Now the dust has settled – The Maga Catholic School Controversy

When this broke I ignored it wondering how it was even considered news. But the event caused such a grand commotion online I felt compelled to dig a little deeper. I am still perplexed how it was perceived in the mainstream media and in threads all over social media. Now the dust has settled ‘a little’ and we understand a lot more about what actually happened based on the longer unedited videos which surfaced; the instant emotional responses as expressed in many media articles and comments online did not in any way represent the truth. People made this into an identitarian-morality play. They placed all of their anger and vitriol on the face of a 16 year old kid. One comment I just read on this blogger’s page is just a small example of where people took this:

They’re lucky he didn’t snap and go back to his days in the Nam, cracking their spindly high school heads. What a disgrace those boys showed

Also here are 100+ verified Twitter users inciting harassment and violence towards the MAGA kid.

The 16 year old is just a kid with a red trump supporter hat on. Reactions like these are totally illogical and asinine. Did smirking at an elderly native American deserve to be news? I am not even sure he was smirking as much as just standing proudly and smiling in front of the Native American gentlemen. This was covered as bigger news than day 31 of the Government shutdown and people waiting on breadlines etc. That is more disturbing than anything that occurred at this event.
People must insist on truth and facts and not on holding people accountable based on their blinkered ideological thinking. This is a microscopic example of what is happening on the authoritarian-left these days and it’s genuinely scary.
The following Joe Rogan video with Bari Weiss unpacks all of this. Also Jimmy Dore did pretty well here as well if you want someone on the left who can be honest:

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News, politics

My Family Cartoon

I remember my school-friend Larry spending countless school hours drawing cartoons of his school friends’ families. He had a peculiar flair for exploiting their features, and did it in such a way that you had to admire his artistry and wit. I have kept one of his drawings for old time’s sake. When I look at it every now and then, I can’t help chuckling.
I’m Matthew by the way.

He nailed my family, he really did… right down to the trailer wheels on my bike. You see, I wasn’t a very good cyclist and Larry was an excellent cyclist and frankly his bike shat all over mine.

Our Family
Related articles:
1. The 20c Lolly Packet
2. The Magazine
3. The Wonder Years and ‘Catch The Wind’

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Reflections

Dystopian scenes at Evergreen State College

This two-part short about The Evergreen Scandal is associated with a feature-length documentary I’m working on about The Grievance Studies Affair, following Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. – Mike Nayna

This is an extraordinary video. One quote from a young white lady really struck me, ‘I refuse to let whiteness consume me. I’m going to say that explicitly – ‘whiteness’. I refuse for my mother, her mother, my grandfather, their ancestors….’

The meeting with the canoe analogy was like a scene from a Dystopian novel. The chanting and level of delusion was astounding.

‘More resistant, a more violent kind of action and also prayer…3 different political strategies’

This video genuinely scared me.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in politics

How the corporate world talks to itself and scattered thoughts on the Gillette ad

This was an informative and interesting presentation regarding what really drives big companies these days and how the corporate world talks to itself. It’s a misconception that firms always aim at maximisation of their money profits, rather they try to aim at maximising their psychic profit and also pandering to staff more than customers. Also they must meet their ‘great bastions’ of diversity quota to up themselves on the indexes of diversity and inclusion. Moving the needle on certain social issues seems to be where it is at.

Scattered thoughts after re-watching the Gillete video last tonight:

*Women bully women as well at school and particularly in social media and it often leads to suicide attempts, and self harm. Where’s the corporate message directed towards women about that? Has anyone seen Jonathan Haidt’s statistics on the alarming upsurge of depression among women and suicide attempts.

*l also really feel for all the young boys in the world being told too stop behaving like boys.

Based on my interpretation watching the video we are told the following as men and boys:

*Don’t roll and tumble on the grass and slug it out a bit and settle your differences. Adults have to be there. Coddling anyone? This video came to mind:

*Also you shouldn’t approach women because that’s just not cool. So go back to your cave from whence you came. Has anyone ever heard of, ‘Sometimes it takes just 20 seconds of insane courage’. Could anyone think that Matt Damon’s character in this movie clip had bad intentions when he approached his future wife?

* White men are inherently bad and men of color are the enlightened ones and even readily curtail white men’s bad habits.

*Can you imagine a hygiene product company or any company for that matter telling women to stop and think about alleged systemic feminine shortfalls?

*So it’s stated: 43% boys are raised by single women. 78% of teachers are female. So almost half of the boys have 100% female influence at home, and 80% influence at school. Boys are clearly under performing in almost every discipline to girls.

*How is ‘boys will be boys’ a threat or something we need to reeducate men on when there are clearly not enough men in children’s lives? The ad says ‘there’s no going back’, and echoes ‘boys will be boys’ like its from Jack’s pen in The Shining’.

There is something so malevolent and downright untruthful in this advertisement that conveys this certain Ezra Klein-esque mask of virtue which is telling us: THIS IS the right way you will think and act! Dangerous territory indeed.

Related Articles:
1. Gillette is on point
2. What happened to the political left and why I bailed out?
3. The Political Compass Test. Where do you sit on the Political Spectrum?


Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics

Gillette is on point

Read the full Reddit Post and responses here:

So there I was, putting on my rape slippers and practicing my sexual harassment pickup lines this morning. I had just got done cyberbullying my co-workers and neighbours as one does before coffee in the morning.

It was time to shave.

Walking up the stairs, I yelled at my wife to smile because she should do as she’s told, before pinching her butt right after she told me she didn’t consent to it. Putting on the shaving cream and thinking about how I can get my boys into a fight at the next neighbourhood BBQ, I replaced the worn Gillette brand Mach3 and began to chant “boys will be boys” as I started to shave.

Suddenly, my wife bursts into the bathroom holding her phone. I viciously grabbed her by the hair because, as my father taught me, every man is has the god given right to abuse females. I angrily began to mansplain to her why she isn’t smart enough to know my shaving time is my time and she should get back to the kitchen.

With tears in her eyes, she showed me the new Gillette ad.

I realized how my every view and behaviour I’ve ever held dear was wrong. I’m calling in sick at the toxic masculinity factory today and registering as a submissive at the Fawcett Society. I may even dispose of my Otaku Hitler body pillow.

Thanks Gillette. 👌

Some You tube responses:
gillete comments

Related Articles:
1. What happened to the political left and why I bailed out?
2. The Political Compass Test. Where do you sit on the Political Spectrum?
3. Ezra Klein, a rational or irrational lefty?

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in politics

Nina Simone – Ain’t Got No, I got Life

Nina Simone. I used to cross paths with her in New York City in the Village Gate nightclub. She was an artist I definitely looked up to. She recorded some of my songs that she learned directly from me, sitting in a dressing room. She was an overwhelming artist, piano player and singer. Very strong woman, very outspoken and dynamite to see perform. That she was recording my songs validated everything that I was about. Nina was the kind of artist that I loved and admired.
Bob Dylan (Musicares Person of the Year 2015 Award)

And now for Nick Cave’s take on his experience opening for Nina…

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Music

Chomsky on Žižek and Peterson’s ‘Logos’ and ‘I act as if God exists’.

You can read the full Reddit response to my post below here.

Edited (13/01/2019): Jordan Peterson on his Q&A for January has just stated that he and Žižek have a debate tentatively lined up for April in Toronto and he just downloaded 6 of Žižek books to study-up on his material. See Jordan’s announcement here.
Here is an excerpt of Zizek’s critique on Peterson.

Noam Chomsky hit the nail on the head when discussing Slavov Žižek with words to the effect: ‘Where’s the theory? Where’s the content? It’s just posturing’. I have watched a fair few videos of Žižek and I fail to find anything of substance/empirical in his discussions. I can’t help but agree with Chomsky’s opinion of Žižek. Take Peterson or even Chomsky for that matter, there is a lot of substance and empirical data behind a lot of what they have to say. I just don’t see that when I listen to Žižek.

Jordan Peterson isn’t an empirical theorist exactly. He reflects heavily on Jungian psychoanalysis. Based on his expert determination in the psychoanalytical realm he believes that a Jungian psychoanalytical voice transfigured into layman’s speak is required in the world right now. Dr Peterson has single-handedly brought contemporary empirical psychoanalysis data out from the cobwebs of fancy psycho-babble journal articles and applied them to addressing what he deems as fundamental problems in western culture.

The argument by his critics that he really is just a ‘Post-Modernist – Conservative’ I would contend relates principally to his modus operandi when discussing religion, such as his ‘Logos’ interpretation and ‘I act as if God exists’ rhetoric. The former; his explanation / interpretation of ‘the Logos’ and it’s application is a huge paradigm shift in traditional religious thought especially regarding its practical application of the Bible and the metaphorical significance of the archetypes (meta-heroes) and stories (meta-truths) on ‘Judea-Christian’ western culture.

On the latter ‘I act as though God exists’, take for example this exert from the recent interview with British GQ:

The interviewer is trying to insinuate she knows how he thinks and implies there is something illogical in his argument, but he ‘won’t have any of that’ – to use a familiar Peterson turn of phrase. I don’t think that Peterson brought his A game to this interview, but more often than not he slithers out from the interviewers’ grasp and turns the interview on its head illustrating the nonsensical nature of the questions and disingenuous motives of the interviewers. More over, very few can match his command of the English language and his ability to make a reasonable argument.

Peterson has said ten’s of times in other interviews that the Bible is not science. To him as aforementioned the stories in the bible encapsulate spiritual truths or meta-truths and the archetypes are like meta-heroes. How many more times does he have to repeat the same thing until people understand this? Regarding Peterson’s answer: ‘I act as if God exists’, critics jump on Peterson’s apparent reluctance to just simply express a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to that age-old question ‘Do you believe in….’?  The irony is Jesus was just as elusive in the gospels when asked similar questions about his divinity by mainly those wanting to trap him. I think Peterson’s answer is deftly nuanced and is in harmony with his Logos interpretation.

Wait! Jordan Peterson has already debated Slavoj Zizek on the Rueben Report.

Related Articles:
1. Do you believe in Santa Claus?
2. What happened to the political left and why I bailed out?
3. Is the Intellectual Dark Web starting to eat its own?
4. What is True? The most provocative yet necessary philosophical debate of our time?

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in politics, Reflections

Today’s click-bait BBC article promoting a ‘High-Fibre’ Diet doesn’t stack up

bbc high fibre diet

See responses in Reddit to my post below here.

I just finished reading about this study on the BBC news. It’s the second major story shown on BBC world news. They called it ‘The Lifesaving Food 90% aren’t eating enough of’ .

Firstly, why does this article have a “click-bait” title and tagline? I thought this was supposed to be a reputable source of news…

What surprised me were the types of foods with Fibre in it that they promoted. They were mainly refined carbs including cereals. I don’t think there was mention of a leafy green vegetable. But it is also the quantity of these types of foods which they stipulate you should be eating.
In addition, their interpretation of the results in the study appears skewed and sensationalized. Take these examples:

It suggests if you shifted 1,000 people from a low fibre diet (less than 15g) to a high-fibre one (25-29g), then it would prevent 13 deaths and six cases of heart disease.
Well, after analysing 185 studies and 58 clinical trials, the results are in and have been published in the Lancet medical journal.

“The evidence is now overwhelming and this is a game-changer that people have to start doing something about it,” one of the researchers, Prof John Cummings, tells BBC News.”

The question remains what else were they eating? I would maintain that people who consumed more fibre in their diet probably also ate less junk food, smoked less, drank less alcohol and ate more vegetables. Why is fibre from refined carb meals promoted as a result of this study? And it would prevent 13 deaths from a 1000? How can something so small demonstrate anything remotely conclusive that high-fibre diets can avoid ‘deaths’?
Something doesn’t stack up at all.

Warbutons, Kellogg’s and Nestle must be suitably pleased with this article.

I think I’ll take Dr. Paul Mason’s advice over this BBC news article – ‘From fibre to the microbiome: low carb gut health’.

Related Articles:
1. Readdressing the Dietary Guidelines which have made us fat and unhealthy.
2. How to read your blood test results. And reading Cholesterol is not what you think.
3. Ketogenic forums response to the above study

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Health, News, Science

Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics – Is it too early to rule out the Copenhagen classic interpretation?

Dr Sean Carroll in his ‘Many-World’ theory interpretation dismissed the supremacy of the ‘Conscious’ observer argument related to the the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In this video, he didn’t explain his objections exactly, but it is probably derived from something like, ‘Another atom, rock, camera or any other inanimate object could cause wave function collapse – so the assumption of the supremacy of consciousness is invalid’. Sean Carroll has a huge social-media ‘science’ presence and is a well-respected theoretical physicist in the real world so I wouldn’t entertain the presumption he is necessarily incorrect. Having said that, isn’t it even remotely possible that Everett’s Many-Worlds interpretation and also Carroll’s may have been too presumptuous in ruling out the Copenhagen classic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

So that an inanimate object can cause a wave function collapse seems to be the principle argument against the supremacy of ‘consciousness interaction’ in quantum mechanics. However, the moment ‘conscious’ observation is realised we don’t know where the particle is, except that it is acts as a wave function. There is only probability and vibration in the quantum field. But what is observing the wave function collapse by an atom, a rock or inanimate object? We know as ‘conscious observers’ that the wave function collapsed and ‘we’ are able to locate the position of the particle at that instant.
Moreover aren’t we as humans seeing and interpreting from our delayed conscious reaction the wave function collapse in whatever we do, see and experience? Our consciousness based on ‘probability-awareness’ extrapolates sense of the wave function for ‘Darwinian fitness‘ purposes. I will expand on this Darwinian feature below and its relation to this subject matter.

At the microscopic level we as conscious beings can only identify the position of a particle the moment it is consciously observed by ‘us’.  So that which is observed; the location and extrapolated ‘sense’ about the state of matter at the macroscopic and indeed the microscopic level can only be done by the ‘conscious’ observer – ‘Us’. We can make better predictions, but no better than 50% at the microscopic level of the path an electron; whether it is moving clockwise or counter clockwise. At the macroscopic level in this actual world and despite the self locating uncertainty of the branching of the wave function we interpret what we need to know for ‘Darwinian fitness’. Probability to us is everything!

Regarding the Schrödinger’s Cat Thought Experiment we can know if the cat will most probably be alive or dead, based on nuclear decay and the wave function squared. We as humans through scientific endeavor try and take the probability out of a deterministic theory such as ‘Many-worlds’. The paradox is, as humans ‘probability’ for purposes of the survival of the species is our ‘bread and butter’. Probability is what helps us predict the future since the future is non-deterministic. Our brains, our consciousness if you like (unlike the study of quantum mechanics) acts as if it is a time machine. See my previous post on ‘Be prepared to lose all your concept of time‘ by Carlo Rovelli about this phenomenon.

As Rovelli states or words to the effect: ‘The Universe and Newton’s empty space and quantum mechanics dismisses pieces of time as we get down to the microscopic level and also as we venture far beyond the shallow curve bubble of our earthly state (where light seems nearly infinitely fast to us)’.

Only consciousness can find traces in time and anticipate the future. That’s what makes us a biological marvel (see Darwinian fitness).  The fact our consciousness can make much better predictions of the state of matter at the macroscopic level isn’t as mysterious as it may seem because our brains act as time machines (as aforementioned). Probability is our game! Consciousness is everything because unless the state of matter is observed (entanglement) from the cat at the macroscopic level and the particle at the microscopic level, the matter just is. Without consciousness the cat is alive or dead or the particle is here or there. Position-less is what we don’t see, but we know it is there in all of its probability of being here or there – but that doesn’t serve our purpose for longevity of the species, at least for now. High entropy is not deterministic, whichever way you look at it or try to want to make it so.

Related Articles:
1. Reflections on ‘The Many-Worlds’ Theory by Sean Carroll
2. Be prepared to lose all your concept of time.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Science

Reflections on ‘The Many-Worlds’ Theory by Sean Carroll

I have been watching many science lectures of late; specifically those relating to cosmology, the origins of the universe and quantum mechanics. I do not have a physics or science background, but I like to educate myself about what is considered at the cutting edge of science. Essentially, I want to learn more about the Universe we live in. Sean Carroll is one of the few scientists who apart from being a very smart guy is an immensely engaging presenter.

The mark of true intelligence is not to understand a difficult thing, but to make a difficult thing understandable.

A quick bio:
Sean Carroll is a cosmologist and physics professor specializing in dark energy and general relativity. He is a research professor in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. Sean Carroll also hosts conversations in his ‘Mindscape’ podcasts with the world’s most interesting thinkers of Science, society, philosophy, culture, arts, and ideas.

There are few videos I find which linger in my psyche long enough; continually prodding me to revisit them until I can sufficiently internalise their full scope and meaning. The above ‘Many-Worlds’ lecture is one such video.  To me at least, it seems overwhelmingly relevant; like the Geoffrey West – ‘From Cells to Cities podcast that I felt compelled to write excerpts as a personal development exercise. Some of what is written below is verbatim and some of it is redacted to be more reader-friendly:

The Quantum Mechanics Dilemma

If I were to tell you the position and velocity of every piece of stuff in the universe, the laws of physics can tell you exactly where it will go and where it has been. This is classical Newtonian mechanics.

In the 1920’s Quantum mechanics became a full-fledged theory. Newton’s laws were replaced by the Schrödinger equation for the quantum wave function. The equation tells you how the quantum mechanical wave function evolves with time. The Schrödinger equation is the quantum version of Isaac newton’s second law. It seems parallel to Classical mechanics, however:

The bottom line on Quantum Mechanics: What we observe is much less than what actually exists. Position and velocity are what you observe, but until you measure the particles, their positions don’t actually exist. Only the wave function does. Fundamentally, there is a difference between a thing when you are looking at it and when you are not looking at it. You cannot observe the wave function.

Wave function

So it’s a particularly different view of reality.
The question you might want to ask is why does reality look normal to us at all. Why don’t I see a probability cloud all over the place? We don’t know.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the act of observing a system  plays a crucially important central role in the formulation of quantum mechanics.  The wave function collapses and you see the electron in a certain position. The cloud tells you the probability of getting certain outcomes. The question remains; what was the law of physics doing before anyone was measuring things? What do we mean by measurement? Does it have to be a conscious human being? Can a rock, a virus and earthworm do an observation? This is known as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.

 I think I can safely say nobody understands quantum mechanics. – Richard Feynman

Schrödinger’s Cat:

shrodinger's cat

For explanation of what consists ofthe Schrödinger’s Cat Thought Experiment watch from 18.00 minutes in the ‘Many-Worlds’ video at the top of this page.

The system is in a ‘superposition‘ of all the possible measurement outcomes. Schrödinger took that idea of the superposition of possibilities and amplified until it was macroscopically real.

Entanglement: The state of one part of the universe can be related to the state of another part. As an observer, when you open the box you become entangled with the cat. Before there was a superposition of cat awake and cat asleep. Now there is a superposition of the cat awake and you seeing the cat awake or the cat asleep and you see the cat asleep. So we move into a superposition with the cat. But shouldn’t we include everything such as the whole universe? This is called the ‘environment’.

Process of Decoherence: The ‘environment’ has been interacting with the cat all along. Even before we open the box, the cat becomes entangled with the environment. When we open the box we become entangled with both. This is profound, because once the cat becomes entangled with the environment it can never become disentangled. It’s like mixing cream and coffee together; the increasing of entropy over time. The environment with the awake cat and the environment with the asleep cat will never interact with each other. They have split, they have gone their own ways. They have become two separate worlds and in these two versions ‘you’ can never talk to each other. The decoherence process of entanglement branches the wave function into two copies of the world. Fundamentally, this is pure quantum mechanics. All we did was obey the law of physics. What naturally happens is the wave function of the universe branches into different parts which do not interact with each other and hence they are described as different worlds. This encapsulates the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

At no point did we put new worlds in. The worlds were already there. In the Copenhagen textbook Schrödinger’s Cat Thought Experiment, we had to erase part of the wave function. So if you saw the cat awake you erase the part where the cat was asleep and vice versa. And ‘you’ are quantum mechanical just like everything else in the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. If an electron can be in a superposition of that place, then a cat can be in a superposition of awake and asleep and you can be in a superposition of seeing the cat awake and seeing the cat asleep. And finally the Universe can be in a superposition of one where you saw the cat awake and one where you saw the cat asleep.

‘It’s not that ‘Many-Worlds’ is a theory of extra worlds, it’s that once you do quantum mechanics all the different worlds are already there. You can’t get to them, you can’t see them.

Hugh Everett, a graduate student of the 1950s examined in his PHD thesis what quantum mechanics is really trying to tell us. He argued there is no classical realm. There is no separate realm of people making observations of quantum systems because essentially you and I are made of atoms which are made of elementary particles which in-turn obey the rules of quantum mechanics. What this implies is that there are all these separate copies of reality. Every time a nucleus decays (or it doesn’t decay) it branches the wave function of the universe; every time particles scatter off each other and become entangled in their environment that also branches the wave function of the universe. There are many branches of the wave function that might come into existence. The space of all possible wave functions is called Hilbert’s space. It’s very very big.

The entirety of the assumptions that go into the Many-Worlds theory is: there are wave functions and we obey the Schrödinger equation. That’s it. Everything else is a consequence, a prediction, an implication of those assumptions. Are those assumptions testable? Yes of course. Whenever we do a quantum mechanics experiment we are testing the Many-Worlds theory. Despite what has been done up to this point, it still isn’t a fully-developed theory.

In Everett’s version ‘Many-Worlds’ there is nothing random about the world. The Schrödinger equation always applies and simply says what will happen next. It is completely deterministic. The problem is when you do experiments you see probabilities. When you have in front of you a nucleus which you know is going to decay we have no way of predicting with certainty when that decay will happen. The best we can do is ‘probability’.

There is something fundamentally stochastic and random about how nature works.

So there is a challenge to ‘Many-Worlds’. We know what the future wave function is going to be, but how do you get the probabilities out of a theory which has no probabilities in it?

Self locating uncertainty: You know the wave function of the universe, but not where you are within it. Among other things; you branch, and I branch. There are two copies of me, two future-selves and neither one of them know which branch they are on. There will necessarily be a short period of time when the branching has already happened. This process of decoherence in which the cat and its quantum system interacts with the environment is incredibly fast like 10 to the minus 20 seconds. Decoherence has happened much before your conscious-mind can process the outcome of that particular experiment.

self locating uncertaintySo which branch are you on? The answer is it is the wave function squared. If the amplitude of the wave function of the cat being asleep was the square root of 30% then you should give yourself a 30% chance on being on the branch of wave function where the cat was asleep and vice versa.

Entanglement and Quantum fields

Atoms are not empty space. Atoms are mostly wave function. Electrons are either spinning clockwise or counterclockwise. Two electrons because of entanglement can be in a state of either; both spinning clockwise or both spinning counterclockwise. There is no possibility of one spinning counter and the other clockwise. But what will I observe when I look at a particle?  There would be a 50% probability that it is either spinning clockwise or counter. All I know is the other ‘entangled’ electron is spinning the same way. As Einstein demonstrated, the amount of entanglement between two particles doesn’t depend on how far away the 2 particles are.

These days our best theories are not about ‘particles’ per se rather of ‘fields’, like the electric field, the magnetic field, and the gravitational field. And essentially what a particle is; is a ‘vibration’ in the field. There are many different fields in this room. And if it’s vibrating softly we don’t see anything and if it’s vibrating enough you see a particle. Fields which are nearby are highly entangled and those which are far way not so-entangled.

entanglementWhat we have are different quantum mechanical degrees of freedom that are entangled or not. When the degrees of freedom are highly entangled we define that to be nearby and when they are disentangled we define that to be far away. You get an emergent notion of geometry of distances and time out of the quantum mechanical properties of entanglement. This theory seems to work. Entanglement defines both the geometry of space, and the energy within it. This is a new exciting perspective of the problem of quantum gravity. ‘Nature’ of course doesn’t start with a classical theory and therafter quantized, rather, nature is quantum from the start.

We shouldn’t be starting with the classical theory of relativity and then applying rules to turn it into a quantum theory.  Maybe we should be starting with quantum mechanics.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be quantising gravity but finding gravity within quantum mechanics. What we find; and it seems reasonable; is that this emergent geometry that we define from quantum entanglement obeys the above equation (see above image). It obeys Einstein’s equation for general relativity. On the left hand side is the expression how much curvature there is in space-time and on the right an expression of how much ‘stuff’ there is in the Universe. How much energy, heat, and momentum etc. So Einstein’s version of the gravitational field between two bodies depends on how far away they are – Newton’s law of Gravity. This rule governs how the curvature of space time responds to energy and momentum and we are able to see that rule emerge from a theory that doesn’t even have space-time in it. It is solely quantum entanglement.

By taking quantum mechanics seriously; by thinking deeply about what it means to be in a quantum state; how it evolves; branching, decoherence and asking questions about the classical world in that theory you not only get an answer that explains cats and electrons, but maybe the universe itself.

Related Links:
1. Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics – Is it too early to rule out the Copenhagen classic interpretation?
2. Sean Carroll – Mindscape podcast Episode 28: Roger Penrose on Spacetime, Consciousness, and the Universe.
3. Why Did Our Universe Begin? – Dr. Roger Penrose – (Closer to Truth Interview).

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Science

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Matthew Kick

Thank you for visiting. If you enjoyed reading my blog and would like to support and help me maintain it ad free please consider making a donation by clicking on my avatar above.