RELATIVITY DOESN’T EXCLUDE FASTER THAN LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS; Einstein Illogical There

“Relativity”, first named and defined by Henri Poincaré (1904) is a local theory of LOCAL TIME. Einstein was aware of this and thus contributed later to what he called “GENERAL Relativity”, by incorporating accelerations of the gravitational type (Relativity as defined by Poincaré is all about uniform motions, as in Galilean Relativity). The main contribution of Einstein in his Relativity paper of 1905 was to derive the (already derived) equations of Relativity without referring to a state of rest (Einstein’s work is mostly a slick mathematical trick with the axiomatic system, because the state of rest is there nevertheless… as Einstein himself admitted much later).

Einstein has awed generations of physicists. Einstein had a world picture in his head, partly from his mastery of differential calculus at young age (from a helping uncle), friendly to fields and slick math. A famous conclusion from Einstein’s exposition of Relativity is that communications Faster Than Light (FTL) are impossible, because they violate CAUSALITY. Most theoretical physicists have to repeat this lest they lose their good standing. The source is Einstein. Here is Einstein’s reasoning:

The math are correct, but one of the assumptions (underlined in red by me) of the mathematical reasoning is not-previously demonstrated. Namely the addition of velocities has not been proven to be applicable when W> c!

Einstein’s logical mistake in his demonstration of the impossibility of FTL communications is that the addition of velocity formula has been demonstrated ONLY when adding speeds LESS THAN c. So Einstein should not have applied something demonstrated for W<c and ONLY FOR W<c, to W>c.

To see that relativistic speed addition applies only for speeds less than c, one has to go through the derivation of the relativistic addition of velocities step by step, as Einstein does in this Relativity-recapitulation paper of 1907, from which the impossibility of FTL com comes from, and extracted above.

***

Let’s acquire some philosophical altitude: Relativity is a type of logical cooking which applies only locally. Its main ingredient is LOCAL LIGHT CLOCK THEORY. Local light clock is, admittedly a pleonasm, as it turns out that the universe, considered to be a differential manifold U with metric given by light, is curved… So non-local light clock are impossible (at any point their size would be bounded by the exponential radius). The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the time given by a light clock doesn’t depend upon its orientation relative to its speed… Now causality is a different concept, independent of time (it is not because something happened before, or after, that it is causally related to something else).  There is a causality category CC, independent a priori from the Universe U, a differential manifold. 

The conflict between CC and U is the problem of nonlocality. Amusingly we now know that the resolution of this conflict requires some FTL mechanism, or FTL causality. Could there be no FTL mechanism, and no FTL causality? Yes, but at an even higher logical and counter-intuitive price: namely the Universe, far from being just a differential manifold equipped by light metric (which has T2, Hausdorff separability, topologically)… Would not be topologically separable…  Instead in my own SQPR, separability is maintained, time delayed causality is maintained, and Dark Matter blossoms [1]…

A lot of the hang-ups of all too many physicists about causality and Faster Than Light and Quantum Nonlocality have been caused by the erroneous feeling that it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Faster Than Light is impossible, no matter what, in all and any way.

A meta objection could be made, trying to supersede my logical refinements above: that all and any communication require momentum transfer and that momentum augments as 1/(1-vv/cc)… Right, but there again, an assumption is made which is unproven:  that all communications require momentum transfer. This is precisely what, ironically enough, the Pandora box Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) paper of 1935 showed not to be necessarily true. The EPR opened for all of humanity to be thereafter tormented, or delighted with, ever after… EPR should have made manifest that Einstein 1907 had slipped on a slick mathematical banana… But no… [2] 

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Global time can still be maintained as a concept, but it is path dependent (and this is true in GR). In SQPR, U is embedded in a larger Euclidean space of dimension at least 2n+1 (Whitney and Nash theorems). However all this, including how many dimensions there really  are, belong to the experimental realm. 

***

[2] An example of something completely obvious which was then completely lost for ever and ever: Non-Euclidean geometry. At the same time as Euclid made his geometry all the geometry which could be had. Pytheas of Marseilles, Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης Pythéas ho Massaliōtēs; Pytheas Massiliensis; c.350 BC-c.285 BC and then Eratosthenes, used Non-Euclidean geometry to measure the Earth and universe.

It took 21 centuries for eminent mathematicians, philosophers, physicists and thinkers to rediscover all this… Notice though that János Bolyai, Gauss, and Riemann were not professional physicists (the latter two were paid as mathematicians…).

Bolyai became so obsessed with Euclid‘s parallel postulate that his father, who pursued the same quandary for many years, wrote to him in 1820: “You must not attempt this approach to parallels. I know this way to the very end. I have traversed this bottomless night, which extinguished all light and joy in my life. I entreat you, leave the science of parallels alone…Learn from my example.”^[4]

János, however, persisted (perseverare diabolicum) and eventually concluded that the postulate is independent of the other axioms of geometry and that different consistent geometries can be constructed on negating and modifying it. In 1823, he wrote to his father: “I have discovered such wonderful things that I was amazed…out of nothing I have created a strange new universe.

Gauss, contacted, replied by glorifying himself and pretending that he had published nothing for fear of the “cries of the Boeotians“…. Gauss wrote: “To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work…coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years….” Never mind that Gauss said to some other friend: “I regard this young geometer Bolyai as a genius of the first order.“

Disgusted János Bolyai left mathematics, all too often, a most poisonous church full of autistic navel gazers with mountainous egos dissolvable FTL… 

 

ENTANGLEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS AT A DISTANCE: POSSIBLE. It Seems to be a Technological, NOT a Scientific, Problem!

 Abstract: Usual arguments against faster than light communications are flawed. Moreover, a way to make such faster than light communications using Quantum Nonlocality is surfacing…

The title will make pontiffs scream, and deride me as beyond the “fringe”. But I am writing for the future, not the past. Pontificating physicists hold that instantaneous communication at a distance are impossible. However, a closer examination shows that there is NO deep, DEMONSTRATED scientific principles at work in the denial that superluminal communications are possible.

Instead the proponents of impossibility of faster than light pretend we have demonstrated that nothing more can be said beyond the strictest interpretation of CIQ, the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum (this silliness started with an erroneous demonstration of the famous mathematician Von Neuman).

Such a matter of principle position is religiously superstitious, not based on experimentally demonstrated principles… And indications are that the preparation of Quantum Jumps/States can de detected, and reversed. If that is confirmed, it is entirely plausible that superluminal communications should be achievable by entangling particles which would have been transported classically previously… far apart, creating a superluminal telegraph.

***   

Doing physics correctly, and, more generally, doing thinking most correctly, consists in establishing what are the most significant facts and how to build the mightiest causal chains. A causal chain is mightier than another if it relates more significant facts.

Faster than light communications between mythological beings were natural. However in the 17C, Dutch astronomer Roemer discovered delays in the motion of Jupiter’s satellites best explained by a finite speed of light. Fizeau confirmed the finite light speed in the lab, using fast wheels with teeth, during the 19C… while the speed of light showed up in the equations of electromagnetism, Maxwell found out, to the point he concluded that electromagnetism was light. 

French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier determined in 1859 that the elliptical orbit of Mercury precesses at a significantly different rate from that predicted by Newtonian theory… in which the speed of gravitation was infinite, a simplification Newton found “absurd” to any “philosopher” versed in the observation of nature (how could there be any other?) Einstein and his collaborators integrated Laplace’s finite gravitational speed idea, in conjunction with the theory of Relativity, to produce a modified theory of gravitation, where gravitation travels at the speed of light.

***

WANT BETTER PHYSICS? GET BETTER PHILOSOPHY!

Out of all this came a mood: no interaction can go faster than light. For weird reasons, all crows crowing the same, and mental confusion, the mentality which evolved in the herd of most physicists was that causality would be destroyed were any communication went faster than light. 

But a mood is no proof. 

Detailed considerations of the logics used by the herd found them coming short. Basically, Relativity is local, whereas communications at a distance are… at a distance, by definition (a philosophical point)… Thus, relativity does not apply, or at least, does not apply as an ABSOLUTE principle in the matter of causality: 

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2020/08/25/kill-locality-to-save-causality-and-objective-reality/

This is the Standard CIQ, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum is seriously nuts. Here it is above. So crazy many physicists prefer to it it the thoroughly demented Many Worlds Interpretation (MIW), which says an infinity of worlds is created during each interaction. An infinity of infinites infinitely happening? Not serious!

Quantum Physics says there is such a thing as QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. The basic reason is that Quantum Physics computes with waves. Those waves wave in various spaces, depending on the configuration of the situation (which are Hilbert spaces, and called “configuration spaces”, because they depict the configuration of the situation). What these spaces are supposed to is controversial (Schrodinger Cat Paradox): we need a theory ordering those spaces, but never mind…

After an interaction in some cases, two particles, Alice (A) and Bob (B), can be created which are “Quantum Entangled” (Schrodinger chose the word “entangled”, in English!) What “entangled” means is that the computation of what happens, probably, with these two particles, A and B, is described by a SINGLE wave.  A measurement consists of analyzing, thus destroying this common wave [1]. THUS, measuring a feature of A creates the same feature in B. The problem is that A and B can be ten light years away [2].

Popper and Einstein discovered this “EPR” situation. Ironically enough, Einstein, one of the founders of Quantum Physics, and an expert in fields, which are local, found Quantum Physics in contradiction with Locality. It is described that Einstein found that “spooky” interaction at a distance. However what Albert said in German was spukhafte Fernwirkung, which rather means “ghostly”, unreal… But in truth if the interaction at a distance didn’t happen, things as simple as angular momentum conservation would be violated. So it has to be there. And it is, experiments have confirmed.

Many self-described mainstream herd physicists insist that at-a-distance communications are impossible. However, their reasoning are faulty. First, as I said the argument that at a distance, faster than light would destroy causality is not correct, it rests on a shallow interpretation of Relativity, and a category mistake. But then those same physicists use what they view as the definitive argument that it cannot be done with present technology:

***

How To Achieve Communications At A Distance: A Technological, Not Scientific Problem:

Suppose we could make it so that a particular feature of A (say spin in the x direction) would always come out the same. Then it would be the same at B, and thus we could communicate. Mainstream physicists say: oh, but God plays with dice, and it is impossible to prepare Quantum States. How do they know this? Oh, because Homo Erectus couldn’t do it, and was a friend of “God”? God or Godot? 

However that is purely a technological question. Scientists at Yale, professor Devoret and his laboratory, have claimed they can see Quantum Jumps being prepared, and can reverse those preparations.  This hints that we may be able to select Quantum States by deliberate action. All what’s left then to do to achieve at a distance communications is to select pairs of particle A and B with such states where we could entangle them. 

Some will sneer this is just one APPLIED physics lab. Now it turns out that as a recent Nature article has it, Quantum Tunneling takes time (it takes no time in strict CIQ). There again, it smacks of inner, SUB QUANTIC machinery at work (Sub Quantum Physical Reality, SQPR pointing its entangling nose…)

***

So the impossibility of communications at a distance boils down to just one thing: the belief that God plays dice with the universe, as a matter of faith (ironically, Albert Einstein was explicitly against the notion, as he invented it, just to decry it; I say ironically as many of the disbelievers in superluminality on principle pretend to worship Einstein…).

How do those believers know that their faith is correct? Because they are on a personal basis with Dog?

Quantum entanglement experiments have been realized between an atom, say, and a photon. The Yale experimenters detected the preparation of a Quantum State Jump, and claimed they could reverse the preparation. Philosophically speaking, supposing the Yale experiments are thoroughly confirmed, as the nonlocality was, this means that the establishment of supraluminal networks is a matter of when, not if.

To go further in the philosophy of nature, this further demolishes the “It From Bit” philosophy of Wheeler and others. Wheeler was a famous physicist and Feynman PhD advisor… and also advisor of the guy who invented the Many World Interpretation…

To be more specific: what I allege above is that the state of the art of the edge of most probable science shows that superluminal communications is becoming just a technological problem (namely finding the right classically transportable materials to entangle and store).

But I am not pretending that that we will be capable of superluminally transport mass-energy. So, if what I am saying is right, a distinction would appear between pure information and mass-energy: information could go faster than light, but not mass-energy… at least for the foreseeable future (many thinkers have insisted there was no distinction between information and mass-energy, because, prior to this analysis, there was no way to transport information without transporting mass-energy).

I fear for my reputation not: Science advances, but the logic of mussels does not.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

P/S: In SQPR theory, the Quantum Interaction proceeds at finite speed. Thus, so will communications using the EPR and prepared states, as suggested above. But the speed will be much higher than light. Of course establishing such superluminal networks will be cosmically difficult.

***

[1] Analysis comes from thoroughly dissecting: from the Greek, ana “up, back, throughout” + lysis “a loosening, a cutting through”… No wonder the deepest thinkers are deeply resented for their thoroughly cutting…

***

[2] Distant particles which have interacted in the past, but not yet measured, remain connected, instantaneously sharing their physical states no matter how great the distance which separates them. This connection is known as Quantum Entanglement, and it underpins the way Quantum Physics turns locality into globality, the infinitesimally small do the grand and cosmic. .

Einstein thought Quantum Mechanics was ‘spooky’ because of the instantaneousness of the apparent remote interaction between two entangled particles, which seemed incompatible with some elements of Relativity.

Later, CERN Theoretical Physics head, Sir John Bell, formalised the Bohm variant of the EPR concept of nonlocal interaction by describing a strong form of entanglement exhibiting this spookiness. Bell entanglement is being harnessed in practical applications like quantum computing and cryptography.

Causality Explained

WHAT CAUSES CAUSE?

What Is Causality? What is an Explanation?

Pondering the nature of the concept of explanation is the first step in thinking. So you may say that there is nothing more important, nothing more human.

I have a solution. It is simplicity itself. I go for the obvious model:

Mathematics, logic, physics, and the rest of science give a strict definition of what causality, and an explanation is.

How?

Through systems of axioms and theorems.

Some of the sub-systems therein have to do with logic (“Predicate Calculus”). They are found all over science and common sense (although they will not be necessarily present in systems of thought such as, say, poetry, or rhetoric).

WHEN A IMPLIES B, IN A LOGOS, ONE OUGHT TO SAY THAT A “CAUSES” B.

A and B are propositions. They do not have to be very precise.

Precision Is Not Necessarily The Smartest. Semantic Web Necessary.

As it turns out, except in Classical Computer Science as it exists today (Classical CS by opposition to Quantum CS, a subject developing in the last 20 years), propositions are never precise (so a degree of poetry is everywhere, even in mathematics!) Propositions, in practice, depend upon a semantic web.

A could be: “Plate Tectonic” and B could be “Continental Drift”. That A causes B is one of axioms of present day geophysics.

Thus I define causality as logical implication.

To use David Hume’s example: flame F brings heat H, always, and so is supposed to cause it: F implies H. Hume deduced causality from observation of the link (if…then).

More detailed modern physics shows that the heat of flame F is agitation that can be transmitted (both a theorem about, and a definition of, heat). Now we have a full, detailed logos about F and what H means, and how F implies H, down to electronic orbitals.

Mathematicians are used to make elaborate demonstrations, and then, to their horror, discover somewhere something that cannot be causally justified. Then they have to reconsider from scratch.

Mathematics is all about causality.

“Causes” in mathematics are also called axioms. In practice, well known theorems are used as axioms to implement further mathematical causality. A mathematician using a theorem from a distant field may not be aware of all the subtleties that allow to prove it: he would use distant theorems he does no know the proof of, as axioms. Some mathematician’s, or logician’s axiom is another’s theorem.

(Hence some hostility between mathematicians and logicians, as much of what the former use the latter proved, but the former have no idea how!)

Causality, by the way, reflects the axonal geometry of the brain.

The full logic of the brain is much more complicated than mathematics, let alone Classical Computer Science, have it. Indeed, brain logic involves much more than axons, such as dendrites, neurotransmitters, glial cells, etc. And of these, only axonal geometry is simple enough to be approximated by classical logic… In first order.

Mathematics is causation. And the ultimate explanation. Mathematics makes causation as limpid we can have it.

This theory met with the approval of Philip Thrift (March 27, 2015): “I agree exactly with the words Patrice Ayme wrote — but with “mathematics”→”programming”, “mathematical”→”programmatical”, etc.”

I pointed out later to Philip that Classical Programming was insufficient to embrace full human (and quantum!) logic. He agreed.

However the preceding somehow made Massimo P , a professional philosopher, uneasy. He quoted me:

“Patrice: “To claim that mathematics is not causal is beyond belief. Mathematics is all about causality.”

Massimo: It most obviously isn’t. What’s causal about Fermat’s Last Theorem? Causality implies physicality, and most of pure math has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physicality.

Patrice: “Causes” in mathematics are also called axioms.”

Massimo: “You either don’t understand what causality means or what axioms are. Or both.”

Well, once he had released his emotional steam, Massimo, a self-declared specialist of “physicality” [sic] did not offer one iota of logic in support of his wished-for demolition of my… logic. I must admit my simple thesis is not (yet) in textbooks…

Insults are fundamentally poetic, illogical, or pre-logical. Massimo is saying that been totally confused about causality and explanations is a sacred cow of a whole class of philosophers (to whom he had decided he belongs). Being confused about causality started way back.

“All philosophers, “said Bertrand Russell,” imagine that causation is one of the fundamental axioms of science, yet oddly enough, in advanced sciences, the word ’cause’ never occurs … The law of causality, I believe, is a relic of bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm …”

Russell was as wrong as wrong could be (not about the monarchy, but about “causation”). He wrote the preceding in 1913, when Relativity was well implanted, and he, like many others, was no doubt unnerved by it.

Poincare’ noticed, while founding officially “Relativity” in 1904, that apparent succession of events was not absolute (but depended upon relative motions).

Indeed.

But, temporal succession is only an indication of possible causality. In truth causality exists, if, and only if, a logical system establishes it (moreover, said logic has to be “true”; that, assigning a truth value, is, by itself is a separate question that great logicians have studied without clear conclusions).

When an explanation can be fully mathematized, it is finished. Far from being “abstract”, it has become trivial, or so suppose those with minds for whom mathematics is obvious.

Mathematics is just like 2 + 2 = 4, written very large.

Fermat’s Last Theorem is not different in nature, from 2 + 2 = 4… (But for something very subtle: semantic drift, and a forest of theorems used as axioms to go from side of Fermat’s theorem to the other.)

To brandish mathematics as unfathomable “abstract” sorcery, as was done in Scientia Salon, is a strange, but not new, streak.

There in “Abstract Explanations In Science” Massimo and another employed philosopher pondered “whether, and in what sense, mathematical explanations are different from causal / empirical ones.”

My answer is that mathematical, and, more generally logical, explanations are the model of all explanations. We speak (logos) and thus we communicate our thoughts. Even to ourselves.

The difference between mathematics and logic? Mathematics is more poetical. For example, Category Theory is not anchored in logic, nor anywhere else. It is hanging out there, beautiful and useful, a castle in the sky, just like all and any poem.

Such ought to be the set-up on the nature of what causality could be, to figure out what causality is in the physical world. Considering that Quantum Entanglement is all over nature, this is not going to be easy (and it may contain a hidden clock).

Patrice Ayme’

Quantum Expands Causality

CAUSALITY HAS EXPANDED:

Having a notion of when something causes something else is paramount. We have evolved some subtle notions since Shamanism (or David Hume).

Two things struck me:

1. a) The paucity of the imagination of many pillars of intellect. In 2008, there was a huge spike in the price of crude oil, followed by an equally impressive crash.

What caused it? Nobody in the economic establishment had a public answer. However, I had an obvious one: crude oil futures, a type of financial derivatives which can be manipulated, thanks to the gigantic leverage in the futures’ market.

Through a psychological mechanism I explained at the time, the price of real crude oil  spiked up (as a consequence of the spike in the futures; something similar just happened). Paul Krugman obstinately denied, loud and clear that this could ever happen, because he stridently proclaimed, he saw NO causal link between futures and the price of the underlying commodity. (Thus, according to Krugman, oil futures are OK, whereas I see them as a plague, waste, blot on humanity, and a major prop for plutocracy.)

From my point of view, Krugman was not smart: he just looked in his little corner of economy he knew, and not the big picture. (Please don’t tell he was friendly from some crude oil future guy, that would be so crude, besides being the correct explanation.)

In general, correct reasoning and causality means looking at the wholeness of the spatially implicated order.

Do we have a physical model for this? Yes, Quantum Physics.

1. b) Many thinkers claimed, especially generations ago, that Quantum Physics destroyed causality. The exact opposite is true: the Quantum has expanded the notion of causality (to the implicate order).

***

SO WHAT’S CAUSALITY? A CAUSES B WHEN A LOGOS GOES FROM A TO B.

Old fashion causality involves forces. A force points from a point to another point (it’s called a “vector”; forces actually gave the mathematical concept of vector).

However, there are no points in Quantum Physics.

(That there are points in Quantum Field Theory is a problem: string theory tried to get around it. That was perhaps its main motivation.)

But before I get to the Quantum, let me explain my philosophical concept of causality.

What’s causality? An event A is said to cause an event B if whenever A occurs, so does B, and a logos, a discourse, goes from A to B. (That logos is, in precise science, an evolution equation and its attached notions).

Thus one needs a definition of A, B, and of the implication itself. All come from statistic ensembles. (I am saying that probabilities are hidden in plain sight in classical mechanics and arguments; they are not something reserved to Quantum Physics.)

Does that mean all causality arise directly from statistics, and only from statistics? Not really: a differential equation E predicts (if well behaved!) the evolution of a system S. Then knowing S(t) one can get S(t+1). In this case one says that the initial conditions S(t), plus the law E, cause S(t+1).

Some make a big deal that equation of physics are reversible, they see that as indication of time travel, or something weird. However, whether the equation E is time reversible, or not, is irrelevant: one plugs in (t+1), not (t-1).

Differential equations or, more generally, evolution equations, are all over physics and nature. Those who declare something as strange as “causation has disappeared from physics” should come up, with just one example of physics without an evolution equation. It will not be found, as physics is about predicting the future. (Better than predicting the past as all too many do.)

THE QUANTUM EXPANDED CAUSALITY:

The Quantum, some who know it all too little, was said to have destroyed causality.

In truth, Quantum Physics is all about Non-Commutative Geometry (and not just in Alain Connes’ restricted sense; this is the main argument for Super Symmetry). In clear language; no more points. Then old fashion, point to point causality does not apply.

In Quantum Physics, is waves writ large. Quantum guidance is all about waves. According to De Broglie’s Wave Principle, all and any particle is guided by a wave. Yes, that would be true even for trucks. It was recently confirmed at a larger scale than atoms and molecules.

Hitting a wave with another wave is messy. Causal, but messy. Thus causality in Quantum Physics tends to be probabilistic.

Models of De Broglie’s Pilot Wave theory have recently appeared in labs (starting in Paris, where De Broglie’s ideas long pursued a subterranean existence; after all, De Broglie, who lived to nearly 100, was Perpetual Secretary of the Academie des Sciences). Even in the good old USA, these ideas are gaining traction:

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

The wave guiding proceeds at a speed much higher than the speed of light (at least 10^10 c). Call it TAU. Thus any Quantum Process embraces the totality of accessible space. Moreover that space is a Hilbert space (not just 3 dimensional space).

This means that the causality (the set of causes) in any Quantum process involves not just a Cauchy data set, the classical way, and an evolution equation (Schrodinger, Dirac, Klein-Gordon, etc., but an entire space “visualized” by the Pilot Wave at speed TAU (> 10^10).

Notice that many of the preceding is not part of the conceptology of those who claim that Quantum Physics is not causal. Most of them probably do not know what a Hilbert space is (that the Pilot Wave proceeds in a Hilbert was an early objection against it; it’s as intelligent as protesting that the sky is blue).

Once all the ingredients are in, including CAUSAL SPACE, Quantum Physics is completely causal. Conceptually speaking.

QUANTUM COMPUTER CAUSES MORE:

Those who are elaborating, as we speak, Quantum Computers are trying to make Quantum Physics so incredibly causal, that it will be able to easily make CAUSAL relationships that traditional classical computers cannot do (and cannot check!). One has to understand that classical computers work, indeed, according to classical mechanics. They are glorified water clocks (with electrons flowing).

The Quantum Computer will convince the Commons that Quantum Physics is more causal than pathetically precise classical physics. Ultra pathetic precision leads classical physics to arbitrarily large errors. Whereas computing with waves is forgiving, hence more precise in the long run.

Time to get causal in the wavy way, people, embracing wholeness and the implicate (spatial) order famed physicist David Bohm was speaking (more or less) about. The real truth is going to be even more subtle (to simplify this essay, I neglected Quantum Entanglement).

Conclusion? Whenever there is a logic, there is a context, and the logic implicates the context. This is true in pure logic (from introspection, and writing logic down), but also in the Quantum world (from experimenting in the real world).

Logic without context is nothing. Physics without space is nothing. Nature without the implicate spatial order is nothing either. Thinking globally is the only thinking there is.

Patrice Ayme’