The last level of metaphor in the Alice books is this: that life, viewed rationally and without illusion, appears to be a nonsense tale told by an idiot mathematician. At the heart of things science finds only a mad, never-ending quadrille of Mock Turtle Waves and Gryphon Particles. For a moment the waves and particles dance in grotesque, inconceivably complex patterns capable of reflecting on their own absurdity.
Leaving aside the dubiousness of calling the way the universe actually works “nonsense” and “mad”: It seems very, very, very unlikely that anything in Lewis Carroll’s writings was a metaphor for quantum mechanics. He died in 1898.
(I suppose something can be used as a metaphor for quantum mechanics without having been intended as one, though.)
As natural as QFT seems today, my understanding is that in 1960, before many of the classic texts in the domain were published, the ideas still seemed quite strange. We would do well to remember that when we set out to search for other truths which we do not yet grasp.
What’s Martin complaining about, exactly? That goodness is nowhere in physical law, so things can be unfair and horrible for no reason? That goodness is reducible in the first place? That physics is hard and therefore deserves nasty words like “absurd”?
You have misrepresented me. I was refuting the bit where a human was said to be doing something “rationally and without illusion”: chances are that doesn’t happen (especially regarding a topic as broad as “life”).
Martin Gardner, The Annotated Alice
Leaving aside the dubiousness of calling the way the universe actually works “nonsense” and “mad”: It seems very, very, very unlikely that anything in Lewis Carroll’s writings was a metaphor for quantum mechanics. He died in 1898.
(I suppose something can be used as a metaphor for quantum mechanics without having been intended as one, though.)
The heck? Quantum fields are completely lawful and sane. Only the higher levels of organization, i.e. human beings, are bugfuck crazy.
Behold, the Copenhagen Interpretation causes BRAIN DAMAGE.
As natural as QFT seems today, my understanding is that in 1960, before many of the classic texts in the domain were published, the ideas still seemed quite strange. We would do well to remember that when we set out to search for other truths which we do not yet grasp.
:p
Maybe, but the Big World idea causes much more severe damage, judging by the recent discussions here and elsewhere.
What’s Martin complaining about, exactly? That goodness is nowhere in physical law, so things can be unfair and horrible for no reason? That goodness is reducible in the first place? That physics is hard and therefore deserves nasty words like “absurd”?
Lewis Carroll was religious, and to add to that, he was human.
These threads would be very sparsely populated if we avoided quoting humans.
You have misrepresented me. I was refuting the bit where a human was said to be doing something “rationally and without illusion”: chances are that doesn’t happen (especially regarding a topic as broad as “life”).
Upvoted for dry wit.
Is fiction permitted? Most of my favorite quote are not from ‘humans’.
For that matter, so was Martin Gardner.