A question from a physics nerd.
Peace be upon you…
Chabadnik wrote to me in response to the mockery I made of Rebbe Shiloh’s interpretation of the Law of the Books. He argued that when a great man says strange things, we should humbly believe him that it is a correct explanation because we do not understand everything. As a response, I want to write in Netafei Safiyot that nonsense remains nonsense even if it is said by a great man [there is a difference between not understanding and understanding that it is not.] When there are two sides and both have some logic in them, I will trust a person who understands more than me that the side he believes is more correct. I also believe the opposite because his intuition is superior to mine. But when it is clear to me logically that it is nonsense … etc.
[I am still trying to figure out how to relate to things that are logically absurd to me, but they claim that this is the explanation in the Kabbalah, which I do not understand, but it still remains nonsense.
But to me, T.A., quantum theory sounds completely absurd to my logic. Is it only because I lack explanations or logical introductions in the theory of physics, or is it still a theory that does not fit our logic, but it must be because this will be revealed in experiments in laboratories and there is no other explanation than recognizing the fact that there are things in nature that are clearly illogical? In other words, did the first people who discovered quantum theory reach these conclusions because this is what occurred to them in their explanation and only later did they test it in the laboratory and find that this is indeed the case? Or on the contrary, did they find clearly illogical phenomena in the laboratory, but the results of the experiments showed that this is the case, that is, there are laws of nature that we have no logical perception of? If the first side, then it must be said that when a person whom I believe to be a great person says nonsense, it may not be nonsense, but my logic is not sufficiently developed.
I would appreciate your answer.
Rabbi D. Shalom Rabbi.
It is indeed so illogical that it is clear that all the pioneers of quantum theory arrived at it from experiment and not from anecdotal explanations. The findings that have accumulated up until then and since then lead us to this strange theory, and it is not without reason that Michio Kaku (a Japanese physicist) said about it: Quantum theory is the most illogical theory in the world. It has only one drawback – that it works/is correct.
But contrary to what many (including experts) believe, quantum theory contains no logical contradiction (nor does it deviate from our logic). The reason for this is very simple and twofold:
1. We arrived at these findings ourselves based on our logic. If our logic is wrong, quantum theory is also wrong. In other words: if there is no more Vedic science, then when quantum theory says X you can also simultaneously say “not X.”
2. There is a theorem in mathematics/logic that a system that maintains a contradiction can be deduced from anything (in other words: it says nothing). But from quantum theory it is impossible to deduce anything and it definitely has factual-empirical content. Hence there is no logical contradiction in it. Which would have to be proven.
Quantum theory contradicts our intuition but not logic. Intuition (reasoning) is a respectable thing (I’ve written several books about it) but not absolute. It should be treated with respect but not with admiration. That’s why it’s important to test intuitions empirically. Aristotle had an intuition that bodies fall to Earth at a speed proportional to their mass. To test this (and find out that it’s obviously not true. Everyone falls at the same speed regardless of mass) you don’t need particle accelerators, just two stones and a high place, and yet it never occurred to him to test it empirically. From his perspective, why did he call it reasoning?! So modern science teaches us that reasoning is not always correct. We must be careful with our intuitions and test them against the facts.
Of course, all my words here are about “logic” in the sense of formal (mathematical) necessary logic. Logic in the sense of reason (which is probably what this term means to you) is nothing more than reasoning, and I have already explained above the proper attitude towards it. For example, all red cow paradoxes contain no logical contradiction, but at most something incomprehensible. One must be very careful in using the term “logic,” which is itself a logical statement.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
