But What is the Goal?: Viewing Quantum Mechanics through the Lens of Decision-Making

But What is the Goal?

Copyright © 2024 by Geoffrey Stone

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Tellwell Talent

www.tellwell.ca

ISBN

978-1-77962-581-6 (Hardcover)

978-1-77962-580-9 (Paperback)

978-1-77962-582-3 (eBook)

Table of Contents

Introduction

But What Is My Goal?

The Advantage of an Outsider

Truth, Credibility and Authority

Freedom, Efficiency, Motivation, and Innovation

To Judge a Book by Its Publicity

Summoning the Dragon

The Science Wars and the Goal of Comprehension

Three Examples of Conceptual Evolution

Time

Probability

Entropy

42

The Quantum-Mechanical Context

Deep Mysteries and Deep Concepts

The Strange and Perplexing Quantum Realm

The 1⁹th Century Roots of Quantum Mechanics

What Is Quantized?

The Three Leading Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

The Copenhagen Model

The Many-Worlds Model

The Pilot-Wave Model

Another Possibility to Consider

Stone Thought Experiment

Implicit Goals and Standards

Decision-Making

Degree of Precision

Ontological vs. Epistemological

Planck Units

The Arrow of Time

Repetition

Dispersion

Probability

Destruction and Complexity

Equivalence

Identifying the Main Sources of Confusion

The Hydra of Confusion

Mistaking the Map for the Terrain

Mathematical Reductionism

Conformity, Consensus, Convention, and Groupthink

Evaluating Conceptual Evolution

From Weight to Mass

From Mass to Mess

How Should We Measure Conceptual Progress?

E = E

Categories of Conceptual Evolution

Categories of Conceptual Confusion

Measurement, Confounding Variables, and Invariance

The Visual Angle vs. The Ruler

The Spring Scale vs. The Balance Scale

The Atomic Clock vs. The Sundial

The Utility of String Theory

Entropy, Thermodynamics, and Complexity

Defining Entropy

A Deterministic and Continuous Foundation for the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Wave Propagation and Thermal Equilibrium

The Continuity and Certainty of Wave Propagation

How Could This Discovery Have Been Missed?

Measuring the Flow of Heat and of Time

The Origin of Thermodynamics

The History and Utility of the Concept of Entropy

Entropy 2.0—Boltzmann and Statistical Mechanics

Summary

Defining the Microstate and Macrostate

Bubbles and Coffee Cups

Defining and Quantifying the Microstate

Boltzmann Introduces Equivalence and Entropy Becomes Information

The Assumption of Equivalence and Counting Microstates

The Overall Redundancy of Boltzmann Entropy

Probability Is Not the Underlying Mechanism

Information Theory and Shannon Entropy

Information Compression and Conceptual Conflation

Black Hole Entropy, the Bekenstein Bound, the Landauer Limit, and Hawking Radiation

Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy

Hawking Radiation

Planck Units and Planck Areas

What Is the Shape of a Planck Area?

The Holographic Principle

Maxwell’s Demon and the Landauer Limit

Von Neumann Entropy

Quantization and Rubik’s Cube Entropy

Resolution and Rubik’s Cube Entropy

Fractals and Rubik’s Cube Entropy

The Purpose of the Concept of Entropy

Relative Disorder and Life

Life, Evolution, Information, and Entropy

Entropy as a Limit

Rubik’s Cube Entropy and Goldilocks

Brief Recapitulation and Synthesis

Time

How Do We Measure Time?

Selecting a Standard for Time

Thinking Bigger—Replacing the Earth-Sun System

Einstein’s Revolutionary Conception of Time

Time as Clock-Like

A Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day but Wrong the Rest of the Time

Time and the Atom

The Atomic Clock as the Standard

Two Clocks Are Better Than One—The Democratic Approach to Time Keeping

The Presumed Perfection of the Atom

The Use for a Heat Clock

Time and Motion

Two Types of Motion

Time and Frame-Dependent Displacement

Time in Spacetime

The Twin Paradox

The Second Definition of the Second

Does the Present Exist?

Einstein, Eternalism, and the Block Theory of Time

Local Time vs. Global Time

The Distinction between Local and Global Time Is a False Dichotomy

Defining Time with Several Clocks—Concordance

Time and Simultaneity

Time, Curvature, and General Relativity

Gravitation and Co-Acceleration

Gravity as a Fictitious Force

Redefining Acceleration

Redefining Curvature and Surface

The Arrow of Time

Planck Time

The Voxel-and-Frame Model of Quantization

The Evolution of Speed, Space, and Time

The Evolution of Speed

The Evolution of Space

The Evolution of Time

Conclusions on Time

Causality

Definition

Causality and Decision-Making

Decision-Making, Intuition, and Consciousness

Subconscious Decisions

Intuition

Billions of Decisions Every Day

A Coin Cannot Make a Mistake

Where and When Does a Decision Take Place?

What Is a Decision?

Determinism

Determinism and Free Will

Free Will, Agency, and Decision-Making

Internal vs. External Decision-Making Mechanisms

Absolute Freedom Is an Oxymoron

Ambient Agency Is Absurd

Causal Divergence vs. Causal Convergence in the Environment

Goal-Directed vs. Arbitrary Decision-Making

Runaway Causal Substitution

Further Defence of Compatibilism

Prediction vs. Control

The Push of the Past or the Pull of the Future?

Recursive Representation and the Causal Loop

Correlation and Causation

Temporally Neutral Causality and Retro-Causality

The Time Window for Intervention

But What Is the Goal?

Retro-Causality and the Black Box

Locality and the Speed of Causality

Locality and the Speed of Information

The Quantum Buzz Soft Drink Thought Experiment

Superdeterminism

Mandatory Brain Training for Quantum Mechanics

The Magic of the Mirror Image

The Homunculus Fallacy

The Monty Hall Problem

Quantum Entanglement, Bell’s Inequality, and the EPR Paradox

Magic with Polarized Light

The EPR Paradox and Bell’s Inequality

Point-Like Particles with Binary Spin Vectors

Buried Treasures and Honest Pirates

Quantum Entanglement and Causality

Causality at 180 Degrees

Causality at 90 Degrees

Causality at 135 Degrees

Why Is the Observation Binary?

Causal Agnosticism, Realism, and Locality

Quantum Entanglement and Entropy

Conclusions on Entanglement

Radioactive Decay

Atomic Decay and Entropy

Predatory Particles

The Ultraviolet Catastrophe and the Photon

An Alternative Model for Black-Body Radiation

Why Would Heat Create Light?

The Four Curves of Heat Glow

Is the Energy Distribution of a Black Body Visible?

Interference and the Inherent Ambiguity of Amplitude

Frequency, Amplitude, and Energy

Application of Equipartition to Amplitude and Frequency

The Model and the Medium

Thinking Outside of the Jeans Box

The Black Box of Heat Glow

Why Model a Black Body as a Resonating Cavity?

Two Key Assumptions Behind the Ultraviolet Catastrophe

Equipartition Theorem and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe

The Rayleigh-Jeans Law as a Gaussian Distribution

The Quantization of Electromagnetic Radiation

The Observation That Remains Unexplained

An Alternative Interpretation of Cosmological Red Shift

What Is a Photon? What Fills Empty Space?

The Mind Trick Behind the Magic of the Mirror Image

Conclusions

Mathematical Truth, Explanation, and Understanding

Conceptual Evolution of Theory and Hypothesis

Making Progress

What Is Next?

Acknowledgements:

Bibliography

Introduction

The line between use and abuse is a both a practical and a moral boundary. Mathematics was introduced as a means of extending and enhancing our capacity to apply reason, but it has rapidly evolved into a means of replacing and inhibiting reason. Once it has been revealed that an established theory doesn’t make sense, sophisticated mathematical constructs are now employed in order to conceal the evidence. But I have discovered that it is possible to sort out the underlying confusion by looking beneath the mathematics in order to closely examine the foundational concepts.

The intellect has a sharp eye for methods and tools, but is blind to ends and values. So it is no wonder that this fatal blindness is handed on from old to young and today involves a whole generation. —Albert Einstein

But What Is My Goal?

The Advantage of an Outsider

As both an outsider and a dissenter, I am vulnerable to the inevitable attempts to impugn my credibility. But within the realm of philosophy, the validity of an argument never depends on the reputation of those who endorse it or on the perceived credibility of the author who creates it. While it may be naïve to think that this ideal is ever fully realized, it is still formally acknowledged that knowledge is the goal and that everyone will strive to apply curiosity, critical thinking, and logic to the pursuit of knowledge. When engaging with philosophy, one is both encouraged and expected to use their own judgement and also to understand both the structure and the function of a cogent argument. Despite these modest requirements, philosophy is an extraordinarily inclusive and accessible club.

Truth, Credibility and Authority

When science loses its connection to philosophy and becomes a mere branch of religion, or of political doctrine, then the author of a statement begins to carry more weight than its content does. In other words, what is said becomes less important than who is saying it with respect to determining whether or not a statement is to be regarded as credible. Science is perpetually situated somewhere between honest inquiry and manipulative dogma and somewhere between liberty and authority.

Is it possible to confer authenticity if you lack authenticity?

My academic background is in philosophy, in psychology, and in economics, but not in physics. As my shift in focus towards theoretical physics came later in life, it was natural for me to pursue theoretical physics as a hobby rather than as a career. Having no established reputation or credentials in this subject matter, my credibility should be very close to nil. However, the approach to persuasion that I have adopted does not rely on the previously acquired credibility of the speaker. I would not expect my audience to accept any premise that I advance or any conclusion that I reach, authoritatively. In fact, I hope that my audience will be both willing and able to apply their own judgment to the arguments that I present. I also assume that the reader has the benefit of a web browser and that they know how to use it for basic verification purposes. As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Upon reaching the end of this book, nobody should have any lingering doubts about the adequacy of my level of relevant expertise and knowledge in this subject matter, about my capacity to deal with it comprehensively, or about my commitment to accurately representing the current state of knowledge.

For those who are already intimately familiar with theoretical physics, I expect that there will be a strong tendency to espouse and defend the established paradigm. To the extent that I dissent from the established paradigm, the standing presumption would be that I must have made some critical mistake along the way. It is always possible that I am mistaken in some significant way—and mistakes are very common and easy in this rather difficult domain—but I think that it is reasonable for me to assume that if any hypothetical mistake cannot be identified and clearly articulated in English, then such a hypothetical mistake did not inform my reasoning. By contrast, it is relatively easy for me to precisely identify and articulate the mistakes that the current paradigm is founded on, and I submit that there is nothing unique about a mathematical understanding that makes such an understanding ineffable, in principle.

Meanwhile, for those who are relatively unfamiliar with theoretical physics, there will be a strong tendency to assume that I must be either misinterpreting or misrepresenting the state of the science in order to make my own positions look relatively reasonable. To some extent, oversimplification is inevitable, and it is also true that the more bombastic claims do tend to garner much more attention than they deserve. However, the driving force behind my arguments does not derive from the presentation of straw man positions. The controversies and the misconceptions that I will be presenting are very real and very deep, and we will be venturing as far as is necessary into the weeds in order to resolve them.

Freedom, Efficiency, Motivation, and Innovation

I consider myself to be fortunate that I did not study theoretical physics in a post-secondary academic setting. The natural approach to learning involves being guided by curiosity, and as an outsider, I can spend all of my time learning only about what I want to know. Additionally, I can always try to come up with answers to my own questions before I am presented with the official answer, and often, I have found that there is a fertile divergence between my own answer and the official answer.

Learning independently has also given me more time to think. If I need to take three years just to think about a problem, then I can actually do that. Organic learning does not follow any timeline or syllabus. In fact, in preparing these books, I have probably spent at least 80 percent of my time in thought, and less than 20 percent of it in reading and in writing. This would not be possible in an academic context, where the majority of my time would have been spent on reading and writing.

Knowledge of reality is like a buffet, and as an outsider, I have the freedom to choose what I put on my plate. My interest in physics is focused on the problems that haven’t been solved and on the questions that haven’t been answered. I don’t think that it would be possible to accomplish what I have done here from within the confines of academia. There may be exceptional cases, but I think that in general it is only outside of academia that one can retain the freedom to pursue their own intellectual interests.

Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.

I am fully aware of the fact that most of the problems that I have been working on have remained unsolved for more than a hundred years. Therefore, I have also felt no great sense of urgency. If a problem can remain unsolved for a hundred years, then surely it can remain unsolved for another twenty years. There is something extraordinarily comforting and satisfying about the feeling that you have, for all intents and purposes, infinite time to work on a particular problem. And yet, I have also been comforted by the fact that I didn’t need to wait some arbitrary period of time in order to study whatever it was that I was inspired to learn. I can always skip ahead to the fun stuff or to whatever it is that I am curious about, while I am still genuinely curious about it. I can learn whatever I want to know in a way that is responsive to my own organic demand for knowledge.

Imagine that an authority had told you that you must first demonstrate that you have memorized the first 2,000 digits of π before you are ready to learn more about transcendental numbers! In that case, I would hope that you would react with skepticism. Memorizing the first 2,000 digits of π is quite an impressive intellectual achievement which could potentially require that you devote anywhere from two months to two years of your time to this single goal. And yet, the purpose of this exercise has nothing to do with enhancing knowledge of the subject matter. The real purpose of this exercise is to waste valuable time and to weed out those who are unable or unwilling to memorize an extreme quantity of self-evidently useless information.

This rote memorization exercise also serves as a potent deterrent for those who are not fully committed to a given career path. As an added bonus, those who complete the program will be able to easily demonstrate their superior grasp of π to anyone who has doubts about their expertise. Those who have demonstrated their extensive knowledge of π might also decide that anyone who cannot recite the first 2,000 digits of π backwards, from memory, couldn’t have anything of value to contribute to any serious discussion about transcendental numbers or about mathematics in general. It could also be tacitly accepted that if anyone is going to revolutionize our understanding of the irrational numbers, then this would have to be someone who had—at a minimum—managed to memorize the first 12,000 digits of π in order to distinguish themselves and to demonstrate their superiority.

The scenario above is intended as a caricature to illustrate one of the common ways in which an intellectual environment can become competitive in a dysfunctional way. Nobody who values efficiency, productivity, or innovation would voluntarily subject themselves to such stifling standards, nor would they pay a small fortune for the privilege. If this caricature looks familiar, then my point is made. While I don’t think that it is impossible for authentic enlightenment to emerge from within the current academic establishment, I do think that it is extremely improbable.

In summary, being an outsider means that I have several unfair advantages. I don’t have arbitrary deadlines for progress, I have more time to explore specific ideas and to apply critical thinking, I am not required to jump through hoops or to memorize vast amounts of irrelevant or redundant information, I haven’t been studying for the sole purpose of passing exams, I am not subject to the publish-or-perish principle, I haven’t been required to pretend to believe in anything, and I haven’t squandered years of my precious time and a fortune in tuition money. Most importantly though, being an outsider means that I have not been required to adopt and espouse conventional thinking with my professional career and reputation hanging in the balance. I have the freedom to be honest and to contradict beliefs which have somehow become sacrosanct. Freedom, efficiency, and motivation are all important ingredients for successful innovation, and all of these ingredients are much easier for outsiders, such as myself, to gain access to.

To Judge a Book by Its Publicity

The only cost of not being a credentialed academic physicist comes in the form of a superficial and decadent form of credibility. But, as I have said, this type of credibility shouldn’t be relevant to those who were already open minded enough to begin reading. The arguments that I will present really do speak for themselves, and I submit that it would be very difficult to read this book in full and to still entertain doubts about my competence with reasoning, my integrity, or my familiarity with the relevant subject matter.

To illustrate my point, imagine that you have published the most controversial book in the world! Nobody is on the fence, and everyone has formed a strong opinion about your book. All of those who have read your book love it, and all of those who hate your book wouldn’t even consider reading it. Your fans typically say that your book gives them comfort and clarity and that it articulates what they had long suspected but had been afraid to acknowledge publicly. Those who hate your book would consider the act of reading your book to be wrong for a variety of reasons, and yet they have also read quite a lot about your book. Many of your fans are afraid to admit to having read your book to their friends due to fear of ostracism. Your detractors attack both you and your fans at a personal level, rather than addressing the content of the book. It is quite an accomplishment for all of your readers to love your book, and yet your detractors still outnumber your supporters. This is the sort of dynamic that occurs when science is overwhelmed by politics and by the dark art of public relations.

If this book is to be controversial—and it should be—then the controversy would be a contest between the opinions of those who have read the book and the opinions of those who refuse to read it. As long as my readers appreciate this book and are moved by the arguments herein, then that is all that matters to me. If something will establish my reputation and credibility with respect to the topic of quantum mechanics, then it will be the power of the ideas that are presented in these pages.

Summoning the Dragon

Even though all physicists would presumably know the basics of relativity and of quantum mechanics well enough to write either an introductory textbook or a similar product that is geared towards a general audience, very few of them do. This seemingly humble role has been reserved as a special right of passage for the most revered wizards of the profession. And why not? A novice would naturally prefer to learn about physics from a highly skilled expert who has already risen up through the ranks to attain celebrity status and a cult following. Why would anyone want to learn about the basics from a random stranger?

My reason for writing about the foundations of relativity and of quantum mechanics is unique. I am not posing as a tenured wizard of physics by any means. My objective is not to merely teach the fundamentals but to draw attention to precisely what is wrong with the fundamentals so that deeply rooted misconceptions can be corrected. Physics is dead and it has been dead for my entire life. My goal is to revive physics.

I have also come to view myself as a semi-welcome arsonist. As such, my plan is to ignite the torch of enlightenment, set all of the dead wood ablaze, and fan the flames of rejuvenation.

The Science Wars and the Goal of Comprehension

All’s fair in love and war.

One of the few wild ideas that I have never seriously entertained is the notion that certain aspects of reality are inherently incomprehensible. As difficult as the subject matter of quantum mechanics is, I have found it at least as difficult to understand why it is that pessimism has been adopted as the standard intellectual stance in this domain. Because I understand concepts as the tools that we develop and use in order to make sense out of our experiences, I assume that we could always develop better concepts or use our existing concepts more effectively.

The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.—Wolfgang Pauli

If what we accept as true also doesn’t make sense to us, then this must mean that either the concepts themselves, or the way in which we apply them, or both, must be inadequate in some respect. Before we give up on making sense out of reality, it would be a good idea take the time to critically assess both the concepts that we have at our disposal and the ways in which we use them. I am confident that there is a way out of this cognitive labyrinth, and my nose tells me that there is a block of cheese waiting for us at the exit.

If you think that you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.—Richard Feynman

Under the assumption that we share the common goal of increasing the breadth and depth of our comprehension of reality, then it is possible to evaluate our conceptual evolution by reference to this goal. Through a comprehensive examination of the history, the function, and the structure of our concepts, we can determine whether the advance of time has brought us closer to or further away from this abstract goal that we call truth. The way forward should also be illuminated through engaging in this analytical exercise.

If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.

—Albert Einstein

In a myopic spurt of caffeine-inspired optimism, the age of enlightenment brought with it the idea that truth can be obtained, refined, and tamed and that subjectivity should be replaced with objective knowledge. More recently, in a cynical cloud of cannabis-induced nihilism, postmodernists have wholly abandoned the pursuit of truth. While modernism often fails to appreciate how elusive, dynamic, and destructive truth can be, postmodernism doesn’t show any interest in truth. Even the desire to acquire an accurate interpretation of reality is viewed as both foolish and arrogant under the postmodern ethos. Science is regarded as mere role play. Science is pretend. Climbing and maintaining the social ladder are the real goals, and enlightenment is just a myth.

Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand things. You just get used to them.—John von Neumann

Modernism and postmodernism are diametrically opposed to one another, but each school of thought has some guidance to offer us in our pursuit of truth and understanding. The best ethical inclination that we can keep from the age of enlightenment is the idea that it is both noble and virtuous to pursue and to promote truth, and that science and rationality can and should progressively bring human thought into alignment with objective truth. Postmodern thought can also provide us with a humble appreciation of subjectivity and ambiguity, an awareness that there are multiple paths to truth, the idea that these paths are winding and littered with obstacles, a healthy skepticism towards authorities and institutions, and an acceptance of the fact that the pursuit of truth is perpetual.

If I have difficulty with quantum theory—and I do—it’s not for want of trying, and certainly not a source of pride.—Richard Dawkins

Both modernists and postmodernists do speak nonsense, but there is an important difference between the two. A true postmodernist would not suffer the slightest hint of embarrassment upon having their statements exposed as nonsense. But in the same situation, a true modernist would be mortified. Again, I find that it is optimal to integrate aspects of both approaches. Speaking nonsense is something that modernists correctly identify as problematic, but we can also acknowledge, as the postmodernists do, that speaking nonsense is quite common and that it does seem to be inevitable, to a degree. When it comes to speaking nonsense, we need to maintain our sense of humour and find the balance between punitive and permissive attitudes, so that we can successfully reduce the noise. Speaking nonsense is only shameful when it is done deliberately or out of either negligence or willful blindness.

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we say about nature.—Niels Bohr

It is easier to stay on track if we think of truth as a direction, rather than as a destination. Hence, we will never get there, but at least it really is possible to get somewhere that is better than where we were before. Of course, it is also possible to get lost whenever we wander into unfamiliar conceptual territory. Our choices on the forked path to enlightenment will either bring us closer to or further away from a functional understanding.

The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

—Neil deGrasse Tyson

The postmodernist icons of the 1960s had applied a trick that they might have learned from Einstein, whose name had become synonymous with genius. Perhaps postmodernism could do for academia at large, what Einstein had successfully done for theoretical physics. The postmodernists attempted to arrive at relativistic conceptions of truth, rationality, and virtue that resembled Einstein’s relativistic conceptions of time, space, and speed. In so doing, they divorced belief from objective reality and married it to identity. The postmodernists claimed that reality is socially constructed, but it was a particularly narrow vision of reality that they had in mind. In such a setting, it would be foolish to have either curiosity or integrity, because ideas are to be judged only according to their compliance with fashion trends and arbitrary aesthetic standards. Rather than looking outwards to nature for confirmation, postmodernists look inwards to culture instead.

To those who do not know mathematics, it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.—Richard Feynman

In the Science Wars of the late 20th century, the bastions of postmodernism were the so-called soft sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies. Postmodernism went on the offensive as it focused its critical lens on the so-called hard sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to deconstruct them and to challenge their claims to objective knowledge.

Aesthetic criteria are fundamental to the development of mathematical ideas for their own sake, providing both the drive towards discovery and a powerful guide to truth.—Roger Penrose

The defensive strategy of the hard sciences was to ignore and to dismiss the postmodern critiques as fashionable nonsense. The fields of psychology and philosophy managed to stay on the fence in this conflict, because it was not obvious which side, if any, they should take. But the main distinguishing feature between these two sides has always been the scale of their preferred level of analysis and the types of structures and questions that they are most interested in.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.—Werner Heisenberg

When skepticism is applied to truth itself, then skepticism loses its foundation, its purpose, and its force. One can understand postmodernism as a consequence of academia focusing its critical lens on itself and becoming self-aware (recursion). One can also view postmodernism as a collection of symptoms that are displayed by a branch of science as it becomes stagnant. The most salient features of postmodern writing are its obscurantism and its frivolity, and therefore it presents us with a subtle parody of academic writing. As its name implies, postmodernism is a mature form of modernism where intellectual growth continues in the absence of progress. If modernism anticipates an intellectual boom, then postmodernism anticipates an intellectual bust. Once a field of study abandons the goal of enhancing the comprehension of reality, first it loses its purpose, then it loses its moral compass, and then it loses its reputation.

If my topic is whether or not Vlastos had the best interpretation of Plato’s Parmenides or how the wool trade affected imagery in Tudor poetry, or what the best version of string theory says about time, or how to recast proofs in topology in some new formalism, if I am wrong, dead wrong, in what I say, the only damage I am likely to do is to my own scholarly reputation.—Daniel Dennett

What people tend to find interesting is ultimately shaped by the pursuit of goals, the most proximate of which is to learn something new. I find it interesting that, over the past century, many of the central concepts of theoretical physics have become estranged from their original and relatively goal-oriented meanings. Particle, information, entropy, mass, work, waste, speed, spin, space, time, simultaneity, curvature, surface, organization, probability, observation, vector, and energy have all changed their meanings significantly since the turn of the 20th century. It is impossible to avoid speaking and thinking nonsense when the most basic concepts that we work with also have such an abnormally low viscosity.

The mathematician plays a game in which he himself invents the rules while the physicist plays a game in which the rules are provided by nature, but as time goes on it becomes increasingly evident that the rules which the mathematician finds interesting are the same as those which nature has chosen.

—Paul A. M. Dirac

Theoretical physics has also been the arena for another science war, that between pure mathematics and empirical science. The stagnation and decline of theoretical physics are, in part, a consequence of the resounding triumph of pure mathematics. The dominance of pure mathematics is particularly evident in the domain of quantum mechanics. Consequently, thinking about quantum mechanics can be very tricky, but it might be rendered amenable to understanding if we accept the following seven premises.

1.The principle of locality is false. A causal influence may propagate through any frame at faster than the speed of light, in principle.

2.The principle of realism is false. Quantum objects, such as electrons and photons, do not really possess the quantum properties that we ascribe to them, either prior to, or after, a measurement has taken place.

3.Both hard determinism and superdeterminism are false. Agency, decision-making, and free will are neither binary, nor illusory.

4.The concept of probability only applies within a context of decision-making. There is no such thing as mind-independent probability.

5.The concept of information only applies within a context of decision-making. There is no such thing as mind-independent information.

6.Decision-making is the key to sorting out cause and effect. While the temporal order of events gives us a useful heuristic, the application of decision-making through directly manipulating an independent variable is the only fail-safe way to tease apart causation from mere correlation.

7.Decision-making cannot occur in the absence of goals.

I understand that some, if not most, of these premises will be difficult for many readers to accept at this juncture, and the relevance of these premises may not yet