Humour and Quantum Mechanics

[Doug G]

My assertion is that comedy and quantum mechanics have a common basis. 

I was listening to Stefan's thoughts on comedy or humour (the Canadian spelling), as well as those on sophistry and first principles (great descriptions). There is always a hidden element to our actions and feelings, and Stefan works to discover it - always relying on first principles. 

My question to anyone who might be even slightly interested is whether or not my assertion at the top works through first principles, and is not just sophistry?

My steps in this argument are: 

1. I need to show that there is a definable relationship between mathematical symbols and those of language. My answer is that the relationship is the difference between what is "fungible" and "non-fungible". Example: money is fungible since it is used for anything. Equally, numbers and mathematical symbols, in general, are "fungible" or "universal" for what they refer to. 

On the contrary, linguistic symbols are "not fungible". For example the noun "dog" refers only to dog, and is not a universal symbol for anything else (other animals, etc). Thus, mathematical "strings of information" are based on a system of fungible symbols and linguistic "strings" are based on non-fungible symbols. This is why we can tell stories with linguistic symbols but not so with mathematical symbols.

2. Quantum structure can be extremely complex depending on the number of elements in the given structure. However, the simplest form of such structure is one in which there are only two elements. Example, each photon (of light) has two forms - "particle" and "wave", and they are paradoxical in their forms. No one has ever been able to define the relationship between them, even though they refer to the same phenomenon. This is the issue of wave/particle duality. 

We should be able to say that we are looking at the same thing but from a different angle or perspective when one changes to the other. However, no physicist has every been able to do this. There is no way to define the smooth mathematical transformation between these two perspectives. The best even Einstein could do was use the phrase "spooky action at a distance" - not exactly a mathematical description.

3. Humour (comedy), also has as its basis two parts that are paradoxically composed but refer to the same thing. For example - Question: what did the Zen Master say to the hot dog vendor? Answer: "make me one with everything". There are two meanings that have no relationship to each other yet refer to the same thing - the single request by the Zen Master. We laugh as a pleasant (but nervous) form of response to the relationship we cannot interpret rationally.

Both of the above examples (one of quantum structure and the other of humour) have two parts that are incongruous or paradoxical (the juxtaposition of the incongruous). The quantum structure is based on a system of fungible symbols and the humour is based on a system that is not fungible.  

My conclusion is that these two examples share a common basis of internal structure, and the difference between them, in their common structure, is the flipping of relationship for the property of "fungiblity" (from fungible to non-fungible).

 

Looking at this in a very large philosophical perspective (it might be sophistry, but I think not), this small example hints that our entire universe, physical and in experience is one entity which we view from individual paradoxical perspectives. This is what creates the great diversity of life, but it is all linked as one, no matter how unrelated the parts appear on the surface to our observation.

[Pepin]

I appriciate the time you took to write this and your humble approach. I am having a difficult time understanding exactly your argument because I do not think you have written it for an audience who is not familair with your ideas. Like if Einstien made an arguement for special relativity without laying a solid groundwork for the subject matter he was addressing and why his theory is needed to explain reality, it likely would be a bit confusing to others who did not specialize in physics.

 

I think you are presenting ideas that make sense in your head, but you have not quite converted them into a form others can follow. This is probably the most difficult part about theories, explaining them in a way which make sense to others.

 

Hope that makes sense. It is likely the rsponse you wanted, but it is better than being misunderstood.

[Doug G]

Thanks for the response Pepin. Your point is well-taken. As you point out, there is a considerable background of context, for me, that others will not have, and the proposition is counter-intuitive. We naturally look for conjunction of elements in arguments not disjunction (the flipping of relationship from shared to non-shared). It was a useful exercise for me, in putting down my thoughts. Best Regards

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"My assertion is that comedy and quantum mechanics have a common basis. "

 

If this is your thesis, it would help if you could define exactly what you mean by "common basis." I feel like I've been forgotten when you readily plow through your arguments without any elaboration or context after making such an unusual, grandiose, and unclear claim. I feel like I was not thought of as you were writing this (or at least was not the focus), and I feel completely disconnected from your thought process. Empathy for the reader is the most important part of an argument, and it feels completely lost here.

 

"There is always a hidden element to our actions and feelings, and Stefan works to discover it - always relying on first principles. "

 

There is always causality to our actions and feelings - and Stefan works to discover it, relying on first principles. Sorry to nitpick, but after reading the opening claim, phrases like "hidden element" make me wonder what I'm getting into.

 

"I need to show that there is a definable relationship between mathematical symbols and those of language."

 

Why? Tell me why before you begin to prove this claim.

 

"Example: money is fungible since it is used for anything. Equally, numbers and mathematical symbols, in general, are "fungible" or "universal" for what they refer to."

 

I don't think the comparison makes sense. Money is physical thing while numbers are concepts. Mathematical symbols communicate (in conjunction with syntax, I guess) number concepts. So what do you mean when you say numbers are fungible? Because it would seem numbers are not fungible in the sense that I can't substitute any one number for another in an equation and get the same result. But I would like to more understand what you mean.

 

Just for reference: "Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution." - Wikipedia

 

"able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable" - Google definition

 

"On the contrary, linguistic symbols are "not fungible". For example the noun "dog" refers only to dog, and is not a universal symbol for anything else (other animals, etc)."

 

Dog is not a linguistic symbol. Was that a mistake? Linguistic symbols (like the letters I'm using) refer to the sounds we make when we say them. I don't know what else to say because I am still troubled by your use of the word "fungible."

 

It is true that a number can be used in regard to describing all different types of physical things (dogs, cars, cantaloupes), but that's because it's describing quantities, not qualities. The noun "dog" can't be used to describe turkeys because it excludes things which do not consistent of specific criteria, with few if any exceptions. But this is a matter of how we use concepts to relate to reality, not a matter of fungibility.

 

"Example, each photon (of light) has two forms - "particle" and "wave", and they are paradoxical in their forms. No one has ever been able to define the relationship between them, even though they refer to the same phenomenon."

 

How are they paradoxical? No one has been able to define what kind of relationship between them? What is the same phenomenon they refer to? What are they describing about that phenomenon? (laymen questions a person like me may have)

 

Sorry to stop here, but the rest is even harder for me to understand, and I think I've given you enough to elaborate on.

 

I admire your willingness to think outside the box and attempt to make interesting connections where others haven't even if this attempt isn't successful (which I am not the ultimate judge of)

[Doug G]

Nonantianarchist1st, thanks for the critique.

Sorry for the very long response, but that is the only way to cover your comments. I rarely get feedback and it helps me to understand how my writing is interpreted, even if you do not have the opportunity to comment any further. 

The original small piece I posted is part of a much larger body of writing on my personal philosophy. I don't have any goal to publish so it is just a personal hobby.  

The concept is based on a new interpretation of Russell's paradox although that is just one point for discussion. On a certain level, I think the anarchist perspective fits with the role of paradox in society - but that is a much longer discussion!

Here is a short statement on the idea. It is counter-intuitive in the extreme (of course the justification for this grand statement is contained in the details): 

 

In the largest sense, the universe is without form. From this formlessness, the foundation of what arises out of it - for reality, truth and principle (in philosophy, mathematics, science and in general experience) relies on the deeper and systemic role of paradox. This feature is mirrored in all the parts we observe in the universe for structure and causation. The catch phrase for this concept is that, "the universe does not obey rules - it sequentially creates them in a process of self-organization".

 

The understanding, found in this concept, changes nothing of our mathematical theories and social values. What it is does, however, is explain the hidden basis behind the universe that creates all such structure. My method of proof is to show that paradoxes arise in many aspects of what we observe both in scientific and experiential frameworks. It is reasonable take a look at whether or not paradox is a natural element of the universe rather than simply an anomaly arising from some faulty understanding.

If you find this at all of interest, and are prone to sleepless nights, my most recent (very long) paper is listed on my web page at http://pages.pathcom.com/~douggill/

 

 

On to your comments:

> Critique: Quoted  - "My assertion is that comedy and quantum mechanics have a common basis. " - end -

 If this is your thesis, it would help if you could define exactly what you mean by "common basis." I feel like I've been forgotten when you readily plow through your arguments without any elaboration or context after making such an unusual, grandiose, and unclear claim. I feel like I was not thought of as you were writing this (or at least was not the focus), and I feel completely disconnected from your thought process. Empathy for the reader is the most important part of an argument, and it feels completely lost here.

 >> Answer: I am stating the most general idea first and then the detailed logic to explain the statement. You're right it's a conclusion, and needs lots of explanation to be valid.

 

> Critique: Quoted  - "There is always a hidden element to our actions and feelings, and Stefan works to discover it - always relying on first principles. " - end -

 Sorry to nitpick, but after reading the opening claim, phrases like "hidden element" make me wonder what I'm getting into. 

 >> Answer: In listening to Stefan's call-in sessions, callers often express an anxiety as a "conclusion" of sorts. It is often based on part of their life that is long past or an indirect cause. I find he always tries to bring out this "hidden" source of their anxiety by working through "first principles", and that is the deep analysis required to get at root causes. 

By taking the position that paradox is a feature of our experience I am pointing to the type of relationships that can only be viewed as arising out of paradoxes.

 

> Critique: Quoted  - "I need to show that there is a definable relationship between mathematical symbols and those of language." 

Why? Tell me why before you begin to prove this claim. - end -

 >> Answer: If you are going to state that two things have a common structure then you need to find a term that describes the relationship. Then you can show how the term works as common. In this case, I was stating that the common term is "fungibility". This is a fancy word to show a relationship in which symbols are either used in specific or non-specific formats for their description. There is always overlap as well. As symbols, numbers are not specific to any particular object like "dog", but dog is specific. We can also combine the two kinds of symbols e.g. "four dogs"

 

> Critique: Quoted  - "Example: money is fungible since it is used for anything. Equally, numbers and mathematical symbols, in general, are "fungible" or "universal" for what they refer to." - end -

 I don't think the comparison makes sense. Money is physical thing while numbers are concepts. Mathematical symbols communicate (in conjunction with syntax, I guess) number concepts. So what do you mean when you say numbers are fungible? Because it would seem numbers are not fungible in the sense that I can't substitute any one number for another in an equation and get the same result. But I would like to more understand what you mean. - end -

- Just for reference: "Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution." - Wikipedia

 "able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable" - Google definition - end -

>> Answer: Yes, money (as in a dollar bill) is a physical piece of paper. However, what it can be used for is fungible as you point out below. I agree, numbers can't be indiscriminately substituted in equations, but that is not the issue. They all remain generalized symbols. 

 

> Critique: Quoted  - "On the contrary, linguistic symbols are "not fungible". For example the noun "dog" refers only to dog, and is not a universal symbol for anything else (other animals, etc)."

Dog is not a linguistic symbol. Was that a mistake? Linguistic symbols (like the letters I'm using) refer to the sounds we make when we say them. I don't know what else to say because I am still troubled by your use of the word "fungible."

It is true that a number can be used in regard to describing all different types of physical things (dogs, cars, cantaloupes), but that's because it's describing quantities, not qualities. The noun "dog" can't be used to describe turkeys because it excludes things which do not consistent of specific criteria, with few if any exceptions. But this is a matter of how we use concepts to relate to reality, not a matter of fungibility. -

>> Answer: the letters in the alphabet are linguistics symbols that are used in composite to describe things. Each of these composite symbols can subsequently be used in a string (along with other types of symbols for action using verbs)  - to tell stories, for example. 

The symbol "dog" is not the object itself otherwise we could pet and walk the symbol rather than the item it refers to.

 

>Critique: Quoted  - "Example, each photon (of light) has two forms - "particle" and "wave", and they are paradoxical in their forms. No one has ever been able to define the relationship between them, even though they refer to the same phenomenon."  

 How are they paradoxical? No one has been able to define what kind of relationship between them? What is the same phenomenon they refer to? What are they describing about that phenomenon? (laymen questions a person like me may have) - end -

>> Answer: The same phenomenon that I refer, in the specific example, is the "transmission of energy across space". It is observed to take two formats that do not make sense to each other. Here is a situation where you would have to study the issues around wave/particle duality and full explanation would be too long for here. In experiments that describe such phenomena the term that applies (as the basis of all quantum structure) is the square root of minus one, referred to symbolically as "i". This term is paradoxical to how square roots are formed in normal (classical) reality. The term simply has no meaning that we can take from it. It is paradoxical because these two frameworks for taking the square root are contradictory.

 

> Comment: Sorry to stop here, but the rest is even harder for me to understand, and I think I've given you enough to elaborate on.

 

I admire your willingness to think outside the box and attempt to make interesting connections where others haven't even if this attempt isn't successful (which I am not the ultimate judge of)

>> Reply: I think that when one decides paradox is a not an anomaly and is a natural feature of what we experience in everything, it is getting into very deep issues of context that are counter to all aspects of observation on the surface. This is certainly the case because, from what I know, every philosopher, mathematician and physicist in all of my reading has rejected any role for paradox. I have never found any academic who was willing to even consider it. 

 

If you have the opportunity to read my paper, at any time, you will see that all the interdisciplinary topics I review show the same mechanism of paradox at work. The form of proof that applies is that counter-examples do not exist - the operative mechanism of paradox is found in all of them.

Again thanks for the comments.

Doug