View Single Post
Old 21st February 2008, 04:25 PM   #51
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
The relationship between quanta and psychons

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Isn't it strange that people believing in all the many animals (epicycles) of the current particle zoo of orthodox physics (e.g. neutrinos, quarks, gravitons, gluons) invoke Occam's razor against the wonderfully simple and elegant psychon concept, having explicative power from biochemistry to one of the oldest philosophical problems, the body-mind problem?
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
... But he did not actually say the word "quantum".

Is it difficult to recognize that the psychon concept is related to the concept of quanta as conceived by Einstein?
Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). (Wikipedia)
As far as I know, Einstein even acknowledged an influence from Spinoza on his concept of quanta.

Spinoza uses a concept 'individuum', which can be translated as 'individual unit' or 'individual part'. Such 'individual units' of matter are e.g. molecules and atoms.

Two quotes from Ethics, PART II:
By particular things, I mean things which are finite and have a conditioned existence; but if several individual things concur in one action, so as to be all simultaneously the effect of one cause, I consider them all, so far, as one particular thing.

The human body is composed of a number of individual parts, of diverse nature, each one of which is in itself extremely complex.
The first who recognized that even electromagnetic radiation consists of such 'individuals' was Einstein. Max Planck had assumed, that due to some not yet understood mechanism, radiation is emitted and received as quanta, but that the radiation itself is a continuous phenomenon. (In a similar way one can decrease or increase the continuous quantity of a soup by quantized values of soup-spoons.)

According to Spinoza, the universe (i.e. Deus sive Natura, God or Nature) has two aspects we can can recognize: the material aspect (res extensa) and the psychic aspect (res cogitans). In taking seriously the mind aspect of Spinoza's 'individua', one directly arrives at the psychon concept. In doing that, I consider myself a consistent and straightforward follower of Einstein.

Nevertheless, the additional quantization of interactions between (real) quanta (e.g. repulsive forces between two electrons) is primarily a consequence of Planck's original error of attributing the origin of the light-quanta effects not to the light-quanta themselves but to the processes of emission and reception. Only this additional quantization leads to such concepts as 'virtual photons', 'gravitons' and 'gluons'. Thus the concept 'virtual photon' is completely different from Einstein's light quanta.

"In some respect, QM was an attempt not to admit that Einstein was right after experiments (Compton 1923, Bothe and Geiger 1925) had shown that Bohr was wrong (e.g. Bohr, Kramers and Slater) and Einstein right. The fathers of QM tried to save as much as possible from their previously advocated but now experimentally refuted positions, taking refuge with obscure mathematics." (...)

Cheers, Wolfgang
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top