Quantum Politics (2781 words)

The blog started by Amit Goswami, P.h.D. in 2008 has recently fuelled the rise of mainstream coverage of so-called “Quantum Politics”.

Though we can point to a few anecdotal instances of quantum mechanics being used in propaganda and mercantilism in more recent times, it hasn’t really been “en vogue” since the world wars. Before the 1940s, quantum mechanics was fashionable to debate (see image below) but debate was shut down afterwards and an unquestionable Einsteinian model was instituted. A predominantly deterministic model was favoured and quantum mechanics was mostly discarded as “woo”. However, the truth is that we live in a quantum mechanical universe and so such a formalism will eventually win out over its rivals.

That’s just how truth works.


One of the cornerstones of modern physics is the idea of the correspondence principle. This states that quantum systems must converge to the classical limit for large values of n (large numbers of particles, macroscopic systems). This conclusion was reached erroneously via the (false) conclusion that classical mechanics being true on the macroscopic level implies that quantum mechanics is false (on the macroscopic scale). This idea has no logical basis and exists only to thwart genuine scientific progress, same as Karl Popper’s (not a scientist, mind you) idea about unfalsifiability being unscientific. Gravity isn’t falsifiable and gravity is obviously scientific. Unfalsifiable simply means unable to be proven false, in other words: true. (note that in this case, true does not mean absolutely true, it means Boolean true). Thus science has been remade to contain only “falsifiable” premises. Popper draws an equivalence between “unfalsifiable” and “untestable” when these words clearly mean different things. You can test gravity, you cannot falsify gravity. You can create no situation where the effect of gravity can be neglected because it’s ubiquitous.

Culturally, this creates a stigma for anyone who tries to associate macroscopic phenomena to quantum mechanical effects, as it violates the correspondence principle, a cornerstone of the Standard Model. If you go against the Standard Model of physics, you are harshly criticised and often ostracised by mainstream circles. Most people cannot deny their basic desire for social cohesion and so they deny truth in exchange for acceptance from their peers. Science suffers as a result.

Of course, like all lies, it cannot withstand the light of day and eventually collapses under its own weight. People let the lie go because they realise the truth is much less cumbersome to carry. Truth always enriches your life while lies always diminish it. The truth is that all interactions are essentially quantum mechancial and that classical physics only applies to a very limited class of problems (those whose quantum mechanical effects are negligible on that scale).

Errythang is QM, bra

This revelation solves one set of problems (false physics) and introduces a more pernicious one (misinterpreting true physics). Since quantum mechanics is true, it is technically unfalsifiable. But that does not make it immune from subversion. Let’s see if this new “quantum politics” meme gives us any real insights.

The origin of this notion comes from the sparsely updated blog of Dr. Goswami, which presents a thesis on the structure of the quantum mind. From the link:

What is quantum psychology?  Quantum psychology is based on quantum principles.  Its primary premise is that all objects of our experience—sensing, feeling, thinking, and intuiting—are quantum objects that have a two realm existence—possibility and actuality.  As quantum possibilities, they are embedded in a holistic nonlocal consciousness; as actualities they make up four independent worlds: the physical (for sensing), the vital (for feeling), the mental (for thinking meaning), the archetypal or supramental (for intuiting).  These worlds do not directly interact; their interactions are mediated by the signaless communication of nonlocal consciousness.

It is true that Quantum Mechanics divides reality into two realms: the potential and the actual. However, without a proper interpretation, this idea is pretty much meaningless. Without underlying wisdom, you will no better be able to express yourself using quantum mechanics than any other language. It is obvious that this author is trying to prematurely unify Vedic Science with its western counterpart. However, he is not taking a sufficiently objective stance and so his formalism is easily disproven. Never go full Deepak. It’s not a good look.

It should be really easy to defeat a grumpy, God-hating atheist like Dawkins in debate, yet Chopra fails.

dawkins atheist infinity loop
ya, that’s… not going to work

Next, let’s explore the logical fallacies intrinsic to Goswami’s interpretation.

As quantum possibilities, they are embedded in a holistic nonlocal consciousness”

I understand your desire to link the notion of Universal consciousness to the physical sciences more than most. However, you must learn that those educated in the West are propagandised from birth to reject such equivalences. The fact that the mind is a quantum computer does not predict the existence of a holistic nonlocal consciousness. All it predicts are the actions of individual minds. Much more work must be done to first define then predict the existence of a Universal mind, if that is indeed your goal.

Nonlocality is an ultra-confusing thing. Take the electron for instance, the simplest massive (quantum) system. Within the electron waveform, the position and momentum vectors are not localised. This can be proven with the slit experiment. The electron always lands in the same place on the screen in the absence of a slit whereas a diffraction pattern emerges when a slit of sufficiently small size is introduced in its path. This means that forcing the electron to localise its waveform to the slit position (in order to pass through it) also reduced its momentum (to one of its eigenstates). By Uncertainty, reduction in potential of position creates a canonically conjugate increase in manifestation of potential momenta.


Just because there exists a distribution of potential momenta within the electron waveform does not mean it is universally nonlocalised! The waveform of the electron is 100% localised [to the region where its probability of observation is equal to one]. This fact does not translate to the existence of a holistic nonlocal consciousness. It just means that individual, local consciousness (which is QM in essence) exists (in all living things). It says nothing about a nonlocalised quantum mechanical entity.

“As quantum possibilities, they are embedded in a holistic nonlocal consciousness; as actualities they make up four independent worlds: the physical (for sensing), the vital (for feeling), the mental (for thinking meaning), the archetypal or supramental (for intuiting)”

Again, you are trying to draw an equivalence between the mind (as understood by Westerners) and the lokas (as interpreted by traditional scholars). You cannot naively draw such a parallel; without absolute certitude, your formalism will surely fail.

one does not simply unify vedas with quantum mechancis

These four worlds you speak of cannot possibly be independent. It would violate the very structure of quantum mechanics. Since we have already deduced that the (human) mind is a quantum computer, we must also accept article 1 of the Copenhagen Interpretation which states that “A wave function Ψ represents the state of the system. It encapsulates everything that can be known about that system before an observation; there are no additional “hidden parameters”. The wavefunction evolves smoothly in time while isolated from other systems.” That means that these eigenstates you speak of (sensing, feeling, thinking meaning & intuiting) must interact with each other, for they are all experienced by the same mind: there are no hidden parameters. Sure, the eigenstates FEEL different. Thinking FEELS different than feeling but our subjective consciousness cannot be the sole source of wisdom. True science concerns itself with the questions of whether what we perceive as difference is truly different and whether that which feels as sameness is truly so. Objective facts have to factor into that at some stage.

The eigenstates of the quantum mind must be simplified down to the smallest canon that makes all predictions. You cannot establish that there exists anything outside of the eigenstates of thinking, feeling and sensing. That is because no other eigenstates exist: more complex thoughts are still thoughts. More complex ideas (like archetypes) are linear combinations of the three primary eigenstates. As these eigenstates constitute a vector space over the set of the quantum mind, they must be closed under addition. This is a fancy way of saying that combinations of thoughts, emotions and feelings are themselves: thoughts emotions and feelings. Thus the statement that the worlds are independent is ludicrous.

The quantum mind is only nonlocalised WITHIN itself, not within the Universe. Just like the electrons in the diffraction experiment, they don’t exist everywhere, they follow a very specific path from the emitter to the screen. If electrons were “nonlocalised” in the same manner you are claiming consciousness to be, you would be detecting electrons everywhere in the room in the absence of a slit! This is foolish.

These worlds do not directly interact; their interactions are mediated by the signaless communication of nonlocal consciousness.

Arg. This sort of argument really bothers me because I understand what you’re trying to convey, you just seem to want to confuse your audience by saying it in the most indirect way possible. Let me repeat: the existence of individuated subjective consciousness does not imply the existence of a universal nonlocal consciousness! You must not add any complexity to your formalism that isn’t warranted. The subject is esoteric enough that shoehorning in additional concepts produces the opposite effect as intended, presuming your intention is to elucidate these matters for the lay audience.

The signals received by the body are transformed by the body into a signal which the (localised, subjective quantum) mind identifies as belonging to one of three eigenstates: {thoughts, emotions, sensations}. There cannot be proven to be eigenstates different from these because no such eigenstates exist. You can actually prove the opposite: ONLY thoughts exist because that is the only thing we are able to make any sense of. We cannot directly interpret sensations and emotions, we can only think about them: through the thinker pass all eigenstates: you are the entity which experiences your experience and you have nothing but thoughts: nothing more than thoughts can be proven to exist [for your quantum mind].

In this case, the subjective experience overrides the objective truth. Sure, technically everything is thoughts but emotions and sensations FEEL different than thoughts. So why not present them as experientially different, but structurally the same? Thus you have an intuitive basis set of the eigenstates of the quantum mind which is still consistent with Article 1 of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Bad Formalism Makes Bad Predictions

The article on Trump is a complete train wreck. To quote: “The way I see it, traditional Democrats are doing it mostly wrong, too much us versus them thinking.  If you are a quantum aficionado, you know that there is no them, it is all us.” While I understand that the set of all sets of coherent interference between quantum minds is nontrivial and can be accessed, it is not true that there is no “them” and “us”. Them is those who deny truth, us are those who accept it. It really is that simple.

what are you, some kinda commie?

The idea that “elitism” undermines “democracy’ betrays a complete lack of understanding of how modern elitism works. Democracy is the perfect vehicle to maintain the status of modern elites, all they have to do is pay some schlubs to pretend to disagree with each other while they do their bidding for profit. Even devoid of financial corruption, democracy is senseless in the presence of information corruption. People vote for rulers who do nothing more than kick their problems further down the line and give them temporary wealth in the form of bribes (i.e.: government jobs/welfare). Democracy is the idea that truth is a matter of public opinion. This is ludicrous.

I’m pretty sure the insurance companies will hate it too.

Ya but, where are you going to get all of these experts on quantum integrative medicine though? Are you going to train them in a school? Who will be the teacher? You? Your quantum mechanical framework can be directly disproven and makes bad predictions. Your article on Trump frames his rise as a bad thing, when it is clearly not a black and white issue. Trump represents populist monarchy more than any other American president ever has. Trump increases political awareness by denying political correctness (a form of censorship). Isn’t that a relatively good thing?

There is no way to divorce the parasitic saturation of wealth from democracy. Money pays for propaganda, propaganda sways peoples opinions and people’s opinions decide who they vote for. Thus democracy is a violation of Natural Law. The law’s of nature are fixed: as immutable as gravity, and yet you want to give people a chance to vote on your state’s laws!? This alone proves your laws cannot be natural. Natural Laws never change, and so if your laws can change, they are unnatural.


I fear that your motivation (to unify physics with vedic science) is clouding your objectivity. You can’t stitch these disparate systems together and hope that no one notices the gaps in your reasoning. You must practice the scientific method. That means you must formalise each system separately, examine their predictions fully and then (and only then) try to isolate which mechanisms may converge. You can only do this based on results. You are trying to do it based on ideas. This will fail because the western ideas about the determination of truth run contrary to the traditional method.

I will show below an example of “quantum politics” propaganda and how it does not yield any greater clarity and if anything: confuses the issue. If you cannot state your premise correctly and concisely, you are opening Pandora’s Box of theological platitudes. Sure, the truth is in there somewhere, but so is a slew of other junk that will ultimately be used against you and all other seekers of truth.

Case Study

Below we will examine an article that cites “quantum politics” and also causes the reader to become more confused than at the outset: a very dangerous thing.

Sarkissian’s observation suggests we need to break out of classical modes of thinking in order to understand how a complex world is affected by what is akin to ‘quantum behaviour’. Trump is hard to predict using conventional logic, but his strategies and tactics have a pattern — he uses uncertainty to disrupt opponents that presume conventional thinking.

The current trade war is more psychological than real — it will take time for the effects of higher tariffs to impact on the macro economy and consumer decisions. But the rules of psychological warfare seem to suggest that threats have zero marginal cost, with high payoff if opponents yield to threats.

Trump is not using quantum mechanical uncertainty in any way shape or form. He is simply exposing the double standard that is promoted by the communist media. That literally has zero to do with Uncertainty. Trump is having success in propagandising the masses because his message is more true than the competing narrative (not exactly a difficult task, as the mainstream narrative literally couldn’t be less true). A more true narrative is easier to assimilate because it takes less effort to contemplate truth than a lie, so people adopt Trump’s worldview. This isn’t because he uses “uncertainty”, it’s because his attitude and beliefs are more compelling than the mainstream narrative.

Here is another quote from the article:

The current trade war is more psychological than real — it will take time for the effects of higher tariffs to impact on the macro economy and consumer decisions. But the rules of psychological warfare seem to suggest that threats have zero marginal cost, with high payoff if opponents yield to threats.

Just because threats appear to have no consequence within a tiny window of history says nothing about the general idea of threats as they apply to statecraft. Just because the consequences of tariffs haven’t been assimilated by the average Chinese person doesn’t mean the war is “psychological” versus real. These tariffs will have a very real effect on people’s wealth, it will just have a time delay due to the inefficiency of bureaucracy. If you want to make a prediction using a theory, you must clearly explain why the structure of your theory makes the prediction you claim. You can’t just cite uncertainty, wave your hand and poof: get a cogent argument. Quantum mechanical uncertainty has nothing whatsoever to do with the effects being described.

In conclusion, we should not proffer an hypothesis unless it makes predictions in a manner that serve to decrease confusion and potential for abuse.

Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s