Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Five Factor Personality Model

Five Factor Personality Model

Applied psychology accepts and uses the five-factor model (FFM) as an objective measure of personality among people [Hoff, et al. 2021]. Despite the subjective ranking by people’s responses to a set of questions, there is objective agreement among researchers about personality differences. These subjective self-determinations show both the objective mean of each factor within a sample as well as the variability about that mean.

Although researchers use any number of different words for the five factors, most studies use some variation of the following personality factors or their complements:

  1. Confident or Emotional Stability vs. Anxious or Neurotic

  2. Social or Extraversion vs. Independent or Solitary

  3. Creative or Open vs. Conforming

  4. Agreeable vs. Assertive

  5. Conscientious vs. Impulsive

Researchers will note but do not typically rank a number of characteristics that go along with each person even though these characteristics are also very important parts of what makes up each personality. These characteristics are: 

  1. Intelligence; 50% genetic

  2. Gender; 99% genetic

  3. Education; free choice, but linked to intelligence

  4. Well Being; free choice, but depends on good health

  5. Looks; largely genetic, but can be enhanced

  6. Family; free choice, but depends on well being

  7. Religion; free choice, but depends on parents, too

  8. Job; free choice, but depends on education, intelligence, looks

However, looks and gender are mostly genetic, while half of intelligence is genetic, and the remaining characteristics are largely free choices of education, wellbeing, family, religion, and job. In fact, our feelings determine the free choices that we make and those free choices in turn make up our personality factors. 

In addition to personality factors and characteristics, it is also important to have an emotion model for feeling. Emotions are what give us feeling and it is feeling that gives us free choice. Five emotion complements are:

  1. Pleasure vs. Anxiety

  2. Compassion vs. Free Choice

  3. Joy vs. Misery

  4. Serenity vs. Anger

  5. Pride vs. Shame

While there are many other emotions, they map onto this set as laughter (joy), sorrow (misery), disgust (shame), love (compassion), hate (anger), as well as feeling pain (misery) or rapture (joy). Free choice is the emotion that not only determines outcomes of action, free choice also inhibits action. While we are born with nearly uninhibited free choice, we learn inhibitions to that free choice as we mature. Our first awareness of inhibited action by about age 2 shows us the permanence of things since that is when we learn that things continue to exist even when we do not immediately see them. It is after all very important to learn to inhibit actions that do not result in desirable outcomes.

We learn further social inhibitions by about age 6 or so and these inhibitions form the basic moral and ethical archetypes for the rest of our lives. From age 6 on, we acquire long term memories based on those archetypes and continue to learn even further inhibitions. At age 6, Formal education begins along with intellectual, social, and physical development. Sexual maturity in particular entails a large number of inhibitions necessary for social bonding. Finally, at 18, we have learned enough inhibitions to bond with others and effectively contribute to civilization. We also have learned how to handle the inevitable social conflicts that occur with others.

A recent personality model study [Hoff, et al., 2020] showed the changes in personality over 12 years in Iceland for two different gender-balanced populations: sample 1 of 485 ages 15 to 27 and sample 2 of 1,290 ages 17 to 29. The study looked at how the FFM correlated with the three outcomes of education, prestige, income, and gender. However, there were very interesting high correlations for gender as some of the largest correlations of the study. For example, men had higher income than women even though women had more education than men.

Women having lower income than men is consistent with women being more agreeable than men, since agreeable people are satisfied with the status quo and less likely to seek higher income and less likely to change jobs as well. In contrast, men are more assertive and therefore less agreeable than women and are more inclined to seek higher income and that may mean even changing jobs.

These gender correlations are statistically significant, but gender differences still fall well within the factor ranges of both men and women. This plot shows men and women social scores are shifted normal distributions with the same standard deviations. The means of men and women shift by -/+beta*SD, respectively, where beta is the slope of the social correlation regression.

The next plot shows that women are more agreeable than men regardless of age, but both men and women become more agreeable with age. In fact, agreeableness changes peaked at ages 16 and 23 and agreeableness changes were much lower at ages 20 and 26. Agreeableness correlations are consistent with teenage conflicts with parents and authorities at ages 17-22 and partner conflicts at ages 24-27.

Of course, the job type is very important for income and so personality factors that impact job preference also impact income. The next figure shows that women are more social than men and so women tend to choose more social jobs and men therefore tend to choose less social jobs. Since incomes are lower for social jobs like health care or teaching than for less social jobs like science and engineering, this means women have a lower income because of the social factor.

Note that social peaks at age 18 for both men and women and decreases from then on for both men and women as well. This seems to be consistent with people making friends and choosing partners from 15 to 18 and then having fewer friends as they age from 18 to 27 and begin families.

Confidence is another strong correlation with income, but confidence is also strongly correlated with education and yet men are more confident than women, which is consistent with greater income for men. However, women have higher education than men despite having lower confidence. Evidently, women have higher education because they are more agreeable and more social, not because they are more confident.

Note that while men become less confident with age, women become more confident with age and by age 27, men and women show equal confidence. This convergence of confidence may be due to men and women as partners and beginning families together with convergent goals.

The above plots were only from sample 1 and yet sample 2 also showed these same trends. While sample 1 did not show a significant difference in creativity for men and women, sample 2 did. For sample 2, women were more creative than men at 17 as well as less creative than men at 29 as the plot shows. Other studies [Costa et al. 2001] also tend to show higher creativity for men than women, which is consistent with the age 29 results of sample 2. These results seem to suggest that while women tend to lose creativity with age, men tend to become more creative with age.

The complement to creative is conforming and so sample 2 shows boys are more conforming than men and that girls as less conforming than women.


The five factor model is a very useful objective measure of the variation of personality within gender-balanced sample populations as well as for gender-balanced sample populations over time. The FFM’s find statistically significant differences between men and women, but also show that those differences fall well within one standard deviation of either men or of women. This paper shows correlations of education, prestige, income, and gender with each of the five personality factors: confidence, social, creativity, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

The women are the largest correlate of education outcomes and men the largest correlate of income outcomes. The women personality factors are anxious, social, and agreeable while the personality factors for men are confidence, independence, and assertive. However, the largest personality changes with age for women are increasing confidence and increasing conscientiousness with age. The largest personality changes for men with age are increasing anxiety and increasingly impulsive with age.

Obviously, the study associates women’s anxious, social, agreeable personalities with their higher education but lower income than men. Men’s confidence, independence, and assertive personalities are then why men have higher income, but lower education outcomes than women.

Personality Changes Predict Early Career Outcomes: 

Discovery and Replication in 12-Year Longitudinal Studies

K.A. Hoff , S. Einarsdóttir, C. Chu, D.A. Briley, and J. Rounds

Psychological Science, 32(1), 64–79, 2021.

Costa PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR (August 2001). "Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (2): 322–331.

Sunday, December 13, 2020

Carlo Rovelli...Understanding Consciousness within the Known Laws of Physics

Carlo Rovelli...Understanding Consciousness within the Known Laws of Physics

Rovelli is a very smart quantum physicist who likes to push the boundaries of what we can know about consciousness as well. However, consciousness is not a very useful term since it has no well accepted single meaning and instead, has many different meanings in different contexts. Understanding free choice instead of understanding consciousness then makes more sense...

Our minds are very useful for processing and remembering sensations along with memories and those archetypes then enable free choice. The mind is then key in our survival because the free choices we make shape our reality. Since people can agree about the meaning of free choice, understanding free choice is possible. In contrast, people do not now and never can actually agree about the meaning of consciousness because at the core of any well founded belief in consciousness lies belief that is unfounded.

At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded. — Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1951.

Correspondingly, at the core of well-rationalized free choice lies free choice that is not rational at all. In fact, you either believe in free choice or you believe that free choice is an illusion, but the free choice outcomes are the same irrespective of which belief you have. Free choice is how we as conscious agents act from memory and feeling from a large number of low entropy precursors that open up a large number of free choice outcomes. An objective basis for the subjective quantum free choice bridges between the mind and body and gives meaning to meaning. Known physical laws provide a complete context for free choice, but there is still a role for a quantum transcendence in free choice as well. 

Free choice is a poorly understood complex physical phenomenon, but free choice is nevertheless a result of knowable physical laws: For each free choice, either we excite or we inhibit an action. There are many possible EEG spectra that we somehow reduce to either excitation or inhibition of a single action. Free choice outcomes come from a vast number of EEG precursors, and it is free choice that is what defines meaning and purpose. In particular, Shannon’s relative information theory along with Darwin’s relevant information theory objectively define the meaning of meaning. Quantum phase makes objective matter equivalent to subjective free choice action and so there is no singularity with free choice just as there are no singularities with any quantum transition. Free choice is simply a natural consequence of the meaning of meaning.

Morality and ethics are a very important part of the meaning of meaning and there is much more to morality and ethics than just the narratives of Shannon and Darwin. This means that morality and ethics involve a large number of further narratives besides just Shannon and Darwin. In fact, different narratives emerge to bond people to different civilizations that then share those narratives with other civilizations. As different civilizations share narratives, they bond or conflict with each other until a compatible morality and ethics emerges. Compatible morality and ethics allow different civilizations to coexist and bond with each other and from that bonding eventually emerges a new civilization.

The only singularities inside of the classical relativistic universe are black holes, but black-hole singularities are simply due to the limitations of continuous space and time. In the discrete causal set of quantum matter action, there are no black-hole singularities. There are a very large number of particles and actions that make up the discrete causal set universe, all related by quantum phase.

Entropy is a count of the number of states of the universe and so entropy determines that outcomes always come from precursors in our approximate macroscopic reality of space and time. Yet the microscopic actions of quantum charge are all reversible and quantum reversibility seems to defy entropy time arrow. However, there is a continuous spontaneous localization that decays quantum phase as a part of quantum gravity. Therefore, it is actually quantum phase decay that orders free choice outcomes from precursors in the universe.

The many possible free choice outcomes create a neural entropy from those free choice outcomes and it is free choice that gives meaning to meaning, which is the metacognition of thinking about thinking. The emergence of a single thought free choice outcome from the universe of precursors increases entropy and therefore shows the direction of time from precursors to outcomes. How we feel about any single thought is, in essence, the metacognition of thinking about thinking and is the basis of free choice.

It seems strange to ask if quantum free choice has any meaning since Science knows that all microscopic outcomes are subject to quantum phase uncertainty. The real question is actually how a seemingly determinate macroscopic reality emerges from all of these ostensibly reversible microscopic quantum outcomes. The universe seems determinate albeit chaotic even though a universe with quantum gravity would still be subject to quantum phase uncertainty. Quantum phase uncertainty means that even though there are precursors for all outcomes in a causal universe, it is not possible to know the transcendent quantum precursors for all outcomes. Thus, the harbinger of free choice embeds quantum phase noise within the classical Shannon noise of chaos.

The brain is a quantum system that operates at body temperature with macroscopic decoherence of neural phase. Macroscopic decoherence of neural phase means that quantum phase noise plays a role in thought. Neural resonances do show dephasing just like the quantum resonance decay of a macroscopic laser. While a single photon of light emission is a microscopic quantum decay, a macroscopic laser decay is also quantum decay even though it involves large numbers of photons and ions. 

A subjective thought is an objective coherent resonance of about 1e12 neural action potentials that manifests as an EEG spectrum. A subjective thought is a macroscopic objective EEG resonance with an objective quantum decoherence time. Just like a macroscopic laser represents a coherent quantum decay, a macroscopic thought also represents a coherent quantum decay that determines the width of the EEG resonance just as laser decay is also an objective quantum decoherence.

As a result, the decoherence of macroscopic neural resonance is indeed a quantum decoherence. Just as with quantum emission spectra, the resonance of an excited state decays by exchange of that excitation with the universe as well as decoherence of its quantum phase with the universe.

The hard problem of classical subjective free choice is that our knowledge of the world is inherently subjective but the classical universe has an apparent objective existence and not a subjective one that depends on observation. Classically, an approximate objective matter universe exists in and of itself and is never a subjective illusion of the mind. Therefore, classically, objective matter cannot make up subjective free choice, which and must come from something else and this is the hard problem of free choice. 

However, we actually live in a quantum universe that has both objective matter as well as the objective quantum phase that links matter and action. We are neural agents and so are made of the same quantum matter, action, and phase as the rest of the universe. Since we only know about the universe with our own quantum matter, action, and phase, this limited knowledge is what we call subjective knowledge. 

Our subjective knowledge limits what we can know about the objective quantum universe, which exists outside of our mind but also includes our mind. Therefore, we use our free choice to make up most of what we see and rationalize that free choice as meaning and purpose. This is both meaning of meaning as well as thinking of thinking...

Monday, October 12, 2020

It is very exciting to read a prominent quantum physics paper that finally really unifies charge and gravity forces...or at least is on a viable path for unification. Tejinder Singh has published a series of papers on his quantum matter gravity (QMG) theory that not only unify gravity and charge, but he also shows many measurements that then validate QMG. Furthermore, the principles of QMG are consistent with my quantum matter action theory (shown below, published in three years ago) as well as with the well known continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theory...QMG is so, so sweet...

Singh’s quantum matter gravity (QMG) unification of gravity and charge is therefore a very exciting development and is especially so for me since QMG has many of the same puzzle pieces as does my quantum matter action universe puzzle. Although QMG is not quite right yet and has not been thoroughly validated by Science, it will be. Basically, QMG defines aikyon particles as the generic aether of the universe and so QMG builds electrons, protons, neutrons, and all else with either fermion or boson aikyon. An 8-D octanion matrix represents each fermion and boson and has the correct quantum spin symmetry for both charge and gravity. Here is the basic action integral, S, which is proportional to the integral of the gravity trace dynamic mass or velocities of fermions and bosons:

Then QMG uses Connes time, , and classical Euclidean or atomic time emerges from QMG. As a result, QMG defines a new constant of = 1.0e17 s or 3.2 Byrs, but in Connes time, not atomic time. Alain Connes proposed t  as thermodynamic time, i.e. entropy or temperature time, as have many others in the past. This is a universe or cosmic time that defines the evolution of the universe and so now cosmic time is different from atomic time.

Another key to QMG is in continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, which is a very well know way to collapse the quantum wavefunction conundrum. So CSL is how the reality of classical gravity relativity emerges from QMG. That is very fun…

The 1e-39th scaling between gravity and charge emerges from the ratio (LP/L)2, and both L and LP are characteristic lengths that each come from known constants. The Planck length is LP and QMG length L is L = ћ/(c m), a characteristic length that scales with inverse mass ћ/c * 1/m. Here is the QMG Lagrangian equation of motion:

Dark matter simply emerges as a vector gravity from QMG and does not therefore need a new particle at all. However, there are many pesky singularities with many aspects of QMG, but QMG does manage to dodge the renormalization problem from gravity in quantum field theory.

Octonions are eight dimensional matrices that unify gravity and charge in this hypothetical 8-D space. Instead of atomic time, Singh uses thermodynamic or entropy time, , which was proposed by Alain Connes and so Singh calls t  Connes time, but many others have proposed entropy as the time arrow as well. Of course, the classical evolution of the universe is what drives thermodynamics and entropy and so Connes time is also equivalent to that universe time as well.

The deep dive of QMG into octonion algebra is quite complex and it is not yet clear if the really simple QMG assumptions really justifies the rabbit hole of octonion complexification. A classical 4-D spacetime emerges from the QMG trace of just half of the 8-D octonion matrix and then quantum spin emerges from the other octonion half. The QMG introduces 4-D aikyons to represent fundamental octonion fermion and boson particles along with QMG length (L), gauge (), and fermi matrices (b1b2). Each 4-D fermion has progress variables that scale with QMG L, qF  and mass from momentum of velocity F and each 4-D boson is on a path, qB with mass B. The dot above the q is a single derivative in Coones time, which is an 8-D velocity and proportional to momentum and therefore mass, and so q̣̈ is the double derivative, which is acceleration.

The next step is to renormalize qB and qF into q1 and q2 to make things pretty and avoid some ugly math...with an even deeper rabbit hole, so buckle up. The QMG aikyons are now either commutating bosons [qBpF] from which classical gravity relativity emerges or noncommuting fermions {qFpF} as quantum field theory emerges. The QMG paths q1 and q2 now have both symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions as well as momenta and all show the classic quantum uncertainty noncommutation: [p, q] = -iћ...and voilá! The Hamiltonian wave equation follows with frequency eigenvalues and so oscillating wavefunctions...oops, QMG still has some convergence issues hiding here and there...and so there are many more papers to write…

The QMG goes down a very deep rabbit hole because multiplying 8-D matrices results in two 64-D matrices with a total of 128 matrix elements. Wow! This will be a lot of papers in the future...

Although QMG has many of the features of quantum gravity, it is not yet completely clear if the complexity of octonion algebra is really necessary. After all, matter action has many of the same features, but only uses 3-D, not 8-D. Matter, action, and quantum phase unite into a very nice quantum universe with a Lagrangian, density matrix, and creation/annihilation operators. The quantum matter action causal set has all of the properties such as a Lagrangian for action. It could be that simply including the Fermi spin matrices in the action integral will provide for spin within just matter and action.

The matter action photon is the basic dipole exchange particle for charge and the universe biphoton is the basic quadrupole exchange particle for gravity. Just like the QMG aikyon, matter action has a pervasive aether particle that makes up the whole universe. Instead of using the dimensionless QMG LP / L for gravity scaling and QMG Connes time, , matter action uses the dimensionless universe radius over the Bohr radius, radius Ru / rB. Thus, instead of an arbitrary QMG L, matter action uses the actual universe radius for its dimensionless scaling. 

Connes or entropy time represents the primary QMG quantum time dimension, t  = 1e17 s or 3.2 Byrs. Matter action universe time is t  = 1.2e-17 s, but comes from the time pulse of the universe size, Ru. Atomic time emerges from both QMG and matter action as the classical time of gravity relativity, and so the second primary dimension of universe time plays a key role in quantum gravity relativity.

The QMG length L is inversely proportional to particle mass and so for hydrogen, L = 2.2e-16 m, which turns out to be too small for CSL hydrogen. Matter action defines the characteristic CSL length as 7.0e-8 m, which is the radius at which hydrogen dipole-induced dipole attraction, which goes as 1/r6, equals hydrogen-hydrogen gravity attraction, which goes as 1/r2. Thus matter action completely agrees with CSL while QMG L for hydrogen CSL seems to be a billion times too small.

The QMG constants are action as ћ / c and time t  = 1.0e17 s from which length emerges proportional to inverse mass. Matter action constants are action the matter scaled Planck constant as 

ћae = ћ / c2 

with units of [kg s] and aether particle mass mae as

with units of kg, which scales as the ratio of gravity and charge and inversely with the hydrogen Bohr time, tB. A universe cosmic time, Tu = ½ * hae / mae = 13.4 Byrs, emerges from the transform of the universe pulse length of matter action. However, the inverse Hubble constant determines our current cosmic time as Ta = k / Hubble = 1.2e17 s = 3.4 Byrs with a matter-action luminous distance correction, k. The matter-action luminous correction is not a new constant but simply expresses the acceleration of matter-action light over cosmic time.

Finally, Singh's QMG gives Science a truly significant unification theory. It is very pleasing to finally see this happen, but Science will now fight the coming QMG revolution quite fiercely as well it should...eventually, Science will accept something very similar but much simpler than QMG to finally show unification at long last...

Friday, October 9, 2020

The Measurement Problem

It is quite amazing that the quantum measurement “problem” is still considered a quantum “problem” by a very large number of very smart people. Despite having been explained countless times by countless people in countless ways, somehow many very smart people are still making their careers out of being either for and against the problem of quantum measurement.

Determinate gravity relativity does not include quantum phase precursors and so quantum decoherence is simply not important for classical gravity outcomes. Somehow, gravity outcomes only involve coherent and not incoherent quantum phase. However, both coherent and incoherent quantum phase precursors are very important for quantum outcomes. Quantum phase decoherence and incoherence are at the very root of the quantum measurement “problem” as well as the many worlds interpretation. 

While incoherent quantum phase precursors seem to play no role in the coherent quantum phase of the outcomes of determinant gravity relativity geodesics, quantum phase precursors and therefore quantum phase incoherence are key to the uncertainties of quantum outcomes. The Mermin device as well as its Stern-Gerlach effect both illustrate quantum phase superposition...

The Mermin device illustrates quantum phase superposition and correlation for two particles patterned after the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, which shows quantum spin superposition for just a single silver atom. The quantum measurement “problem” is all about quantum phase superposition and correlation and, of course, quantum phase decoherence. Quantum reality is all about quantum phase coherence and decoherence while the classical reality of gravity relativity only involves coherent quantum phase. 

A single quantum particle can exist as an incoherent superposition of two quantum phase states before a measurement, but after a measurement, the particle becomes coherent with one phase or the other and so the wavefunction seems to have “collapsed” from incoherence into coherence. This is the essence of the quantum measurement “problem” because a particle spin only seems to have a particular spin reality after the measurement. Thus it seems the measurement suddenly collapsed the particle spin wavefunction, which made the particle quantum spin coherent and therefore classically real.

However, a quantum particle spin both before and after a measurement is a superposition of two spin states. A linear spin state is just a coherent superposition of a right and left circular polarization and so the measurement does not really collapse the particle spin into a coherent linear spin state.The measurement rather correlates particle quantum spin phase the measurement device quantum spin phase. This correlation is not instantaneous and rather occurs over a finite time from an uncorrelated superposition to a correlated superposition of particle and measurement device spin states.

The very typical approximation of a quantum measurement as instantaneous makes it seem like a wavefunction collapses suddenly into a single-spin state. Any actual quantum measurement, however, takes a finite time to create a coherent phase superposition from an incoherent one and that finite time involves the exchange of a large number of virtual photons. The typical statement of the measurement “problem” claims that the reality of a particular phase for a quantum state for a particle does not seem to exist until a measurement of the quantum phase of that particle.

Very smart people have been arguing about the nature of our quantum reality and quantum incoherence for over a hundred years. Really, no classical measurement is ever instantaneous either and so there is a dynamic evolution in any real measurement and a real measurement of a real particle’s quantum phase does not instantaneously change or collapse quantum phase at all. 

However, the measurement problem is not the real quantum dilemma. The real quantum dilemma is about the uncertain nature of quantum precursors and causality given incoherent quantum phase versus that of classical coherent quantum phase causality, which does not include the incoherence of quantum phase. In our causal reality, every quantum outcome has a precursor and there are no supernatural or mystical precursors for any outcomes. However, we cannot always know about the incoherent precursor of a coherent quantum outcome. 

Classically, all causal outcomes have knowable coherent precursors even those outcomes where we might not immediately know the precursor. Classical gravity relativity is therefore determinate and there are no unknowable precursors. Classical noise does typically limit classical knowledge, but classical noise is knowable up to the limit of the classical universe and therefore all determinate classical outcomes are in principle predictable in the universe limit. Classically, there are also no supernatural or mystical precursors for any classical outcomes.

Quantum outcomes, however, are inherently uncertain since quantum precursors can be in an incoherent superposition even though quantum outcomes are also causal and coherent and do have precursors. Therefore, an incoherent quantum phase superposition precursor is not precisely knowable beyond some well-defined uncertainty and therefore a coherent quantum outcome depends on the quantum phase of the measurement device as well as the particle measured. Therefore, incoherent quantum phase represents an unknowable precursor because, before a measurement, the coherent outcomes are only limited by a well-defined uncertainty. 

With incoherent quantum phase precursors, then, it is simply not possible for Science to preclude the existence of supernatural or mystical effects for some coherent quantum phase outcomes. This really bothers many classical materialists because precursors with quantum phase incoherence are not precisely knowable, but that is the nature of our quantum reality.

The quantum measurement “problem” has been a dilemma ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics. All classical particles follow classical determinant geodesic paths in gravity relativity and so all classical geodesic path outcomes have knowable classical precursors. The earth orbits the sun and that orbit consists of all knowable precursors, but all quantum particles that have quantum phase incoherence have a well-defined uncertainty in quantum phase paths. Quantum phase incoherence means that some incoherent precursors exist in quantum phase superpositions that cause coherent outcomes with fundamentally unknowable incoherent precursors, albeit limited by a well-defined uncertainty.

The typical depiction of a superposition of quantum spin = ½ state for a particle starts with a superposition of spin-up and spin-down wavefunctions with coherent phases, so the incoherence of quantum phase is simply ignored. Measuring a spin state, though, always results in either coherent spin-up or spin-down state outcomes despite the existence of an incoherent superposition of state precursors to the measurement outcomes.

The quantum superposition state seems to have instantaneously collapsed or rephased into spin up or spin down upon measurement even though the quantum particle was in a superposition state of incoherent quantum phase prior to the measurement. In other words, measuring a coherent spin-up state does not then mean the particle was in the coherent spin-up state prior to the measurement. The coherent spin phase of the measurement along with many virtual photon exchanges are what transforms an incoherent superposition into a coherent spin-up state over some definite time.

However, the measured coherent linear spin state is also a superposition of two orthogonal spins as spin-right and spin-left circular phases. A superposition of circularly coherent phased spin-right and spin-left states is equivalent to coherent spin-up state. The action of the measurement transforms an incoherent superposition into a coherent linear or equivalent circular spin-right and spin-left superposition.

The measurement then transforms the incoherent circular phases of the two orthogonal spins into a coherent spin up as coherent rcp plus lcp. Instead of a state seeming to instantaneously disappear upon measurement, measurement simply polarizes or phases an incoherent spin superposition into a coherent superposition of spin states.

Gravity relativity does not yet include quantum phase incoherence because gravity force represents only coherent quantum phases of photon pairs. Gravity is similar to the always attractive coherent quantum phase of a dipole-induced-dipole dispersive force between a pair of neutral atoms, but dispersive forces vary as 1/r^6 power while gravity dispersion varies as 1/r^2. Gravity relativity is a coherent dispersive dipole-induced-dipole force, but now between the resultant quadrupoles of each atom wavefunction with the universe wavefunction. Thus the universe size fixes the dispersive attractive gravity force as an attraction of atom quadrupole biphotons or gravitons. Each atom’s biphoton quadrupole attracts all other atom biphoton quadrupoles and that defines the coherence of gravity force.

A single photon has spin = 1 and is always therefore in a superposition of two polarizations, {+1, -1} or {rcp, lcp} and so there are many different polarization wavefunction bases possible. One common basis is linear {parallel, perpendicular} and a second common basis is right circular/left circular, {rcp, lcp}.

A linear polarization is a superposition of rcp (phase1) + lcp (phase1) and rcp is a superposition of parallel (phase1) + perpendicular (phase1+90deg). There is a spin phase factor for each polarization and so a single light photon can actually be in an incoherent polarization state relative to other photons. Another photon of the same color entangled with the first photon has its same incoherent polarization state and this is coherence. That polarization entanglement will persist until there is a decoherence event of either or both photons. 

A measurement is just such a decoherence event and the classical presumption is that the measurement outcome of a single photon polarization then reveals what the photon polarization precursor was before the measurement. However, our cruel quantum logic says the precise precursor polarization is actually unknowable and there are rather a very large, but limited, number of possible polarization precursors. 

Measuring a single photon polarization only reveals its precursor as many possible, but still limited, superpositions. Thus, the action of one measurement seems to have created a new world from the old world with the measurement apparatus that made a single photon polarization coherent and that new world is different from the many possible precursor polarization worlds of an incoherent single photon polarization. How can that be mon ami? That is simply the way of our uncertain quantum world.

A photon polarizer or analyzer, which are the same device but used for different precursors, involves a complex dispersive interaction between a single photon electric field and a large number of bound electrons in an transparent medium. There are many different kinds of polarizers like the Glans-Thompsen, which has two calcite crystals with different orientations and each cut at a particular angle and glued together. An ideal polarizer transmits only linear parallel polarized photons at the interface and reflects only linear perpendicular polarized photons. Assuming the incoming light is incoherent, each photon dipole induces an image dipole in the bound electrons of the calcite crystals interface. Therefore, the polarizer actually changes the photon polarization just as much as the photon polarization changes the electron clouds of each calcite crystal.

Thus, the measurement of a single photon polarization affects the photon polarization in a very well defined way to produce a single photon polarization now coherent with the polarizer spin phase. While the polarizer will only polarize a single incoherent photon into one of two possible path, each photon will still be in a superposition of {rcp, lcp}. Therefore, it is not possible to know the precursor photon polarization any better than 50%.

Sunday, September 27, 2020

Politics Is Visceral

Politics Is Visceral

Manos Tsakiris has written a very good essay on how visceral emotion and feeling are at the root of politics as opposed to rational thought. This essay notes that people feel increasingly unsafe today and so the emotion anxiety is in play in politics. The essay also notes that anxiety as well as anger in politics are really not rational and so politics is mainly based on how people feel, i.e., politics is visceral not rational.

The essay seems to assert that the visceral politics of today are not driven by any fundamental political disagreement. Rather, it is politicians' persuasive language and not any fundamental political disagreement that drives today's visceral politics. In other words, today's visceral politics not due to political disagreements but rather due to persuasive language of politicians.

The essay mentions the rational Polis of Aristotle as an example of rational politics that has never proven to be true. The essay then mentions the Thomas Hobbes' lawlessness that would result from the irrational war of all against all. Hobbes supposed human nature was first of all callous and not compassionate and callous free choice was fundamentally irrational and needed the social contracts of compassion to limit the natural lawlessness of callous free choice.

The essay argues that modern life undermines the the human well being of the UK social welfare state from the 1942 Beveridge report. Modern life increasingly does not distribute human well-being evenly that is a precursor of many modern day maladies like depression and suicide. The essay uses a Trump rally quote to show how language increases political anxiety and anger.

"The American people are fed up with Democrat lies, hoaxes, smears, slanders and scams. The Democrats’ shameful conduct has created an angry majority, and that’s what we are, we’re a majority and we’re angry."

However, the essay does not show why the Trump quote is not true and therefore not justified. Since there have been Democrat lies, hoaxes, slanders, scams, and shameful conduct, the emotions would then be justified and therefore help people to increase human well being.

The essay ends with a quote from Hannah Arendt, "the ideal subject of a totalitarian regime is one ‘for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (ie, the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (ie, the standards of thought) no longer exist.’"

The essay now argues that somehow, the visceral politics of modern life and human well being depends on distinguishing fact from fiction to preclude a totalitarian regime. 

Nowhere in the essay is there any discussion of the universal political disagreement over conservative individual free choice versus the liberal coerced choices of compassion state, which is the foundation of all modern politics. The visceral politics of modern life seem to be the classic political difference between the conservative Adam Smith of individual free choice versus the liberal Rousseau of enforced state compassion. Rousseau, after all, argues that first of all, human nature was compassionate and not callous, but otherwise followed Hobbes.

There is some purpose and meaning to the visceral politics of modern life. There is, after all, a fundamental recurring political disagreement over the limits of individual free choice versus the limits of state-enforced compassion. In fact, previous outcomes repeatedly shown us that either callous free choice or unfettered compassion can lead to a totalitarian state.

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Free Choice and Compassion

Emotions that accompany the two main complementary conservative and liberal ideologies of civilization are the complementary emotions of free choice and compassion. All emotions come from the primitive mind and not the rational conscious mind and so emotions are why we feel the way that we feel and are why we do what we do.

Conservative ideology favors more individual free choice with limited government coercion while liberal ideology limits individual free choice with more government coercion. Extreme conservative ideology with unfettered free choice then suppresses liberal compassion and will end up despotic and tyrannical. Likewise, extreme liberal ideology with unfettered compassion then suppresses conservative free choice and will likewise end up despotic and tyrannical.

Thus Nazism or Fascism represent an extreme conservative with unfettered free choice by a ruling elite, while socialism or communism represent a extreme liberal with unfettered compassion by a ruling elite and have both demonstrated despotic tyranny outcomes. Despite having complementary feeling precursors of free choice or compassion, respectively, extremes of both conservative and liberal end up as despotic tyrannies. This is also why successful free market capitalism must always tolerate some political and religious dissent and free market capitalisms thus have necessarily more representative democracy outcomes.

The balance between a callous free choice tolerating the feeling of an individual and the compassionate coerced choice of intolerance has been a long struggle for civilization. Ancient China, India, and Rome all achieved some success as totalitarian states rule by the unfettered free choice of their ruling classes and a fundamental acceptance and indeed promotion of the suffering and misery of everyone else. Then, Western Civilization adopted a Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic that introduced the primacy of individual free choice for most people as a a different feeling with more compassion to reduce suffering for those outside of the ruling class.

In particular, the Judeo-Christian ethic taught that both rich and poor people have the same free choice of grace and salvation and therefore both could reach salvation and heaven by their own free choice. People did not have to accept their suffering and misery, but could choose a different destiny from that of their birth. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic shows the primacy of individual free choice and free choice gave rise to the innovation of technological advances that increased the wealth of all people, including the poor, and gave rise to a middle class as a result.

China’s CCP is a very good example of the unfettered compassion of a ruling class since the CCP uses their unfettered compassion to justify tyranny and intolerance over everyone else. The unfettered CCP compassion considers itself virtuous because it has good intentions for most people, but the CCP cannot tolerate any religious or political dissent and so mercilessly suppresses the free choice of both religious and political minorities. The CCP is now actively suppressing all non-state religions, Uighurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

Syrian Assad’s ruling class also represents callous free choice that likewise cannot tolerate any dissent and Assad’s nine-year long civil war ruthlessly suppresses all religious and political dissent. Likewise Iran's theocracy callous free choice likewise cannot tolerate any dissent in Iran and ruthlessly suppresses all political and religious dissent outside of the ruling theocracy.

All of these examples of one-party rule are at the extremes of either callous free choice or unfettered compassion.

Friday, September 25, 2020

Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault

Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault

All people learn from infancy to first of all transcend their fundamental anxieties about the empty nothing of nihilism in order to comprehend physical reality. Some few people then partially deconstruct their original beliefs and reconstruct new beliefs and become evangelists for that new belief. Evangelists desire to persuade people to believe a particular set of morals and ethics to give them purpose and meaning and reduce their suffering and misery.

The Roman Catholic Bishop Barron's talk to the Knights of Malta used works from four prominent atheist philosophers to represent the philosophical foundations of the current U.S. culture war. These four evangelists each partially deconstructed the religion archetypes of their upbringings and then reconstructed new archetypes about power. Their new archetypes spanned 128 years as The Communist Manifesto by Marx in 1848, Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche in 1886, Being and Nothingness by Sartre in 1953, and The History of Sexuality by Foucault in 1976. These works and their authors represent the foundation of the current culture of reconstructed identity and the power of its relativist individual morality focused on transcendence from individual instead of religious power. It is then the transcendence of individual power that provides morals, ethics, meaning, and purpose.

Christians like Barron argue that it is religious belief and not individual power that transcends anxiety about nihilism and so these four archetypes represent to Barron the dreaded four horseman of the apocalypse. The common theme among the horseman is the rejection of the prevailing religious morality and ethics that represent the power of a cultural elite. These new evangelists claim that the power elite simply contrive a morality and ethics just to oppress other identity groups like women and blacks or workers and so on. The horseman all argue that identity groups should all reject the elite morality and ethics and reconstruct their own morality and ethics with their individual power. 

In fact, each of the horseman reconstruct a different morality and ethics instead of adopting the power elite's well-accepted archetypes of morality and ethics. For example, instead of the morality and ethics of the Judeo-Christian-Islam tradition, each individual has the free choice to reconstruct their own morality and ethics...from nothing but their nihilist anxiety. Of course, there are a large number of narratives of Western Civilization that provide a rich and common source of meaning, purpose, morals, and ethics.

Marx argued in 1848 that first of all wealth inequality was due to the ruling class tyranny of capital free markets. The ruling class minority takes their profit from the labor of the working class majority, who must then take power by force from the ruling class minority by force of revolution. Once the working class has power, a utopia will appear, but of course the working class will need to imprison or kill the ruling class to prevent their recurrence as a counter revolution.

Nietzche argued in 1886 that first of all God was dead and so all individuals must deconstruct religious morals and ethics. People should begin with an anxiety about the nothingness of nihilism and then reconstruct their own morality and ethics from the nothing of nihilism with their individual will to power as ubermensch. Of course, the streets will run red in blood as ubermensh will then conflict with and kill each other.

Sartre furthered Nietzsche's existential anxiety of nihilism in 1953 and begins the universe not with the creation of a transcendent God, but rather with the creation of a transcendent nihilism, which is again creation of something from nothing. As long as everyone is authentic to their existential selves, a utopia will appear for authentic people. Of course, authentic people will then need to imprison or kill those who are not authentic to themselves.

Foucault in 1976 concluded that the power elite used their power to simply invent a morality and ethics to oppress all identity groups. Since anything can come from nihilism, therefore, the power elite should use their power to create a utopia by using their power to imprison or kill other identity groups with less power. 

These four horsemen of the apocalypse all offer four very different ways to transcend the bottomless anxiety of nihilism with the pleasure of a relative morality and ethics for an identity group in power. Bishop Barron argued instead that the pleasure of Catholic belief represents an absolute morality and ethics that comes from a belief in a Catholic God. Barron did not mention the many other factions of beliefs but says that it is the pleasure of a Judeo-Christian tradition like Catholicism that transcends the anxiety of nihilism with the pleasure of religious belief. In particular, Barron argues that there is pleasure in the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church belief in God that has always effectively transcended nihilist anxieties. Although Catholics have imprisoned or killed other identity groups in the past, in order to create a utopia, Barron evidently does not believe that will happen again.

These four horseman all transcended their anxieties over nihilism with four different beliefs that each can replace all ancient religious moral and ethical beliefs. Barron does not address the even more diverse factions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality and ethics and that diversity is a fertile ground for sowing our post modern culture's bottomless black holes of nihilist anxiety. The further diverse factions of Confucius, Buddhism, the Dao, and the Vedas further complicate any single claim of absolute morality and ethics like that of Barron's Catholicism.

People progress in life by the pleasure of discovering new people, new places, new foods, new drink, and even new beliefs. People also get pleasure in discovering new beliefs as archetypes since archetypes are necessary to transcend their anxieties about what they cannot ever know, which is the bottomless pit of nihilism. People need ways to transcend their anxieties about nihilism and what they cannot ever know, which is the primal fear of the bottomless pit of nihilism and is what we fear most of all. 

Thus, all compassionate people, including the four horseman as well as Bishop Barron, want to reduce the suffering and misery of others. Each evangelizes a different way to transcend the injustice of people who suffer in misery, but who do not deserve their suffering and misery. However, they all argue that even compassionate people must first of all transcend their own anxieties about nihilism before they can ever hope to transcend the injustice of the suffering and misery of others.

The problem with all of these evangelizations is the danger of majority faction tyranny over minority factions. The problem is not with the factions per se but rather with the majority tyranny. In fact, the factions are what mitigate the problem of majority tyranny. When bad things happen to good people, those people face the injustice of misery and anxiety of suffering from those bad things. The precursors of such suffering from bad things are often simply unknowable and yet those people who suffer still get angry and lash out at and blame others as enemies for injustices that cause their suffering. Other compassionate people who see such suffering will also get angry and lash out at any perceived unjust enemy as the cause of even fundamentally unknowable precursors of suffering.

Thus, these four horseman are simply evangelists of four very different transcendent beliefs while Barron is an evangelist for his own Catholic belief. In fact, transcendent beliefs by definition do not have knowable precursors...including each of the horseman's transcendent beliefs. Although precursors exist in our causal reality, there are matter-action precursors that we cannot ever know as an inescapable axiom of the reality of quantum phase. People must have archetype beliefs that allow them to transcend unknowable precursors. For example, there are unknowable precursors for some of the injustices of suffering and misery by people who do not deserve to suffer or to be miserable.