ideology in the truly purest… these are from Karen Barad’s Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning (2007) a book referenced in Zizek’s Less Than Nothing:
APPENDIX A: Cascade Experiment by Alice Fulton
Because faith creates its verification
and reaching you will be no harder than believing
in a planet’s caul of plasma,
or interacting with a comet
in its peri helion passage, no harder
than considering what sparking of the vacuum, cosmological
(and so on and so on)
APPENDIX B: THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT THE BASIS OF COMPLEMENTARITY
Einstein was tenacious in his efforts to find a way to defeat the uncertainty principle, and his arguments inevitably focus on the question of *disturbance*. But one should not depend on Einstein’s framing of the question to frame Bohr’s response, since Bohr is continually calling into question the premises of Einstein’s challenges. Physicists are well acquainted with arguments concerning disturbances in the form of momentum exchanges; their backgrounds in classical physics make this mode of thinking quite natural. On the other hand, it is certainly *not* part of our training to question the intuitive ontological assumption that individual objects possess inherently determinate properties and that the role of measurement is to reveal such properties. (and so on and so on)
And the following piece was written by Heisenberg in 1955, for a tribute book for the 70th birthday of Niels Bohr:
At the invitation of Bohr, Schrödinger visited Copenhagen in September, 1926, to lecture on wave mechanics. Long discussions, lasting several days, then took place concerning the foundations of quantum theory, in which Schrödinger was able to give a convincing picture of the new simple ideas of wave mechanics, while Bohr explained to him that not even Planck’s Law could be understood without the quantum jumps.
– “If we are going to stick to this damned quantum-jumping, then I regret that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory,” Schrödinger exclaimed finally in despair, to which Bohr replied:
– “But the rest of us are thankful that you did, because you have contributed so much to the clarification of the quantum theory.”
— schrödinger felt very *disturbed* about quantum jumps and argued against it (for instance in his article “are there quantum jumps” etc)
— mr. niels bohr said to schrödinger that “even planck’s law requires the concept of quantum jumps” and personally acknowledged schrödinger’s “scientific contribution”, against his *disturbance*.
— heisenberg watched this happen but 29 years later felt the need to report this incidence in a book edited in mr. niels bohr’s honour (maybe he was *uncertain*?)
— what we call “heisenberg’s uncertainty principle” conceptually relies on planck’s “constant” in his “law”.
— 52 years after this tribute book, a philosophical book on quantum theory has three appendices:
1) a poem that makes “quantum” into enjoy-meant
2) an explanation, a *negation* in capital letters, which says:
“oh don’t worry, it’s not about heisenberg’s *uncertainty*… well, einstein may have been questioning some *disturbance*, but disturbances are not our job, right?.. things happen, we just measure…”
3) controversy concerning the problem
from this i conclude again that: quantum-jump is master-signifier
i think the main battleground is statistics. i found schrödinger’s “science and human temperament” a very interesting book in ideological terms, he very clearly formulates his wish for a statistical management of society (that one should capture all averages and cover all variances), and i began reading fisher’s statistics book, where he makes a de facto distinctions that determines ideological grounds for the current scientific discourse.
in summary: scientific discourse acts as a metaphor that strengthens ideological basis, but technological structures (like social media here) creates media where scientific metaphors can no longer function…. (also movies, fiction etc)
the basic ground is about quantity and quality. current science only believes in the qualities of “one” things, and expresses this as “sum of probability is one”, which is also the conceptual base for a “frame” that supposedly makes something “art”, “borders” that make people “nation”, etc. i bet this is also related to hegel’s long chapter on “measure” but i could not read it yet.
i also think physics acts as a practical basis for all academic subjects-supposed-to-know, because they are the subjects-supposed-to-experiment: they are the ones responsible to suture scientific metaphors to “objective reality” and their grants probably function as the “fee” to account for the popular “transference” to the scientific establishment. the social invariant that is the metaphor of the “objective” invariant.
“entanglement” : http://www.egs.edu/…/articles/the-military-poetic-complex/
i agree that equations act something like a fetish, but this is due to their “natural language” interpretation: names like “state equation” “confusion matrix”, their naturalization in academo-scientific language efface the meaning carried by the equations themselves.
as a result, science looks too mathy, and shows itself as “too mathy”, but this is because it is not mathy enough, it does not follow the pure logic of math and raher objectifies it into rules/laws to match them with “objective reality”, to derive mathy justifications for one’s existence.
but of course, to follow math faithfully, it must be captured by natural language, but it can only be captured by an informal kind of language that loosely directs intuition, not a formal academo-language.
i think this is very similar to programmers speaking of the codes they’ve written. you can be content with jumping between vague descriptions, since the program runs on the computer. in math also, you have to do with vague descriptions, because math will carry its own logic, and best you can do is to develop intuitive conventions
as freud says, unexpressed of content will express itself in form: for example, general ambiguousness in a dream of pregnancy may stand for the ambiguity about the child’s father.
similarly, naming of the equation also stands for academic situations: for example, “confusion matrix” not only means that it captures the confusion in some particular experiment. it also means: this is how we “objectify” our confusion in science, and leave its unexpressed remainder aside.