joseph Andrews; Tom Jones

Samuel Johnson: The Vanity of Human Wishes; Dictionary; Rasselas; The Lives of the Poets

David Hume: Treatise on Human Nature; Essays Moral and Political; An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: On the Origin of Inequality; On the Political Economy; Emile, The Social Contract

Laurence Sterne: Tristram Shandy; A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy

Adam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments; The Wealth of Nations

Immanuel Kant: Critique of Pure Reason; Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals; Critique of Practical Reason; The Science of Right; Critique of Judgment; Perpetual Peace

Edward Gibbon: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Autobiography

James Boswell: Journal; Life of Samuel Johnson, Ll.D.

Antoine Laurent Lavoisier: Traité Élémentaire de Chimie (Elements of Chemistry)

Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison: Federalist Papers

Jeremy Bentham: Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation; Theory of Fictions

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Faust; Poetry and Truth

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier: Analytical Theory of Heat

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit; Philosophy of Right; Lectures on the Philosophy of History

William Wordsworth: Poems

Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Poems; Biographia Literaria

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice; Emma

Carl von Clausewitz: On War

Stendhal: The Red and the Black; The Charterhouse of Parma; On Love

Lord Byron: Don Juan

Arthur Schopenhauer: Studies in Pessimism

Michael Faraday: Chemical History of a Candle; Experimental Researches in Electricity

Charles Lyell: Principles of Geology

Auguste Comte: The Positive Philosophy

Honore de Balzac: Père Goriot; Eugenie Grandet

Ralph Waldo Emerson: Representative Men; Essays; Journal

Nathaniel Hawthorne: The Scarlet Letter

Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America

John Stuart Mill: A System of Logic; On Liberty; Representative Government; Utilitarianism; The Subjection of Women; Autobiography

Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species; The Descent of Man; Autobiography

Charles Dickens: Pickwick Papers; David Copperfield; Hard Times

Claude Bernard: Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine

Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience; Walden

Karl Marx: Capital; Communist Manifesto

George Eliot: Adam Bede; Middlemarch

Herman Melville: Moby-Dick; Billy Budd

Fyodor Dostoevsky: Crime and Punishment; The Idiot; The Brothers Karamazov

Gustave Flaubert: Madame Bovary; Three Stories

Henrik Ibsen: Plays

Leo Tolstoy: War and Peace; Anna Karenina; What is Art?; Twenty-Three Tales

Mark Twain: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; The Mysterious Stranger

William James: The Principles of Psychology; The Varieties of Religious Experience; Pragmatism; Essays in Radical Empiricism

Henry James: The American; ‘The Ambassadors

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra; Beyond Good and Evil; The Genealogy of Morals; The Will to Power

Jules Henri Poincare: Science and Hypothesis; Science and Method

Sigmund Freud: The Interpretation of Dreams; Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis; Civilization and Its Discontents; New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

George Bernard Shaw: Plays and Prefaces

Max Planck: Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory; Where Is Science Going?; Scientific Autobiography

Henri Bergson: Time and Free Will; Matter and Memory; Creative Evolution; The Two Sources of Morality and Religion

John Dewey: How We Think; Democracy and Education; Experience and Nature; Logic; the Theory of Inquiry

Alfred North Whitehead: An Introduction to Mathematics; Science and the Modern World; The Aims of Education and Other Essays; Adventures of Ideas

George Santayana: The Life of Reason; Skepticism and Animal Faith; Persons and Places

Lenin: The State and Revolution

Marcel Proust: Remembrance of Things Past

Bertrand Russell: The Problems of Philosophy; The Analysis of Mind; An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth; Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits

Thomas Mann: The Magic Mountain; Joseph and His Brothers

Albert Einstein: The Meaning of Relativity; On the Method of Theoretical Physics; The Evolution of Physics

James Joyce: ‘The Dead’ in Dubliners; A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; Ulysses

Jacques Maritain: Art and Scholasticism; The Degrees of Knowledge; The Rights of Man and Natural Law; True Humanism

Franz Kafka: The Trial; The Castle

Arnold J. Toynbee: A Study of History; Civilization on Trial

Jean Paul Sartre: Nausea; No Exit; Being and Nothingness

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The First Circle; The Cancer Ward

Source: mortimer-adlers-reading-list

[natureintheory]

Clay & volume renders ↑

Concept sketches ↑

—

Quantum Darwinism • Physics Illustration • 2019

Charles Darwin was born on this day, February 12, 1809. #DarwinDay seems like a good one to share one of my favorite old projects,

Created for a 2019 Quanta Magazine article by Philip Ball: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

The mirrors represent reality, and the foreground a quantum world with a wave in superposition. When it decoheres, only blue remains.

This is now outdated skill & technique-wise, but I still like a lot about it, especially the subject matter. I enjoy mixing scientific concepts with fantastical imagery — when it makes sense, of course.

One of the central tenets of my creative direction for Quanta was that the artwork should match the excitement and wonder of the stories it accompanies. "Art is a lie that tells the truth" — it's about using visual storytelling to reveal the real magic of the science detailed, not just give a literal translation. It's disappointing to see a fascinating story accompanied by dull visuals that don't do it justice (or worse, repel). Not saying I always succeeded in the former, or avoiding the latter, but I sure as hell tried!

[mariacallous]

Science may be known for banishing the demons of superstition from the modern world. Yet just as the demon-haunted world was being exorcized by the enlightening power of reason, a new kind of demon mischievously materialized in the scientific imagination itself. Scientists began to employ hypothetical beings to perform certain roles in thought experiments—experiments that can only be done in the imagination—and these impish assistants helped scientists achieve major breakthroughs that pushed forward the frontiers of science and technology.

Spanning four centuries of discovery—from René Descartes, whose demon could hijack sensorial reality, to James Clerk Maxwell, whose molecular-sized demon deftly broke the second law of thermodynamics, to Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, and beyond—Jimena Canales tells a shadow history of science and the demons that bedevil it. She reveals how the greatest scientific thinkers used demons to explore problems, test the limits of what is possible, and better understand nature. Their imaginary familiars helped unlock the secrets of entropy, heredity, relativity, quantum mechanics, and other scientific wonders—and continue to inspire breakthroughs in the realms of computer science, artificial intelligence, and economics today.

The world may no longer be haunted as it once was, but the demons of the scientific imagination are alive and well, continuing to play a vital role in scientists’ efforts to explore the unknown and make the impossible real.

[scobbe]

Not to sound too much like a crazy person but it is interesting how religion is not taught in schools (not even comparative religion, which should be, just so people can learn to navigate other cultures’ ways of life) but Darwinism/evolution is, when it remains a relatively unfounded scientific theory after 100 years. Not that it’s not clear species can be categorized together as changing in certain ways over periods of time, but there are huge gaps and unanswered questions as to What Has Actually Gone On, especially in the light of living fossils of today, the complete extinction of certain kinds of animal and plant life, and how we have loads of animals that generally do not make a lot of sense or adapt in ways other than what we consider ‘evolution.’

And please do not get me started on how the idea of “survival of the fittest” has damaged human perceptions of how society is and should be.

I’ve said this before but one of the great mistakes of the Western Enlightenment was the labeling of some things “secular” and some things “sacred” whereas before that time scientists, philosophers and theologians all left room for mystery. There was no either/or — either belief in divinity or strict materialism — and the denial of the presence of the transcendent in the physical (what is often known as incarnational theology) has done more damage to humanity than any other movement or idea.

(Ex. If the material is not also something sacred it’s a damn good excuse to treat other human beings like trash.)

But we took even learning about faith-based ways of life out of our schools and taught materialism instead.

Thank God (really) for the quantum physicists and astrophysicists who have been speaking up to say you know, when you really look into things it is all just way more than we have ever even begun to understand.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A New Conception of God

A Parabola interview with Keith Buzzell 

It is our view that it is critically important for the future of mankind that a continuing effort be made to understand the depths of Gurdjieff’s “new conception of God in the world.” The historical concepts of God, extending back at least five thousand years, have always been primary determinants of the personal, social and political values of the time. They have contributed majorly to sexual and family values, beliefs and manifestations in every society on Earth, have been fundamentally involved in endless wars and persecutions and, conversely, have been the major sources supporting healing, compassion and inquiry into the nature of both our inner and our outer worlds. Viewed historically, they (the variable “concepts of God”) have been the greatest positive and negative influences on the personal and social life of mankind.

A major shift in the predominant influence of these concepts entered the life of man with the gradual appearance, and the sudden expansion, of the secular and rational forms of inquiry which have become known, especially over the past five hundred years, as the “scientific perspective.” The initial entry of this perspective into western Europe provoked a violent and sustained negative reaction, in particular by the Roman Catholic Church, against the emerging views of the natural world that ran counter to the previously accepted concept of God.

The emerging scientific views led, quite lawfully, to the secular, intellectual / emotional revolution that came to be called the “Enlightenment.” The state of great personal / societal tension continued, reaching a climax in the second half of the nineteenth century with the work of such figures as Faraday and Maxwell, Michaelson / Morley, Darwin, Roentgen, the Curies and Planck. With Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the emergence of quantum mechanics, a pinnacle of scientific inquiry was reached that had enormous impact on the social, political and religious life of Europe and America (which rapidly spread throughout the world).

The expansion of the scientific enterprise, and the explosive technological outflow from the knowledge acquired, marks the entire 20th century. The atomic and hydrogen bombs, jet planes, satellites, computers, internet–each and many other technological innovations have widened the gulf between the historical, religious concepts (Christian, Hebrew, Islamic) and the secular, scientifically-based views of man and the Universe. Gurdjieff appeared at the apex of this tension between the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds of man — a gulf which contributed in essential ways to the outbreak of the World Wars of the past century.

What is ‘carried’ by the force of the Gurdjieff teaching in regard to this gulf of our ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds?

The Conception

A new conception of God in the world must truly be vast and all encompassing. It must encompass the what, how and why of everything from fundamental matter to the starry heavens; it must explain the appearance and roles of life and especially of human life; it must give form to all the mysteries confronting man and present resolutions to those mysteries. It must provide guidance and methodology for fulfilling the purposes and ‘laws’ of higher worlds. It must comfort, enliven, correct, guide, discipline and reward the individual and the collective.

For millennia, these spiritual concepts, initiated and given form by the Great Messengers, were, far and away, the predominant sources of the concept of God that held sway over the minds of mankind. That they did not include a deep penetration into the mechanisms of the material world is evident. At best, they were descriptive and classifying of types of structures (mountains, forests, rock formations, plants and animals), saying little about underlying, physical principles or laws that could be verified by experiment. The Great Messengers were powerful motivators of behavior, the source of the motivations being ‘spiritual’ influences that lay beyond the comprehension of ordinary men. How to reconcile this seemingly unbreachable gulf? This is the question which, we maintain, was Gurdjieff’s most fundamental aim to address.

Excerpted from Keith A. Buzzell’s A New Conception of God: Further Reflections on Gurdjieff’s Whim, Fifth Press, 2013.

[h/t Ian Sanders]

[nicklloydnow]

“I began to discern the paradox lurking at the heart of Karl Popper's career when, prior to interviewing him in 1992, I asked other philosophers about him. Queries of this kind usually elicit dull, generic praise, but not in Popper’s case. Everyone said this opponent of dogmatism was almost pathologically dogmatic. There was an old joke about Popper: The Open Society and its Enemies should have been titled The Open Society by One of its Enemies.

(…)

I noted that in his writings he seemed to abhor the notion of absolute truths. “No no!” Popper replied, shaking his head. He, like the logical positivists before him, believed that a scientific theory can be “absolutely” true. In fact, he had “no doubt” that some current theories are true (although he refused to say which ones). But he rejected the positivist belief that we can ever know that a theory is true. “We must distinguish between truth, which is objective and absolute, and certainty, which is subjective.”

Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”

For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”

(…)

Popper abhorred philosophers who argue that scientists adhere to theories for cultural and political rather than rational reasons. Such philosophers resent being viewed as inferior to genuine scientists and are trying to “change their status in the pecking order.” Popper was particularly contemptuous of postmodernists who argued that “knowledge” is just a weapon wielded by people struggling for power. “I don't read them,” Popper said, waving his hand as if at a bad odor. He added, “I once met Foucault.”

I suggested that the postmodernists sought to describe how science is practiced, whereas he, Popper, tried to show how it should be practiced. To my surprise, Popper nodded. “That is a very good statement,” he said. “You can't see what science is without having in your head an idea what science should be.” He admitted that scientists invariably fall short of the ideal he set for them. “Since scientists got subsidies for their work, science isn't exactly what it should be. This is unavoidable. There is a certain corruption, unfortunately. But I don't talk about that.”

Popper then proceeded to talk about it. “Scientists are not as self-critical as they should be,” he asserted. “There is a certain wish that you, people like you”--he jabbed a finger at me—“should bring them before the public.” He stared at me a moment, then reminded me that he had not sought this interview. “Far from it,” he said. Popper then plunged into a technical critique of the big bang theory. “It's always the same,” he summed up. “The difficulties are underrated. It is presented in a spirit as if this all has scientific certainty, but scientific certainty doesn't exist.”

I asked Popper if he felt biologists are also too committed to Darwin's theory of natural selection; in the past he had suggested that the theory is tautological and thus pseudo-scientific. “That was perhaps going too far,” Popper said, waving his hand dismissively. “I'm not dogmatic about my own views.” Suddenly he pounded the table and exclaimed, “One ought to look for alternative theories!”

Popper scoffed at scientists’ hope that they can achieve a final theory of nature. “Many people think that the problems can be solved, many people think the opposite. I think we have gone very far, but we are much further away. I must show you one passage that bears on this.” He shuffled off and returned with his book Conjectures and Refutations. Opening it, he read his own words with reverence: “In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

I decided to launch my big question: Is his falsification concept falsifiable? Popper glared at me. Then his expression softened, and he placed his hand on mine. “I don't want to hurt you,” he said gently, “but it is a silly question." Peering searchingly into my eyes, he asked if one of his critics had persuaded me to pose the question. Yes, I lied. “Exactly,” he said, looking pleased.

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!” His falsification concept, he said, is a criterion for distinguishing between empirical and non-empirical modes of knowledge. Falsification itself is “decidably unempirical”; it belongs not to science but to philosophy, or “meta-science,” and it does not even apply to all of science. Popper seemed to be admitting that his critics were right: falsification is a mere guideline, a rule of thumb, sometimes helpful, sometimes not.

Popper said he had never before responded to the question I had just asked. “I found it too stupid to be answered. You see the difference?” he asked, his voice gentle again. I nodded. The question seemed silly to me, too, I said, but I just thought I should ask. He smiled and squeezed my hand, murmuring, “Yes, very good.”

Since Popper seemed so agreeable, I mentioned that one of his former students had accused him of not tolerating criticism of his own ideas. Popper's eyes blazed. “It is completely untrue! I was happy when I got criticism! Of course, not when I would answer the criticism, like I have answered it when you gave it to me, and the person would still go on with it. That is the thing which I found uninteresting and would not tolerate.” In that case, Popper would throw the student out of his class.

(…)

I slipped in a final question: Why in his autobiography did Popper say that he is the happiest philosopher he knows? “Most philosophers are really deeply depressed,” he replied, “because they can’t produce anything worthwhile.” Looking pleased with himself, Popper glanced over at Mrs. Mew, who wore an expression of horror. Popper’s smile faded. “It would be better not to write that,” he said to me. “I have enough enemies, and I better not answer them in this way.” He stewed a moment and added, “But it is so.”

(…)

When Popper died two years later, the Economist hailed him as having been “the best-known and most widely read of living philosophers.” But the obituary noted that Popper’s treatment of induction, the basis of his falsification scheme, had been rejected by later philosophers. “According to his own theories, Popper should have welcomed this fact,” the Economist noted, “but he could not bring himself to do so. The irony is that, here, Popper could not admit he was wrong.”

Can a skeptic avoid self-contradiction? And if he doesn’t, if he arrogantly preaches intellectual humility, does that negate his work? Not at all. Such paradoxes actually corroborate the skeptic’s point, that the quest for truth is endless, twisty and riddled with pitfalls, into which even the greatest thinkers tumble. In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”