Posts Tagged ‘Unreason’

Crazy Physics Helps With Overall Madness?

April 27, 2016

Quantum Physics has long been a circus. When De Broglie proposed his thesis, his  thesis jury (which comprised top physicists, including a Nobel Laureate) did not know what to make of it, and consulted Einstein. Einstein was enthusiastic, saying de Broglie “lifted a piece of the veil”. Three years later, de Broglie got the Nobel and proposed his pilot wave theory. Pauli made an objection, de Broglie replied to it with the consummate politeness of the Prince he was, and thus the reply was not noticed. Five years after, the great mathematician Von Neumann asserted a “proof” that there was no Quantum Mechanics but for the one elaborated in Copenhagen. De Broglie’s objections were not listened to. Another two decades later, David Bohm presented de Broglie theory at the Institute for Advanced Physics in Princeton. But Bohm was drowned by question about why he had refused to testify at the Committee on Anti-American Activities in Congress (the American born Bohm promptly lost his job at Princeton University and his US passport, and would leave the US forever).

The usual interpretation of Quantum Physics consider that the De Broglie Matter Waves therein are only probability waves. This idea of Nobel Laureate Born has eschewed controversy. However Einstein sourly remarked: “God does not play with dice.” To which Nobel Laureate Bohr smartly replied:”Stop telling God what to do!

Qubits Are Real. But The Multiverse Is Madness

Qubits Are Real. But The Multiverse Is Madness. And Madness Is Contagious.

De Broglie suggested a “Double Solution” theory, which was promptly forgotten as Dirac launched Quantum ElectroDynamics by starting from the simplest relativistic wave, and building the (spinor) space he needed to have said wave wave in it.  Bohm revived (some of) De Broglie’s ideas by proposing to guide an always well defined particle with a (nonlocal) “quantum potential”.


And The Madness Set In:

Nowadays, descriptions of Quantum Physics are keen to assert that something can be in two places at the same time, that there are many worlds, or universes, created each time something happen, that cats are dead and alive, that the observer creates reality, etc…

All this derangement affecting physicists has something to do with a collective madness similar to the pseudo-scientific theories behind the Slave Trade, Stalinism, or Nazism.

No, I am not exaggerating. The theory behind enslaving Black Africans (going all the way back to the Middle Ages) was that Black Africans were, somehow, the missing link between man and ape. That’s why the Pope allowed the slave trade.

Neither am I exaggerating about fascism: the Nazis were actually obsessed by the new physics, a world where everything seemed possible. They called it “Jewish Physics”, and several Nobel laureates (Lenard, etc.), top mathematicians (say Teichmuller, who died on the Eastern Front in combat) were its opponents.

It contributed to suggest an overall mood:’if anything is possible, why not surrealism, fascism, Stalinism, Nazism?’

Germany has long led, intellectually (not to say France did not lead too, but it was the great opponent). Thus when top physicists became Nazis even before Hitler did, they no doubt impressed the latter by their attacks on “Jewish Science”.

The madness was not confined to the Nazis, stricto sensu. An excellent example is Max Planck, discoverer of the Quantum.

Planck accepted Einstein’s paper on “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” without references… When it was sure that Planck knew about the work of Poincare’, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Michelson-Morley, etc. on Relativity. Poincaré  was a star, and had toured the USA, delivering lectures on “Relativity” the year prior.

So what was Planck up to? Promoting the German arriviste to the cost of the most accomplished mathematician and physicist, because the latter was a Frenchman. (Poincaré , who was as elevated a character as can be found, nevertheless complained about Einstein plagiarism later.) Not only was  Poincaré French, but his family was refugee from the occupation of Lorraine by the Prussians. Raymond Poincaré, who was prime minister of France several times and president of the French Republic during World War I, was Henri’s cousin.

This is of some import, in the understanding of ideas, to this day: Poincaré  discovered the idea of gravitational waves, and explained why all interactions should go at the speed of light. Scientists who published (stole) the same ideas later could not copy all of  Poincaré ’s arguments, it would have been too obvious (that they stole the ideas), so those important details of  Poincaré  have been forgotten… And this haunts physics to this day

I believe that this is how the extremely all too relative, theory of Relativity a la Einstein appeared: Einstein could not duplicate all of  Poincaré’s details, so he omitted (some of) them… Resulting in a (slick) theory with a glaring defect: all classes of frames in uniform motion are supposed to be equivalent, a blatant absurdity (as even the Big Bang theory imposes a unique class of comoving frames). This brought a lot of (on-going) confusion (say about “rest” mass).

Planck did not stop with stealing Relativity from  Poincaré, and offering it to the Great German empire.

Planck endorsed the general excitement of the German public, when Germany attacked the world on August 1, 1914. He wrote that, “Besides much that is horrible, there is also much that is unexpectedly great and beautiful: the smooth solution of the most difficult domestic political problems by the unification of all parties (and) … the extolling of everything good and noble.”

Planck also signed the infamous Manifesto of the 93 intellectuals“, a pamphlet of war propaganda (while Einstein at the academy in Berlin, retained a pacifistic attitude which almost led to his imprisonment, although he was saved by his Swiss citizenship). The Manifesto, ironically enough, enumerated German war crimes, while denying (‘not true’) that they had happened. It did not occur to the idiots who had signed it, that just denying this long litany of crimes was itself a proof that they had occurred… And it’s telling they had to deny them: the German population obviously was debating whether those crimes had happened, now that the war was not doing well.

Planck got punished for his nationalism: his second son Erwin was taken prisoner by the French in 1914. His eldest son Karl died at Verdun (along with another 305,000 soldiers). When he saw Hitler was destroying Germany, Planck went to see the dictator, to try to change his mind, bringing to his attention that he was demolishing German universities. But to no avail. In January 1945, Erwin, to whom he had been particularly close, was sentenced to death by the obscene and delirious Nazi “people” court, the Volksgerichtshof. Because Erwin participated in the failed attempt to make a coup against the criminal Hitler in July 1944. Erwin was executed on 23 January 1945 (along with around 5,000 German army officers, all the way to Feldmarshal).

So what to think of the “Multiverse”, “Dead and Alive Cats”, Things which are in different places at the same time, etc.? Do they have to do with suggesting, even promoting, a global reign of unreason?

I think they do. I think the top mood contaminate lesser  intellectuals, political advisers, even politicians themselves. Thus political and social leaders feel anything goes, so, next thing you know, they suggest crazy things, like self-regulating finance, trade treaties where plutocrats can sue states (apparently one of the features of TPP and TTIP), or a world which keeps on piling CO2, because everything is relative, dead, thus alive, and everywhere is the same, here, there and everywhere, since at the same place, in space, time, or whatever.

Physics, historically, was not just a model of knowledge, but of rational rectitude. This has been lost. And it was lost from technical reasons, discarding other approaches, in part because of sheer nationalism.

In the 1960s John Bell, the Irishman who was director of theory at CERN, published a book with his famous theorem on nonlocality inside:”Speakables and Unspeakables in Quantum Mechanics”. A title full of hidden sense.

Patrice Ayme

Why Oh Believers, So Little Faith?

January 17, 2015

I will expose the fundamental reason why some otherwise seemingly clever Muslims are so enraged: because they are clever enough to not believe in their own “faith”. Same story with the Pope and his angry eyes when saying that “provoking the faith” justified murder. It is a case of Bad Faith (Bad Faith as technically meant by Existentialism).

Provocative thinking drags those “faithful” fanatics out of their own minds, out of their own little ignorance, out of their little mental caves, it makes them less comfortable in their rage, thus it hurts.

A Pakistani lawyer in international lawyer garb, tie and suit said: ”One must pass an international law to prevent to hurt Muslims…” Muslims get hurt when a bearded man proposes that “All is forgiven”? Basically, “Muslims” get hurt when we talk? They believe so little in their own delirium, that the smallest idea hurts them so bad, that they absolutely have to kill somebody?

Mahomet Overtaken By Integrists. It’s Hard To Be Loved By Idiots

Mahomet Overtaken By Integrists. It’s Hard To Be Loved By Idiots

This is why, oh Believers, you are so mysteriously, and murderously, enraged. (Or, more exactly, it’s the proximal reason; the religious strings of the fanatical puppets and mobs, are pulled by their oil thirsty plutocratic masters in Arabia, themselves in the grip of their even richer masters.)

From Pakistan to Senegal (!), mobs are rising in fury against Charlie Hebdo for a cover with a bearded man holding a “Je Suis Charlie”. In Pakistan, hundreds of lawyers (!) did so. People died. It is curious that they see a drawing as an “insult” to their so-called “Prophet”. Nowhere it is said by Charlie Hebdo that the picture represented a prophet, or a rophet, or a pro-fête (pro-feast?). The French are very much profête…

Are those outraged fanatics really hurt, or playing one on TV? Or paid to play one on TV? I lived my childhood in Senegal, and French satirical magazines were for sale, and bought massively. How come so changed? In the meantime, gentle native Senegalese Sufi “Islam” (not really Islam), has been replaced by Salafist from Saudi Arabia. The feudal plutocrats from Arabia have spilled all over the world (with complicity of the USA).

Let’s say in passing that Obama said that American Muslims felt American first, that was the strength of the USA. It’s true that American patriotism is strong. When exposed to my theories on history, several American “friends” immediately stopped the relationship. American philosophy sites have censored me.

Obama even mentioned North African Muslims coming to France. What Obama does not seem to know is that there are 5 million of recent Muslim immigrants in France (8% of the population of metropolitan France). Scaled to the USA, that would be nearly 30 million people. But there are only two million Muslims in the USA. More exactly, 2.75 million. That’s .7%, that is, less than one percent of the population of the USA. Moreover, Muslims of the USA come from all over the world, not just a few countries: they don’t even meet. And finally one cannot compare a Muslim from Indonesia (say), and one from Hamas (say; with its kill-the-Jews Charter…)

But Obama is paid to say that the USA is on top, and all the others got it wrong. While heading the world’s top police state (as measured by percentage of incarceration and prosecution… except for an Islamist state or two).

In Paris a play telling the true story of a Dutch woman who married a Yemenite and ended up killed by stoning for disobedience, was stopped. It was scheduled for another 30 times. It was played only three days. Terror reigns: telling facts that really happened is now a potential death sentence.

There is infamy, and then there is ignominy.

Infamy: to beat, terrorize, and kill people because of a difference of opinion, a drawing. (Jesus, who was the first to order to kill unbelievers, see “Jesus Lethal Threats” is followed rigorously by Jihadists, and on a matter of principle, by the Pope.)

Ignominy: To keep on singing the praises of (literal) Islam after terrorist massacres and Islamists, supported by millions, killed people because they made a joke.

Not even a joke against someone living. No, a joke that could be interpreted as “slandering a Prophet” (the expression Ayatollah-in-chief Obama used at the UN, 2012). A prophet dead 13 centuries.

OK, the Prophet was vigorous and rigorous. He disposed of the treacherous on an industrial scale. An entire Jewish tribe “betrayed”, the Banu Qurayza. It was disposed of. As Wikipedia puts it:

“[A Jewish] tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad. The Banu Qurayza were forced to surrender and the men were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved.”    

So the great prophet personally exterminated an entire Jewish tribe. Great prophet, great exploits. Alleluia. Islam, Submission, Religion of (Eternal) Peace. Also most helpful to (slave) free market.

There are three levels of explanation for fanaticism:

1) The charitable explanation for fanatics is that all they know is their sacred texts, and that’s all they know. The Sacred Texts say to kill the enemy, and eat it (a Hummingbird god, in the case of the Aztecs). And that’s it. These texts are typically hyperviolent, as they exist to justify the existence of a hyperviolent reigning plutocracy. They also have to pay homage to goodness, as human beings need it, and would be suspicious if there was none to be have to justify the hyperviolence.

Vicious Islamists and their supporters always quote good passages (say in the Qur’an) and say that, from those few passages, the whole thing is good. Same for the Bible, Mein Kampf, or various other fundamental hate texts.

2) Thinking is hard. Brainwashing followed by mental reconstruction is even harder.

3) The fanatics have interest to hate their victims, as that allows them to steal them: this is what happened with the Nazis. The Nazis’ hatred of the Jews enabled them to steal them, and distribute the spoils to their supporters. The prescription in the Qur’an to “kill unbelievers” allowed the Arab Muslim army shortly after 632 CE to defeat both the Persian and Roman empires. In no small measure because the Jihadists used lethal methods so brutal that they took their adversary by surprises (the wounded were killed by Arab women on the battlefield, and soon all men of military age killed in Syria).

So now what about the present hatred of all too many followers of the Qur’an? Many of those who are pretty clever know full well that their superstition is not that believable: they just have to look around. So, to make it believable, those who have interest to push for it, decide to kill absolutely any of this looking around.

Another look at any of their ways is mortally dangerous for the collective hypnosis the “believers” foster. Unfortunately, European intellectuals, and especially French ones, have fed this for decades. The notion of “Islamophobia” has been identified to “racism”.

In 2005, the Council of Europe identified “Islamophobia” as “fear, or a vision tinged with prejudice of Islam, and Muslims, and related questions…” In other words individual persons are identified to a religion. That would be a bit like identifying Nazism and Germans. The Council of Europe is racist.

However, the Haut Conseil à l’intégration founded by Michel Rocard reminded us unanimously in 2003 that:

  • “En République, la critique de la religion, comme de toutes les convictions, est libre
  • Elle est constitutionnellement garantie et fait partie de la liberté d’opinion et d’expression.
  • Elle ne saurait être assimilée au racisme et à la xénophobie.”

In other words, criticizing any religion is free, constitutionally guaranteed, is part of Freedom of Opinion and expression. And ought not to be assimilated to racism and xenophobia. In other words, exactly my position. It’s OK to have Islamophobia. It may even be safer. If Charlie Hebdo had been more Islamophobic, the terrorists would not have 12 at their headquarters.

(By the way, Le Mouvement des musulmans laïques de France (MMLF) agrees with me, pointing out that moderate Muslims get accused of « Islamophobia », and thus racism, especially in Africa. So the concept of “Islamophobia” feeds Salafism. This is why places such as Senegal are getting infected. That and Arabian money. The war starts with correct semantics!)

I have total superstition phobia, superstitiophobia, but that does not make me a racist. Respecting violent superstitions (such as ‘don’t draw bearded men’) would make me a proto-racist, though, because most of the definition of racism is unjustified hostility.

The essence of humanity is reason. Unreason is as inhuman as it gets. Against humanity, reason has never struggled in vain.

Those who believe in obviously idiotic legends of the vicious type know this very well, very deep down inside, and that is exactly why they have little faith in their own religious derangement. They are cornered, cornered by reason, the ultimate essence of man. That makes them even more vicious.

Bad Faith they have, and asking us to revere Bad Faith will serve only those who want to enslave us. To serve, you know, the guys in suits, the richest plotters in the world, the usual suspects… The very same ones who have interest to keep the Middle East in a subjugated mess.

Patrice Ayme’