Posts Tagged ‘Topology’

EMOTION PLANS LOGIC. Want No More Fakery? Tell the Truth! Hurt the Feelings of Fakers!

January 11, 2019

Emotional logic builds geometrical logic. This is a neurological fact. And yes, there are alternative facts, all over, because there are incomplete logics, logic with incomplete universes, all over. Any logic depends upon a universe of facts. Not all universes of facts are complete, far from it. It happens even in physics. Somehow, much vaunted modern physics is missing 95% of the mass-energy: it has no idea whatsoever what Dark Energy and Dark Matter could be made of: a case where major facts are still missing.

Philosophy , once it knows enough science, realizes that, although we don’t know all the details yet, clearly the topology of various substances bathing the brain, with their many dimensions, are what direct neuronal geometry… This, in particular explains why one cannot fight emotions with facts readily. That is like changing grass in the steppe with scissors.

If a child makes a mistake, one doesn’t respect the alternative computation. Instead, one says, pedagogically, that the computation is not correct. Children listen, because they respect teachers and parents (or used to…) So the emotional logic of respect, makes school possible.

 

Paradoxically, the problem then, maybe that one uses too much rationality to try to bend rationality, confronted to adults who have the wrong emotional logic.

 

Faced by a lethal religious fanatic, or a climate change denier (for example), the best method may not be to present them with facts and logics they can’t understand, or are unwilling to consider. Instead, one should probably appeal to their emotional logic.

 

How? One way is to call a cat a cat. Confronted to idiocy, it may be more pedagogical to say it as it is: idiotic. Instead, “Multiculturalism” (and Latour was part of it) insisted that complete idiocy and primitivism, were valuable alternate realities. Now Latour says there is just one reality. Right. However the philosophy known as “French Theory” said the opposite for 60 years….

 

Want no more fakery? Tell the truth! Hurt the feelings of fakers!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: The preceding, that emotional machinery is the architect of the geometric logic, explains the observation of John Stuart Mill that ideas don’t work to change systems of mind readily (Discoverer of the Quantum Max Planck said the same a bit later, pointing out that physics progresses one funeral at a time, or something to this effect). Anyway here is Mill: in the Subjection of Women (1869; following an essay by a female feminist in 1851)

“The very words necessary to express the task I have undertaken, show how arduous it is. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the difficulty of the case must lie in the insufficiency or obscurity of the grounds of reason on which my conviction rests. The difficulty is that which exists in all cases in which there is a mass of feeling to be contended against. So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old. And there are so many causes tending to make the feelings connected with this subject the most intense and most deeply-rooted of all those which gather round and protect old institutions and customs, that we need not wonder to find them as yet less undermined and loosened than any of the rest by the progress of the great modern spiritual and social transition; nor suppose that the barbarisms to which men cling longest must be less barbarisms than those which they earlier shake off.”

***

Note 2: This was a comment sent to, and published by, the New York Times regarding “Why Fighting Fake News With the Facts Might Not Be Enough” by Jennifer Szalai. I give an extensive quote below, not because she is such a genius… but because the context she provides unwittingly is telling… Latour, by the way, is from a top plutocratic wine family, wealthy for generations… So his (not really “his”, just the latest parroting) declaration that massive uncontrolled immigration to the Europe is justified, just as a tsunami is justified, because waves come and go, and come back again… is a red herring… Something to look at… while doesn’t look at how Latour and his class became wealthy, the old fashion way, inheriting it…
Jan. 9, 2019

“Alternative facts”: The term manages to be tedious, ridiculous and perilous at once — a real sign of the times. For anyone who doesn’t remember, Kellyanne Conway introduced it in early 2017… serenely chiding an exasperated Chuck Todd for being “overly dramatic” as he repeatedly tried to get her to concede that lying to the American public was bad.

Her phrasing may have been new, but Conway was taking part in what has apparently become a conservative tradition — performing a skepticism so extreme that it makes the ancient Greek skeptics look like babes in the woods. Recall a high-ranking aide in the Bush administration needling a journalist for belonging to “the reality-based community.” A respect for facts, the aide suggested, was ultimately for suckers: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

You might think this kind of postmodernism would appeal to the French anthropologist and philosopher Bruno Latour, who has spent a career studying how knowledge is socially constructed. You would be wrong. Such pretensions to reality-creating grandeur, Latour suggests, amount to little more than a vulgar, self-defeating cynicism.

In “Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime,” Latour argues that climate change is forcing all of us to confront truths that seem hard to reconcile but turn out to be two sides of the same thing: 1) reality exists, whether we like it or not; and 2) our attempts to apprehend it are contingent on our social context. Along with Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall’s “The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread,” Latour’s new book offers a way to think through the seemingly insurmountable impasse carved out by political polarization and fake news.

Latour calls for an entirely new way of understanding the world. He says he wrote “Down to Earth” with a “deliberate bluntness.” He vests a surprising hope in Europe, whose colonial past — or “crimes,” as he puts it — he depicts as inextricable from the migrations it tries to keep out. “Europe has invaded all peoples; all peoples are coming to Europe in their turn,” he writes. “Give and take. There is no way out of this.”

Latour also describes migration as the human embodiment of our “new climatic regime.” Under the old way of thinking, exploited peoples and places were ignored, silenced and stripped of agency; now migrants and the earth itself are both setting out “to recover what belongs to them.”

No doubt some readers will find this to be too much, too philosophical and too French. But maybe it takes a brilliantly mind-bending book like Latour’s to show that so much reality can’t be denied.

MOODS RULE THOUGHTS

December 26, 2014

Systems Of Moods Overwhelm Systems of Thought.

MOODS MAKE UP THE GENETICS OF LOGIC:

Are we born with “instincts” such as “care”, and the like? Or do we learn? I believe we learn (much of this being fast learning, and, mostly, subconscious). How does that work? Well, it would work from General Topology informing neurogenesis.

French philosopher Foucault baptized himself historian of systems of thought, when he got a professorship at the prestigious Collège de France in 1970. (Collège de France, the ultimate think institution, is five centuries old.)

I have gone one further, by introducing Systems of Moods. Why moods? Emotion Primes Reason. However, rarely does one emotion rule alone, but for ravenous hunger, abject terror, and other animalistic crazes. Instead, when we meditate ponderously, we are usually ruled by moods.

What’s a mood? It’s a cocktail of emotions. Systems of Moods are articulated with their own logic. Pascal discovered this, when he said “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison n’a pas”.

Why and how does the “heart” have its own logic? The answer has to do with where does logic come from? Logic is basically about arrows, implications: ’if A, then B’.

Where do these “thens”, these implications, come from? When one says:’I have a bad feeling about this’, one reasons out of a mood: the forest is suddenly too quiet, or a bird made an alarm sound… And suddenly all of one’s senses are in full alert.

Sets of moods will tend to topological relations. Instead of the one to one relations of logic or category theory. Topology, the logic of places, can bring to bear relationships that are much more general than ‘if A then B’. Relations such as: ’if A is close to B while C is close to D, when closer to A than B, then…’

This topo-logic can be embodied by neurohormones, neurotransmitters, and the neighborhoods they create (neighborhood is here used in the exact mathematical, General Topological sense). This no idle theory: it’s known that dendrites, and other neuronal structures, tend to grow in some directions, depending upon these chemicals. That means that the neurological relations of linear logic are built from the emotional and neurohormonal calculus.

***

AN EXAMPLE WHERE MOODS DOMINATE, AND LOGIC IS SECONDARY:

I am going to use an example that arose from my adventures at a philosophy website. It’s rather complex, so let me give an abstract first: a philosophy professor drew a correct conclusion, yet the EXACT OPPOSITE conclusion is also valid. How is that possible? It is because, once some moods and emotions are rolled out, logic can go one way, or the other.

So much for the old hope that determinism and logic (in the conventional sense) rule all.

The example was extracted from Scientia Salon, a site run by university philosophers.

Philosophy professor Gregg Caruso considered polls on the behavior of USA citizens (that’s called “experimental philosophy”). Verdict? The relationship between believing in Free Will and believing that low lives dug their own fates, seems strong in the USA.

Gregg wrote: “juries — eager to preserve their belief in a just world — are already inclined to see the victim … as other than innocent… just one unfortunate example of the pernicious nature of belief in a just world… since, of course, if the world is just, then people must have brought these circumstances upon themselves. This blaming of victims (in defense of belief in a just world) has been established by numerous studies… the stronger the belief in a just world the greater the likelihood of blaming victims for their unfortunate fates.”

Any society rests on logic. The logic does not have to be all-embracing, it just has to be effective enough to support the social organization. Gregg’s general thesis is a good antidote to the present logic dominating the USA. Yet a USA social truth does not have to be a truth of human ethology.

And it is not, as egregious cases in non-USA based history and geography show.

The Nazis believed the less Free Will, the better: “society’s needs come before the individual’s needs” (Adolf Hitler). So did the followers of Stalin. So do, to a great extent some of the Muslim religions (so called “branches” of Islam). All believe(d) that individual Free Will had to be eradicated. Islam comes from aslama “he submitted”.

All believe(d) that the world could be made just through the application of strength, and the Will of God, the General Secretary, or the Guide.

Now, if I abstract the examples above (Stalinism, Nazism, Islamism), I can rephrase the grand conclusion of Gregg, into its complete contradiction. Below I just changed “Free Will” into “NON Free Will”:

…belief in NON free will, it was found, by studying the historical examples above, is associated with just world belief, authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and other. While these considerations do not prove belief in NON free will is mistaken, they do indicate that the putative pragmatic benefits of believing in NON free will and desert-based moral responsibility are bogus.

Gregg showed that in the USA to doubt Free Will would allow society to progress. History, in many other places show that rejecting Free Will led to horrible societies.

How come Gregg’s informed logic and concrete polls can be turned on its head? What is going on?

The answer is from the theory of systems of moods. The reason that the logic can be turned on its head is that what truly matters are the mood and subjacent emotions.

Example. The Nazis posed themselves as victims of an unjust world (big, bad, rich, hypocritical, Indian exterminating America; Versailles Treaty). Germans, all over, were oppressed minorities. Only surrendering Free Will would be bring back justice and stop the punition they were submitted to.

Strong emotions, bound by strong logic, make strong medicine. Yet, the logic is secondary. It could go whichever way. This is what the apparent truth of both Free Will Skepticism, and the truth of its exact opposite, my pernicious anti-thesis (just an observation, too), demonstrate.

Foucault suggested that power laid in discourses, more than anything else. I agree. Yet, beyond that, power lays in the raw emotions, and the moods they blossom into. The exact nature of the way they get organized is an afterthought.

Here is an explicit example: Christianism and love. Christ said that to love was the commanding commandment. Fine. However, read what he exactly said:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What’s the strongest emotion here? Jesus says it himself: loving obedience to “the Lord”. He puts it first. However, obedience is not the most prominent feature of human ethology (raw love probably is, next to the survival instinct). Thus the implied logic is the violence one has to exert to do something unnatural, obeying a so-called “Lord”.

In the end, Jesus’ primary emotion holds in just one word: “Lord”. Jesus is a plutophile: loving a “Lord” is the first law.

He, and others, can put whatever logic they want after that to embellish the ugliness, and comfort the horror. It does not really matter. The overall mood flows from there, one concept: “the Lord”. The rest is just rearranging the chairs on the sinking Titanic of Jesus’ make belief goodness.

Patrice Ayme’

QUANTUM NON LOCALITY.

September 1, 2011

ONE & THE SAME, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE.

***

Abstract: Why Quantum Physics violates locality. Twentieth-second century primary school version.

***

 LOCALITY: What does locality mean? It means that what happens at a point is determined by what is happening in a neighborhood of that point within a small enough distance, as determined by light. Moreover, it means that the universe U is made of points: U = Union points. Points, by definition, are singletons (they have no elements in the sense of set theory), and they have dimension zero: nothing belongs to a point.

 SPACETIME: Generally the universe is called “spacetime”. However, this concept, spacetime, introduces the assumptions of Einstein’s Special Relativity, as boosted by Minkowski, established before Quantum Physics.

 In particular the spacetime hypothesis assumes that the universe is a product of what is called in mathematics the “real line”, which assumes, among other things, what is called a T2, Hausdorff topology. Two different points are separated by different neighborhoods (to use the appropriate concepts from general topology).

 Quantum Physics violates both LOCALITY and SPACETIME.

 How do we know this? When one analyzes the smallest processes, one finds that, in plenty of cases, the SMALLEST PROCESSES, THE INDIVISIBLE PROCESSES, SPREAD IN TIME OVER ARBITRARY BIG REGIONS, ON THEIR OWN (THAT IS WITHOUT ANY INTERACTION WITH THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE). Are they then big, or are they small? Verily, therein a mystery of the Quantum.

 In this innocuous concept I just uttered, they spread as big as they want, although being as small as there is, one finds the entire origin of Quantum non locality. No need for fancy mathematics, or even any equation. The idea is as dramatic as can be.

 Indeed, non locality boils down to a matter of definition. As the indivisible process spreads out, it stays one, well, by definition. It means that touching it anywhere is like touching it everywhere.

 When two particles comes out of such an indivisible process, they are called “ENTANGLED”. The semantics gets in the way. What we do not have is actually two particles, but two possible experimental channels, which can be widely separated, where, if we experiment, two particles will show up, and widely separated, if the channels are so.

 Thus we see that the two channels are entangled, and touching one is also touching the other.

 What are some of these cases where the smallest, indivisible processes spread out macroscopically? Well, they are so common, that they seem to be the rule, not the exception: 

 Diffraction (the 1 slit experiment) is such a case: the slit is small, diffusion gets big. Arbitrarily big.

 The famous 2 slit experiment is another case: the slits are close by, the interference screen is at a large distance. Hey, the 2-slit could be a galactic cluster. A cluster made of galaxies, each 200,000 light years across. 

 Any fundamental process where two particles separate after interacting. (In particular the simple set-up of the Einstein Podolski Rosen thought experiment, such as the Bohm total spin zero variant.)

 It is highly likely that such an effect is used all over biology, to transport energy close to 100% efficiency over macroscopic distances (an allusion to the fact that this is not only about pure science, but the economic fall-out will be considerable, once this is so well understood that we can dominate the processes involved).

 Not all Quantum processes spread all over space. Bohr got the Nobel for his patchy, haphazard atomic theory which worked, because electronic matter waves self interfere coherently onto themselves (these matters waves, the de Broglie waves, are called orbitals, and they make the body of atoms, what we call matter, and sharing orbitals is much of what we call chemistry).

***

 Thus we have found the following, from the most basic set-up of Quantum theory:

 A Fundamental Quantum Process, is one, until interacted with, even if it is spread over space. This is what Quantum Non Locality is all about.

 Some crystals can make out of one photon, two photons with opposite polarizations, and they could then be sent in two different channels, a light year apart.

Parallel transporting along the two channels the polarization directions, we would always find them opposite. A more subtle relation between the polarizations holds, and was found to be true even when the polarization angles are moved randomly during the photons flight time (Aspect experiment, for which Alain Aspect got the Wolf Prize in 2010).

 By making all sorts of supplementary hypotheses about local hidden parameters and local measurements of polarizations, though, on finds that should not be the case. This contradiction is called the Bell Inequality (I like Bell very much, and I approve of his quest, which is also my quest. I apologize for his many admirers, by presenting his efforts in an arguably demeaning light).

The preceding, most simple way to look at Non Locality, gives an excellent reason to not do that: the logic of the Quantum is as simple as it gets: as long as I am left alone, says the Quantum, I am one. And indivisible.

***

 What does it all mean? First Einstein and company in their “EPR” paper, talked about “elements of reality”. They did NOT talk about ELEMENTS OF SPACE. They did not have the notion. I will argue they should have, but of course, the fact that they did not have it was central to their (erroneous) reasoning. 

 Einstein and company wondered how a particle could communicate with another, even across light years. Wrong amazement. Particles are not “communicating“. Actually, they are not “particles” to start with.

 For decades I have advocated a radical solution, as exposed above, aligning the definition elementarily: the two particles are one and the same, they are in the same place at the time of the Quantum interaction, and stop being so, as a result. The topology used in physics, the same that the dinosaurs used, the T2, separated topology, is not appropriate to the real universe. OK, it was appropriate for pterosaurs. But it’s not appropriate, across the universe. BTW, the pterosaurs, the best fliers, by far, that this planet has known, went extinct, although they were obviously very smart.

 Is this the end all, be all? Quantum Physics a la Bohr reigns, and nothing else can be said? No. If the bare bone theory above is true, the entire theory of spacetime is false: space is not made of points, and it is constructed interactively. The case of time is even more so. Imagine there are no heavens made of points, only the sky you make, etc. Thus more has been said

***

Patrice Ayme

***

 Note 1: An enlightening analogy: The question of using the Quantum set-up to transmit information superluminally, or what Einstein called “Spooky Interaction At A Distance” has come up. The preceding, as it is, sticking to strict Quantum theory, demolishes both views, with crushing simplicity.

 How? OK, let’s make an experimental metaphor. Suppose we have an infinitely rigid bar between the two entangled particles: each time we experiment with one, we turn the bar, and so it turns at the other end too. Simple. Some will say: ha ha ha, but then I can look at the bar, and I see the bar turn, and so information has been transmitted. Not so fast. We are dealing with as elementary a Quantum process as possible, which means the particle was not observed, before the bar turned. So we see the bar turn, but we do not know if it was, or not, turning before. To tell if a signal was sent, one has first to define a state where one can say no signal was received.  

***

 Note 2: I was a rough to the point of inaccuracy with the Bell Inequality above.  There is a subtlety, which can be seen easily say in the case of spin. Spin measurements in various directions are not independent of each other. Thus, if one measures spin in the close channel, a measurement of spin in another, random direction in the distance channel will show that influence, and a local determination of spin in the distant channel by parallel transport will not exhibit this. BTW, introducing the notion of parallel transport in the conversation, which is the whole point of the “local hidden parameter” debate is from yours truly.

 Note 3: And let’s not forget to smile about the naïve who developed frantically supersymmetric superstrings super budgeted super having-nothing-to-do-with reality… While forgetting to think about the fundamentals as described above.

***