(continued from page 1 – https://enewschannels.com/2009/02/01/enc5679_140031.php)
2. WRITING STYLE
A critique of my Part 7 included a complaint raised by one of my critics who is of the opinion that I use an unnecessary amount of capitalization throughout my articles. Well my response to this is, “QUIT BEING SUCH A CONTROL FREAK. GO SEE A PSYCHIATRIST BECAUSE YOU’RE IN URGENT NEED OF THERAPY.”
[BRACKETED INSERTIONS] – Bracketed insertions is another issue with respect to my writing style, one that arose in my discussions with professor Raymer and which I consider important enough to bring out to public view. I am referring to the style where I rely on the insertion of my own text which seeks to convey personal interpretations, clarifications and opinions which are placed in [brackets] within the body of excerpts that I cite from the text of other authors. Lately, for example, I have been citing several relevant excerpts from the book of University of California, Santa Cruz (“UCSC”), physicists and professors, Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness” (“QE” for short). I make use of my own bracketed text within excerpts cited from this book.
Following, in his own words, is how Raymer raised this issue of “bracketed insertions” with regard to Rosenblum and Kuttner’s book:
“By the way, I own and have previously read the book you cite by the two faculty at UCSC, in fact I happen to be a physics graduate of that fine school. My experience in quantum physics in some ways parallels theirs, and I don’t mean to cast criticism on them. I would note that you inserted the words [i.e., a non-rationality] into their quote on page 61, and perhaps in other of their quotes. I am not sure if they would agree with this insertion. Have you asked them? I don’t think mystery and nonrationality are synonymous. Perhaps they address this in the book, I don’t recall.”
First of all, in response to Raymer, I can say that as far as the issue of synonymy between “mystery” and “nonrationality” is concerned, I do not remember any instance where Rosenblum and Kuttner even use the word “nonrationality,” let alone equate it with “mystery.” So in this respect, it is at this time unknown whether or not Rosenblum and/or Kuttner would agree to my synonymy of words. In passing, however, and for whatever it is worth, I have noted that Rosenblum and Kuttner do refer, and apparently agree, to a synonymy of “mystery” and “enigma,” which appears evident when they say at QE-3 concerning the mysterious “experimental results” of quantum theory, “For many physicists, this mystery, the quantum enigma, is best not talked about.”
In any case, the issue of synonymy between “mystery” and “nonrationality” is addressed more at length under Topic 5 below.
Secondly, as for the issue of bracketed insertions, my response to this issue raised by Raymer was as follows:
“Thank you for sharing about your background. Yes, I do make bracketed insertions that express personal interpretations and/or opinions in the midst of a given author’s text; I do this even with the Bible. This style is ‘typical’ with all my writings. I do this basically out of convenience to help the reader understand how I am interpreting an author’s text or to help clarify a point I believe an author is trying to make or to emphasize a particular aspect of a theme an author is bringing forth so as to focus the reader’s attention to what I see as very important to bear in mind.
“Now, as to whether the authors of the original text would be agreeable with what I put in my bracketed ‘insertions,’ such considerations hardly ever trouble me due to the fact that I make it obvious to my readers, by the brackets and consistency of practice, that whatever goes into the brackets are my own words and not of the original author (you apparently had no problem catching this). Readers such as you can then decide whether they agree with what my inserted text is saying or ignore it altogether, and then make their own personal interpretations and/or analysis of the author’s original text.
“Furthermore, it is not uncommon for those who seek to develop ground-breaking literary work to use text of pre-existing works by other authors as ‘spring boards,’ so to speak, to jump to new or novel understandings or concepts. This can happen whether or not the original author in the original text intended to have his or her text to lead anyone to the new or novel conclusions others after them arrived at.
“Hence, whether or not the original Quantum Enigma authors would agree with my ‘insertions,’ I see it as irrelevant. I do not, first of all, expect them to agree and, secondly, as already mentioned above, I make it obvious to my readers that what I bracket are my own personal additions (for the purposes mentioned above) and not what the original authors wrote.”
After communicating this response to Raymer, he had no further comment on this issue.
To return now to the primary topic of my discussion with Raymer, I intend to take opportunity in this report to address several other sub-topics, as listed above, raised both directly and indirectly as a result of the input Raymer provided me. But the most important topic to be addressed that has top priority in this report will be the issue concerning the nature of physical reality in the context of Raymer’s expressed scientific opinion. Raymer’s opinion on this subject is one that I have now discovered to be in harmony, not only with what other physicists of high reputation are saying, but also with what has been my own conclusion.
It needs to said, however, that simply because Raymer agrees with my conclusion on the nature of physical reality as being not rational does not mean that he extends a blanket endorsement to everything I say or conclude in this series. However, I find this to be no problem, especially in view of the fact that, except for one instance where out of courtesy I checked with Raymer to be sure I did not write anything that might be prejudicial to him personally, I have never sought or requested Raymers’ agreement, approval or endorsement of anything I write in this series. Why should I? There’s no need for it; we both operate independently and adequately within our own spheres of individual thought. Thus, it is not necessarily certain that I either would endorse Raymer’s every thought, however preferable and pleasant it is for people to achieve agreement.
Yet being the learned scientist Raymer is, and insofar as I’m concerned, his opinion on the scientific matters I discuss in this series does indeed carry a lot of weight with me. I say this even though I nonetheless seek wisely to reserve the right to comparatively evaluate what Raymer says with what other learned physicists have said. So at least within this context and its caveats, when Raymer speaks about anything “physics,” I pay serious attention. Accordingly, I am happy that Raymer has offered and given his informed input on the central topic in this report concerning the nature of physical reality.
3. CLEARING READER MISUNDERSTANDING
Based on Raymer’s original misunderstanding of what I was saying in Part 7, and the fact that one other commenting critic seems to have arrived at a similar misunderstanding, I chose to take this opportunity to clear things up, hopefully once and for all, in the event any others might have gathered the same erroneous conclusion.
Following is how Raymer expressed his original understanding of what I wrote in Part 7:
“It is simply not true that quantum physics undercuts rationalism and forces us to think non-rationally. During the period 1880-1930 scientists arrived at quantum physics through experimental observation of the real world and rational analysis of the results. While it is true that quantum physics is far from intuitive and hard to comprehend (thus the famous quotes by Einstein and others who struggled to understand its deeper meaning), one should recall that even Newton’s physics were a big step away from that of the ancient Greeks and was not obvious either. In fact, most people even now days who are not trained in physics hold the pre-Newtonian ideas intuitively (objects naturally come to rest if something is not acting on them, etc.)
“Now it may be true that some sloppy thinkers have used the supposed superior rationality of the old Enlightenment era to argue the nonexistence of a God or whatever, let’s not set up that straw man and knock it down using an equally sloppy conception of what modern physics is. Modern physics is anything but non-rational.”
First of all, now that Raymer and I both know that Raymer’s original critique cited above was actually based on a misunderstanding of my meaning in Part 7, this Raymer critique is now moot because it has been resolved and is therefore no longer needing a response. However, the issue of “straw man” and of the Enlightenment as straw man is addressed below.
Secondly, in order to try to clear, definitively and completely for other readers who, like Raymer in his critique, may also have been misled by the associations I made in Part 7 between the non-rational and quantum physics, we will now examine the only instances in Part 7, a total of five places, where I make such associations. I will then comment on these parts concerning what perhaps could have led to the misunderstanding here at issue. Each of the five parts is set below in the form of a quotation (or cite) of the five full paragraphs in Part 7 that contain the associations in question:
CITE #1: “But if we can place the mid-point of the Enlightenment’s days of glory and establishment roughly at about the beginning of the 1700s, we can say that from that mid-point, the non-rational waited approximately two centuries before it began striking hard at Enlightenment rationalism and its utopian dreams. I can say this, first of all, because, as already explained in Part 4 with respect to postmodernism, and as I will show further on with respect to Quantum, both the Post-modern and Quantum Eras which are now “deconstructing” and superseding rationalist Enlightenment principles are essentially non-rational events in one sense or another; as such, they are counter- Enlightenment (i.e., counter-rationalist).”
COMMENTARY: In this Cite #1, I wrote, “both the Post-modern and Quantum Eras which are now ‘deconstructing’ and superseding rationalist Enlightenment principles are essentially non-rational events in one sense or another.” It appears to me highly unlikely that professor Raymer assumed from this that I was saying, or at least implying, that modern physics is non-rational. This is apparent to me in view of the fact that I clearly do not explicitly say here that quantum or modern physics is non-rational; I simply say that the QUANTUM ERA (not Quantum Mechanics or Modern Physics) is in one sense or another non-rational.
Yet it is possible that professor Raymer somehow perceived that, by saying this, I was implying a direct connection between quantum (or modern) physics and the non-rational; such was not the case, nor was it my intent, implicitly or otherwise.
However, it is in the next, or Cite #2, where I believe there is sufficient reason to believe that something explicitly was said where I appear to be implying that the non-rational was “ruling” in the PRACTICE of quantum (or modern) science carried on by highly rational scientists like Raymer. Following is the cite in question:
CITE #2: Clearly then, just as REASON does not rule in our current NON-RATIONAL age of Post-modern RELATIVISM, REASON does not rule either in our current age of NON-RATIONAL Quantum Science. The quantum world of physical reality is so weird and non-rational that scientists now see it as beyond hope of it ever being rationally understood. For example, University of California physicists and professors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, in their book, “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness,” published by Oxford University Press (2006), have referred descriptively in page 36 to “quantum mechanics, where the challenge is to explain observations that force us [scientists] TO DENY STRAIGHTFORWARD PHYSICAL REALITY” (emphasis added).
It is the very first sentence in this Cite #2 that is here at issue: “Clearly then, just as REASON does not rule in our current NON-RATIONAL age of Post-modern RELATIVISM, REASON does not rule either in our current age of NON-RATIONAL Quantum Science.” Yes, though I do not explicitly say it, I can nonetheless see how someone could make a compelling argument that professor Raymer and others so affected could have easily assumed I was here in effect saying that quantum or modern physics “undercuts rationalism and forces us to think non-rationally,” as Raymer thought, or for that matter, that quantum or modern physics is non-rational.
But to carefully examine my words, I here direct my readers’ attention to the fact that nowhere in this paragraph do I explicitly say that modern physics “undercuts rationalism and forces us to think non-rationally” nor do I say that quantum or modern physics is non-rational, as it appears that the dear and honorable professor Raymer had originally thought I had at least implied. I simply said, “reason does not rule either in our current age of non-rational Quantum Science.”
Nevertheless, I can see here how easy it would be for anyone at all, whether Raymer the physicist or Barney the baker, to conclude that by employing the words “non-rational Quantum Science” I was really implying that the PRACTICE of quantum science by rational scientists was ITSELF non-rational. This is definitely not what I intended or thought to be the case.
So what did I mean? I meant that the whole rational PRACTICE of quantum or modern science does not revolve around phenomena in physical reality whose behavior is ruled overwhelmingly by what is rational or can be rationally understood. Instead, it revolves around phenomena in physical reality whose behavior is ruled (or is profusely characterized) by that which is overwhelmingly and shockingly non-rational. Thus, to make my relevant point in this cite foolproof against misunderstanding, instead of writing “REASON does not rule either in our current age of NON-RATIONAL Quantum Science,” I should have written something like “REASON does not rule either in the SUBJECT MATTER (i.e., physical reality) of modern science in our current age of quantum.”
It seems that while I make fastidious efforts to write in great detail and clarity on complex issues full of tricky nuances, there are a few times a scoundrel of un-clarity slips by me and creates a havoc of misunderstanding; this is one such case. So I do not blame professor Raymer or any one else similarly affected for failing to grasp my meaning here. I just count the whole thing as simply a bit of careless writing on my part which I believe all writers on complex issues experience from time to time and later need, as I am doing here, to explain and clarify.
The following cites are the other cites in Part 7 which conceivably may have led some to erroneously assume I was saying that quantum or modern physics was non-rational. However, I cannot imagine how anyone could have concluded this in view of the fact that in each of these following cites, I very clearly refer to “physical reality,” not quantum or modern physics, as being non-rational:
CITE #3: Cutting edge science in particular finds itself hemmed in by its own finding of what is now being referred to, among other things, as the quantum world of physical reality, a world so weird, NON-RATIONAL, and spooky that now for over a hundred years, not a single scientist has been able to explain or make rational sense of it: The much-quoted, insightful and renowned physicist, Richard Feynman (1918-1988), said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics.” The topic of quantum theory will be more fully addressed in Part 10 of this series.
CITE #4: The quantum world of physical reality is so weird and non-rational that scientists now see it as beyond hope of it ever being rationally understood. For example, University of California physicists and professors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, in their book, “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness,” published by Oxford University Press (2006), have referred descriptively in page 36 to “quantum mechanics, where the challenge is to explain observations that force us [scientists] TO DENY STRAIGHTFORWARD PHYSICAL REALITY” (emphasis added).
CITE #5: “This means that all of PHYSICAL NATURE (or reality) is non-rational to the core (“If quantum mechanics is right,” said Einstein, “then the world is crazy”). Einstein was correct, the whole of our physical world of reality is non-rational “crazy” since physical nature is made up of atoms, and the bizarre (or “crazy”) nature of the atomic structure of all physical matter is what the empirical findings of quantum mechanics has confirmed to us. This deserves special emphasis.
“We must emphasize how significant is the fact that since quantum mechanics reveals the nature of physical reality at its foundation, that is, the atomic structure of all physical matter everywhere (including our human bodies), and atomic structure is the common foundation of all physical matter studied by all empirical sciences, like a domino effect, the findings of quantum mechanics inescapably carry profound implications for all scientific enterprise and for what is the essential nature of the physical universe.”
Finally, there’s the minor case of a male critic of Part 7 who said, “While QM [presumably Quantum Mechanics] may appear to be anti-rational at first glance, it is really no such thing (nor can be, honestly, belonging strongly in the rationalist scientific project).”
So far as I can make out what he is saying, this critic seems to think I literally said Quantum Mechanics is “anti-rational.” I never said “Quantum Mechanics is anti-rational”; he’s the one who has said this in his critique of Part 7. He also said other things which are coherently and intellectually so puerile and low-grade they are not at all worthy to respond to here.
This brings us to the next topic, which is the issue of whether physical reality is irresolvably non-rational. I have found reason to conclude that with respect to this question and how physicists react to it, there seems to be among physicists, optimists and pessimists.
4. OPTIMIST AND PESSIMIST PHYSICISTS
Based on what he has said to me, I put Raymer in the category of an optimistic physicist and will use him as an example to define what I mean by “optimist and pessimist physicists.” For example, Raymer expresses optimistic hope which leaves open the possibility that, in the future, physicists may indeed rationally resolve the present mystery in the quantum world. Following is how Raymer seems to me to reveals this optimistic position: “Most physicists agree that this conclusion [concerning the behavior found in physical reality] is surprising, maybe even shocking, and that we do not fully understand the situation” but now follows Raymer’s hopeful optimism, “[this] is not to say we will not in the future understand it.”
But not all physicists share Raymer’s optimism concerning a hoped for “eventual ability” within the field of empirical physics rationally to unravel what UCSC professsors Rosenblum and Kuttner call the “enigma” of physical reality. Consider for example Rosenblum and Kuttner’s reporting in “Quantum Enigma” of how they themselves and other physicists view or have viewed this issue of a hoped for “eventual ability” of physics (or physicists) rationally to unravel the enigma.
As I studied Rosenblum and Kuttner’s reporting in “Quantum Enigma,” I personally concluded from QE that the first pessimist quantum physicist might have been the pioneer quantum theorist Niels Bohr. According to QE, upon viewing, through repeated testing and experimentation, the seemingly stubborn and intransigent non-rational way that quantum physical reality behaved, Bohr, at least in some of his statements, appears to have given up hope that things would ever change, though he was not entirely consistent; at other times, according to QE, he appeared ambivalent between optimism and pessimism on the issue.
Thus, the difference between optimism and pessimism among physicists is here being defined and made dependent on whether, as an optimist, a given physicist is hopeful that the enigma in physical reality might eventually, as a result of some now unforeseen breakthrough, rationally be resolved within the abilities of physics or whether, as a pessimist, a given physicist has relinquished that hope or at least be inclined in that direction.
Apparently, in spite of his ambivalence, the pessimist side of Bohr was sufficiently dominant to lead Einstein to comment on this aspect in Bohr’s views. According to QE, “Einstein [an overwhelmingly optimist physicist, who was optimistic and rationalistic as well in his own brand of theology] rejected Bohr’s [pessimist] attitude as defeatist, saying he [that is, Einstein, on the other hand] came to physics to discover what’s really going on, to learn ‘God’s thought'” (QE-105).
Yet in the case of Bohr as a pessimist, being aware of the history and self-assumed understanding of science that its reason for being was to make every effort to explain rationally what physical nature is and why it behaves as it does, Bohr realized that something had to change: either physical reality had to be brought to rational understanding or the self-assumed rational mission of science had to be changed, the pessimist position called for this either/or dilemma. Accordingly, Bohr in his pessimism, concluding that the non-rationality of physical reality was probably rationally irresolvable by physics, arrived at the thought that it was the self-assumed mission of science that had to be changed.
Hence, Bohr’s statement, as reported in QE, to express his pessimistic conclusion about the ability of physics was as follows: “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out [rationally] how nature is. Physics concerns [only] what we can say about nature” (QE-104). In this statement then, the physicist Bohr relieved physics of its self-imposed burden (or perhaps even obsession), i.e., the belief that it had the eventual need rationally to unravel the stubborn non-rational that physical nature possessed.
According to Bohr, all that physics now needed to be concerned about was simply to explain “how nature [or physical reality] is” and not rationally why it is as it is.
Rosenblum and Kuttner also appear to be in the category of pessimist physicists, at least in the sense of inclining in that direction. This is made evident from one of their statements which demonstrates their openness to relinquish a claim that optimist physicists like Raymer on the other hand would probably not at all relinquish, i.e., that the ultimate resolution of the enigma in physical reality might not be found within the realm of rational physics or physicists but outside such a realm. Following is how Rosenblum and Kuttner express this thought:
QE-13: “The quantum enigma has challenged physicists for eight decades. Is it possible that crucial clues lie outside the expertise of physicists? Remarkably, the enigma can be presented essentially full-blown to nonscientists. Might someone unencumbered by years of training in the use of quantum theory have a new insight?”
Actually, I do personally believe and agree that this is the most realistic position anyone in physics could come to and it is a relief to see that the physicists Rosenblum and Kuttner have had the uncommon humility among physicists to express it, i.e, that someone outside of the science of physics, unencumbered by years of training in the use of quantum theory might have a new clue or insight into what is really going on in the quantum world.
Obviously, I am here revealing by what I have just said, that I definitely take the side of pessimism about a future ability of physics: I am convinced that another hundred years from now, if human history lasts that long, physics will still be where it is now, at a standstill, still seeking to know what’s really going on in quantum reality.
In a forthcoming Part 10 of this series, I draw attention to what I, as someone outside of physics and unencumbered by its limitations, personally believe is actually going on in the quantum world.
In any case, Raymer went on in our discussion to express other thoughts he had about physics. For example, in his email cited above, Raymer gives evidence of substantial agreement with my assertions about the scientific view of physical reality before and after quantum. This is shown when Raymer compared the pre-quantum belief in a “reasonable” world to what modern or quantum science is now saying: “I would agree that before the quantum era [or pre-quantum] many scientists viewed the world as being physically rational (to coin a phrase), that is to say that each specific event is the result of specific causes, and these causes can be understood by us through rational thinking (determinism). QM [i.e., Quantum Mechanics] has shown this view to be over simple.”
Thus, since the pre-quantum scientific view of the physical world being rational ultimately proved to be inaccurate because it was simplistic, according to the eminent professor Raymer, a more accurate view was needed. QM came in to fix this.
So here’s my logic and main point in this issue: if calling the physical world “rational” is to voice a deficient, flawed and/or overly simple view, then the word “rational” does not accurately or properly apply to the physical world. But if the word “rational” does not so apply to physical reality, again, according to the honorable and eminent professor Raymer, then I am led to conclude on this basis alone that whatever concept, word, or view DOES appropriately or accurately apply to physical reality has to be, of necessity, something NOT-rational or, in other words, non-rational.
But is it linguistically correct to call “non-rational” something which is NOT rational? Well, for those who are not aware, you might try looking at the Third College Edition of the Webster’s New World Dictionary, which I happen to have in front of me as I write this. This dictionary has four pages of hundreds of words (I stopped counting at 630 and there were a lot more left) that begin with the prefix “non,” which from the Latin, literally means NOT. Here in Webster’s, in addition to finding the word “nonrational” (on page 923), you will also find such “non” words as nonreality, nonreciprocal, nonrenewable, etc. and so on.
5. IS “NON-RATIONALITY” SYNONYMOUS WITH “MYSTERY”?
This same principle just considered immediately above can be applied to a related issue Raymer raised at one point when he expressed that he did not think “mystery” and “non-rationality” are synonymous. Raymer said this in the context of determining what is the correct way to define the enigmatic or mysterious phenomena that occurs in the quantum world. Raymer recognizes that such phenomena is a “mystery”; physicists Rosenblum and Kuttner call it both a mystery and an “enigma.”
But specifically in response to this issue of synonymy which Raymer raised, we can once again go back to the foundational definition given by Raymer himself concerning what his coined phrase “physically rational” means: “I would agree that before the quantum era many scientists viewed the world as being physically rational (to coin a phrase), that is to say that each specific event is the result of specific causes, and these causes can be understood by us through rational thinking (determinism). QM [i.e., Quantum Mechanics] has shown this view to be over simple.”
From Raymer’s words, we can see clearly that he defines that which is “physically rational” as that which “can be understood by us through rational thinking.” But since “rational thinking” does not and has not enabled physicists to understand at all the mystery or enigma in the quantum world, then I accordingly have concluded that such a mystery or enigma is not at all compatible with “rational thinking.”
Hence, it is precisely for this reason that I have concluded that the mystery or enigma of quantum which is here at issue is a “non-rationality.” I believe this is linguistically legitimate in exactly the same analogous sense that someone might conclude that something which is NOT real or is NOT reality can use the word “nonreal,” or the word “nonreality,” which is in Websters’ Dictionary, to mean the same thing. Yet, even if neither of these words were in the dictionary, anyone is free to coin them and define them to explain their thoughts, intentions, or meanings. In such a case, no one is obligated to go to a special government “board of linguistics” to get permission. Without such permission, for example, Raymer himself coins a phrase to convey his thoughts. We saw this, for instance, when he said, “many scientists viewed the world as being physically rational (to coin a phrase).”
Thus, in the final conclusion with regard to the issue of whether “mystery” and “non-rationality” are synonymous, I can say that they are synonymous since a mystery or enigma is not at all something which, in the words of Raymer, “can be understood by us through rational thinking.” In any case, as I have already expressed, the phrase “physical non-rationality” might create a semantics problem for optimist physicists in the Einstein and Raymer tradition, but it presents absolutely no such problem to this series or to the non-rational theology it espouses.
Moreover, I note that in utter disbelief, even the optimist Einstein called the physical world “crazy,” which seems to me more scandalous than “non-rational” in terms of semantic connotation: “If quantum mechanics is right,” said Einstein, “then the world is crazy.”
But in spite of how one given physicist views the implications of the quantum enigma to be, I do understand how difficult it might generally be for highly rational thinking people pursuing an endeavor that is highly rational in its methods, such as scientists and their science, to feel comfortable at the thought that the subject matter of their practice is not rational. Such a state of affairs might perhaps seem utterly incongruous.
Or perhaps there is the sense in which it may seem to scientists counter-productive to think that what one works on as a rational scientist, is irresolvably non-rational crazy, to include Einstein’s word. I am sure that to many scientists such a thought may be like saying, “What’s the use of working on something that’s non-rational crazy if no matter what we do can ever rationally resolve it; we rational people might as well give up our search to resolve it if that’s the case.”
Actually, according to Rosenblum and Kuttner, the pessimists have already done this and have turned instead to concentrate on the practical aspects of science (or “science for all practical purposes”), forgetting and not worrying about the non-rational going on.
Just merely based on what I would speculate to be the case, I would venture to guess that perhaps such practical pessimists might have raised and resolved the quantum dilemma by reasoning, “What if this is reality? What if physical reality is NOT rational and can never be rationally resolved by physics? In such a case, like it or not, what is a scientist to do other than put his or her hand to the “scientific plow” and continue to progress and move ever onward to work over the irresolvable non-rational crazy world.” In any case, under any circumstance, practical scientists has to continue to do what practical scientists do and not burn out their brains trying rationally to resolve what they suspect or believe is rationally irresolvable.
Now turning back our attention to the position of optimist physicists like Raymer. In his email cited above, Raymer agrees with my position of the physical world not being rational and he appears to intimate that other physicists recognize this. So what do these highly rational and optimistic physicists do to get around or cope with the fact that they are laboring to understand a world that, from my perspective, is crazy to the core? Raymer gives us a clue in answer to this question when he says, “[This is] not to say we will not in the future understand it.” That’s it! Optimist scientists who like Einstein and Raymer recognize that the physical world is what I call non-rational crazy, have to maintain “faith” in their heart that, in the future, our highly rational physics may possibly and finally rationally understand it.
This has to be an act of faith since no one can guarantee for sure that a rational understanding of non-rational physical reality will be the end result of waiting for who knows how long. Already a whole century (100 years to stress the point) has passed and the crazy non-rationality of the physical world is still here unmoved and unshaken. Optimistic science, it appears, has its own rational “messiah” it looks for in faith.
Yet, after a century of digging into the physical world by the most brilliant of scientific minds to rationally understand its craziness, not a single bit of progress, not a single thing has changed. I am not talking in terms of practical progress in quantum science, much success and change has taken place there. What I instead refer to is insofar as making rational sense of the enigma in quantum phenomena that will just not go away. Raymer himself speaks of this stubborn and persistent quantum bafflement. Consequently, we find some physicists taking a more skeptical approach to this scientific dilemma. See, for example the following from U of C professors Rosenblum and Kuttner:
QE-4: “The enigma we discuss is not just a way of looking at things, nor is it a new (or ancient) philosophical perspective. We describe straightforward physical phenomena that can be convincingly displayed to anyone. But with such demonstrations, we face an enigma that defies solution within our conventional worldview.
“Though the quantum enigma has confronted physics for eight decades, it remains unresolved. It may well be that the particular expertise and talents of physicists do not uniquely qualify us for its comprehension. We physicists might therefore approach the problem with modesty (though we find that hard).”
Although I do not know from personal experience, since I have never been one, it is apparently difficult for scientists to be humble when they are so highly exalted and prized as rationalist gurus whose work promises to tame and explain the crazy world we live in and to bring us nothing but the rational truth about reality and existence. WOW! What a high pedestal they have been placed in by society. As fallible and feeble human beings naturally prone to self-aggrandizement (equally as other human beings are), how can these scientists practically maintain humility under such circumstances? I do not envy them; I’m perfectly content as a puny, non-rational theologian digging into God’s non-rational crazy world.
6. COMPARING SCIENCES: NEWTONIAN AND QUANTUM
I have noted that in his original critique of Part 7, Raymer appears to have asserted that there is essentially no difference between Newtonian and Quantum sciences insofar as a difficulty of understanding is concerned. Following is how professor Raymer expressed this thought:
“While it is true that quantum physics is far from intuitive and hard to comprehend (thus the famous quotes by Einstein and others who struggled to understand its deeper meaning), one should recall that even Newton’s physics were a big step away from that of the ancient Greeks and was not obvious either.”
If I understand this correctly, Raymer seems to be saying essentially that by comparison, Newtonian science, prior to the rise of quantum theory, was “hard to comprehend” (or “was not obvious”) when first introduced. That was a time when science had to take “a big step away from that of the ancient Greeks.” But Raymer continues and appears to say that this difficulty that presented itself in Newtonian science was similarly as difficult as quantum physics was in its own beginning at the time of Einstein. Consequently, according to this view, I gather that Raymer is trying to say that one should therefore not view quantum science as being uniquely hard to understand anymore than one would do so with respect to Newtonian science. I am hoping that I have not here misunderstood Raymer.
I highly respect professor Raymer’s knowledge of quantum science. Hence, if he tells me something having to do strictly within the realm of quantum science, as I have already said, I will give it a lot of credence, even though I will wisely compare what he says with what other physicists have said to verify that there is no problem of conflict with the views of other physicists.
But here, Raymer leaves the strict realm of science issues, such as what is the “rest mass” of a particle, and gets into an issue of history and comparative appraisal having to do with how easy or difficult to understand one science was from another at their time of beginning. In such things, especially comparative historical analysis, I have a greater understanding and I believe I can adequately respond to this issue.
As it is, assuming I have correctly understood Raymer’s statement, and based on my own historical knowledge, I am skeptical that here Raymer is accurate in his assessments and I will now proceed to show why I see that this is so, all the while sincerely hoping of course that I have not inadvertently misrepresented Raymer’s meaning or intent.
In response to Raymer in this instance, I would agree that it is not difficult to see how anything that is far removed (or “a big step away”) from what has been the accepted or conventional way of thinking is bound to be difficult to accept or absorb at first. For example, before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, society in the Southern United States had, for many years, become quite used to segregated or separate public facilities and institutions for blacks and whites.
The nation had to go through a traumatic period to finally accept the change that federal law finally brought to the South. But change did eventually come to the South and it came quickly through the force of federal law and its enforcement. I do not believe it took more than one decade to bring the South to resign itself to the “new reality” of de-segregation.
Likewise, Newton’s crowning literary achievement, the “Principia,” published in 1687, shook up (or revolutionized) the existing scientific worldview of the time, which had to make a huge leap to accommodate itself, accept and absorb Newton’s “new views” of how the physical world really was. Included here was a new system of mathematics that Newton had developed to describe the mechanics of the entire universe. This in itself must surely have been hard enough to understand and absorb.
But unlike the rational enigma in quantum reality that UCSC physicists and professors Rosenblum and Kuttner refer to, the first thing that Newtonian science had in its favor was that the world it revealed was thoroughly rational. In Quantum Enigma (“QE”), Rosenblum and Kuttner make this plain when they report that in Newton’s Principia, “the revealed RATIONALITY in Nature was revolutionary” (QE-31).
The second thing that Newtonian science had in its favor was that, even though it may initially have been difficult to understand, yet only because of its “newness,” Newtonian science was NOT impossible to understand because its rational nature was naturally compatible with human reason. This is something that is not the case in quantum reality, where we find even the most scientifically astute physicists confirming this. See for example the following from Rosenblum and Kuttner:
QE-80: “According to Richard Feynman (1918-1988), who understood quantum mechanics as well as anyone ever did: ‘Nobody understands quantum mechanics.'”
QE-13: “Niels Bohr, [quantum] theory’s principal interpreter, tells us: ‘Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it.'”
QE-61: “Though the paradoxical nature of light disturbed Einstein, he clung to his photon hypothesis. He declared that a mystery existed in Nature and that we must confront it. He did not pretend to resolve the problem. And we do not pretend to resolve it here in this book. The mystery [or quantum enigma] is still with us a hundred years later.”
So while Newtonian science came to be understood relatively quick by rational scientists, in the case of quantum science, physicists are still struggling with it a hundred years after its discovery. So when Raymer reminds us that Einstein and others struggled to understand quantum phenomena in its deeper meaning at its pioneer time of beginning, I would remind Raymer that such a struggle continues to this day among the brightest of physicists one hundred years later.
On the other hand, the initial struggle scientists were cast into by the introduction of Newtonian science ended, as explained below, well within a span of four decades before Newton died. Newtonian science, because it described a rational world in rational terms that was therefore not impossible to comprehend by rational human beings, received widespread popular acceptance that came relatively quickly. We know this, for example, from the following facts:
Newton’s “Principia” was published in 1687, ushering then into the world a new revolution in the scientific community and actually in society as a whole. As we shall soon learn in the forthcoming Part 8 of this series, Newtonian science became widespread in its impact, going beyond the realm of science and affecting all of society. By 1727, only about four decades from the publishing of “Principia,” the knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the Newtonian rational worldview had become so widespread and had brought so much fame to Newton, that the famous poet, Alexander Pope, wrote a glowing epitaph for Newton eleven days before Newton died on March 31, 1727: “Nature and Nature’s law lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! And all was light.”
Hence, in view of all the facts of the matter, we see that Newtonian and Quantum science are not as similar in their difficulty of understanding as Raymer’s statement appears to suggest. Whereas the Newtonian worldview was rationally comprehensible, though at its initial introduction by the “Principia” not easily understood or absorbed, a century has passed since the original discovery, by Max Planck, of the rationally bizarre world quantum theory reveals and still nobody in physics has even begun to rationally figure out what’s really going on with the mystery.
So all that physicists can now say about the quantum world is that it is what it is without knowing why it is what it is. There is therefore no way anyone can compare this with the rationality of the Newtonian view of the visible world. That is why I conclude that the quantum world is not Newtonian rational, which as far as I’m concerned is the same thing as saying that the quantum world is NOT rational, which as far as I’m concerned is the same thing as saying that the quantum world is NON-rational. Now if you the reader have a different kind of logic and choose to believe something else as a result, be my guest and do so; we’ll just both disagree and that will be the end of the story between us.
7. THE “STRAW MAN” ISSUE
In critiques of these series, there have been a few references to what in debate or argumentation is called a “straw man.” So what is “straw man”? As I personally view this issue, a “straw man” is an unfair ploy that can be used and is used in argument or debate in one of two ways: (1) offensively against an opponent in an effort to win an argument or debate or (2) defensively to thwart or fight off the arguments of one’s opponent.
(1) A straw man of offense takes place when a debater deliberately and intentionally interprets an opponent’s position in a version that is either weak, untruthful, inappropriate, or inaccurate, or a combination of all these, in order to easily overcome or “knock down” such a position and appear that the debater has won the case fairly. The false version of the opponent’s position set up by a debater is called the “straw man” that is “easily knocked down.”
This straw man of offense, for example, is common in courtroom litigation and widespread in political campaigning and it is patently unfair. Obama, for example, repeatedly said in effect that to vote for McCain was to vote for Bush. That was not in a strict sense true and was not accurate. The literal fact was that McCain was not Bush and the two had political clashes.
Nevertheless, Obama’s campaign advisors knew well that by Obama “defining” McCain as if he were essentially nothing other than Bush, Obama would get a lot of traction with voters in his run to win the White House. Bush, being hated by so many voters, then became for Obama’s campaign the “straw man” that could easily be knocked down so that in reality Obama could then easily and unfairly win against his actual opponent, John McCain. Such is the way of politics, where I am told that to win, opponents have to look at it like they were in a war; and as the old refrain describes it, “All’s fair in love and war.”
(2) A straw man of defense, on the other hand, can emerge when a debater falsely accuses an opponent of using a straw man argument in an attempt to eliminate the possibility that the opponent can make any winning argument at all. Thus, in a straw man of defense, the accusation of using a straw man will in itself be a straw man. As an example of this, if a debater is being overwhelmed by the arguments of an opponent, in order to frustrate and fight off the opponent in debate, that debater can accuse the opponent of setting up and using unfair straw man arguments to win unfairly.
In a controversial instance for example of using a straw man of defense, an ethnic majority politician can be falsely accused by an ethnic minority rival of being racist if the minority rival is losing heavily in the polls. “Playing the race card,” as this practice is called, has sometimes helped minority politicians get sympathy and favorable public attention by thus casting themselves as the underdog being unfairly treated.
This “race” ploy, as most everyone knows, is and has been used in unfair attempts to blunt or nullify the arguments of an opponent. In such cases, the straw man would actually be the false accusation of racism itself: it would involve accusing that “racism” is the issue determining the outcome in the polls when actually it may be the result of another issue altogether, such as personal incompetence or inability to make a winning argument.
So the gist of all this is that a straw man is a false argument that an opponent can raise as an offensive tactic to easily win over a rival or it can be an accusation made by an opponent as a defensive tactic to assist in fighting off, frustrating or thwarting a rival to prevent such a rival from winning easily and decisively.
In the case of this series, only about a handful of critics or less have raised a straw man issue, either by telling me of a straw man argument I might make but should not, or accusing me of one I’m supposed to have already made. I address this straw man issue here because I anticipate that it is an issue which will continue to be raised defensively, especially by intellectually impoverished atheists reading this series. Being intellectually impoverished, this tactic, which is a sign of desperation, is the only thing they can come up with to defend their feeble position.
As it stands now, one example of straw man references that have already been made in the context of this series is what Raymer himself said as an offer of advice in his initial critique of Part 7. Following is how he put it:
“Now it may be true that some sloppy thinkers have used the supposed superior rationality of the old Enlightenment era to argue the nonexistence of a God or whatever, let’s not set up that straw man and knock it down using an equally sloppy conception of what modern physics is. Modern physics is anything but non-rational.”
I took it here that Raymer said this by way of advice for the both of us (“let’s not set up”). In other words, he referred to a straw man argument that could be made but should not be made.
Then there is the case of a male critic who said of the same Part 7, “Ugh, it took this guy nearly half the article before he even put up a proper straw man!” In this case, I am convinced this critic is an atheist who, because he can’t answer my compelling arguments against atheism, has to use, as a straw man of defense, mockery and a ridiculous accusation against me, namely, one of having set up a straw man when in fact it is his own accusation which constitutes the straw man, a straw man of defense. He uses this ploy of ridiculing my arguments for theism as a straw man to defend his own deplorably ignorant and weak ones.
In practically all the straw man accusations I have received so far about what I write in this series, no one has yet told me, clearly and explicitly enough (with sufficient detail), exactly what it is they think is a straw man in my arguments so that I can evaluate and respond fairly concerning their complaint of unfairness.
So I warn readers who contemplate raising straw man issues here in their critiques, which accuse or complain that I am unfairly setting up straw man arguments, that I will have no other choice but to utterly ignore such complaints if they do not tell me in sufficient detail what is the straw man of offense they believe I am setting up unfairly and why it is that they think such a thing is a straw man.
If all I get are general accusations that I am setting up a straw man, without sufficient detail as to what and in what sense, specifically, such a thing is a straw man, then how can I be expected to respond to this? I simply cannot, and therefore I will not. For example, the second critic cited above who said that it took me nearly half an article to “put up a proper straw man” tells me nothing as to what on earth is this “straw man” he’s talking about and why this is a straw man in his thinking. I am not in the business here of reading anyone’s mind.
I believe that what these whining atheists are doing now by raising the “straw man ploy” is revealing that they are so desperate to defend themselves against my compelling arguments that they are now grasping at straws (in the form of straw men of defense) in a desperate effort to stop me. They simply cannot come up with anything substantial to match my arguments and to back up their flimsy assertions; so they are now grasping at the thin straw in straw men to rescue them. How utterly pathetic for them is such a predicament!
8. IS THE ENLIGHTENMENT A STRAW MAN?
In Part 7, I have already begun to show a connection between the views of modern rationalist atheists, as they exalt what they consider high and mighty reason and science, and what the Enlightenment Age of Reason was all about. In desperation now, and because I’m hitting a raw nerve in rationalist atheists, such atheists are now defensively crying “foul” by seeking to use a flimsy straw men of defense.
It seems to me that what these atheists are doing is to try to raise the case that the Enlightenment has nothing to do with modern rationalist atheism and that such atheism has arisen on its own separate basis. But I believe this is a delusion, if not an outright LIE.
Now it certainly may be the case that the connection of rationalist atheism with the old Enlightenment might not be direct. In other words, modern rationalist atheism is not the old Enlightenment, literally speaking. The old Enlightenment Age of Reason in its original establishment, back in the 1600s and 1700s, has come and gone. Nevertheless, in the next or Part 8 of this series I will show that there is a certain historical continuity that exists between the old Enlightenment, which is now gone, and the development of modern rational atheism.
In any case, I believe I am correct when I say that, apart from an issue of historical connection, there is, at the very least, a philosophical connection between the Enlightenment Age of Reason and modern rationalist atheism. What I am saying here is that modern rationalist atheism, under a brand new set of historical circumstances, has revived (or resurrected) the same ESSENTIAL philosophical ideas of the old Enlightenment scientific, cultural and social philosophy. In this sense that rationalist atheism has revived Enlightenment philosophy, it can be branded as being nothing other than neo-Enlightenment. This is in the same analogous way, for example that neo-conservatives and neo-Nazis are a revival, under new historical circumstances, of old conservative and old Nazi philosophy. So now we have one additional type of “neo,” neo-Enlightenment rationalist atheists.
But I do not simply make general, unsubstantiated statements to prove my point. In Part 8 of this series, I will show detailed and substantive evidence which make clear the philosophical and, to an extent, the literal historical connection between the old Enlightenment and its naturalistic philosophy and the philosophy of neo-Enlightenment, modern rationalist atheism. Tighten your safety belts boys and girls because we’re in for a lot of turbulence ahead.
[tags]Quantum Physicist, John Garrison, Michael Raymer, non-rationality, Irrelevance of Rational Atheism[/tags]
