Sunday, April 20, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Islamofascists take over the "secular" school system in Birmingham

Yesterday, the Telegraph published quite a shocking story

State schools isolate non-Muslims
about a leaked official report uncovering the Islamist Blitzkrieg takeover of schools in Birmingham. Not surprisingly, it is the most widely read article in the Telegraph now and it has received almost 3,000 comments.



The latest, 2011 U.K. census says that only 3 million (5%) Britons are Muslims; they are mostly immigrants from Pakistan and their descendants, as the well-known semi-joking map above shows.

The largest Muslim population, over 200,000, lives in London but Birmingham has almost 200,000 as well. While it's the home to the second largest community of Muslims in the U.K., the concentration is much higher than it is in London. Still, you would expect that a group of something between 14% and 22% would behave as a... minority. You would be wrong.




It's actually a sufficiently high percentage for an aggressive enough group to take over the power structures in its environment. Note that 20% is slightly higher than the electorate for the "communist party" in Czechia. Those 20% are the people who were "actively keeping socialism at place" before 1989. I would say that no regime can be sustained for decades without at least 10%-15% of active believers/supporters.




The Islamization has nevertheless influenced pretty much all elementary schools in Birmingham – quite a shocking development. The most detailed troublesome results came from the Park View School.



As you can see, they describe themselves as the "Academy of Mathematics and Science". In reality, the institution has primarily turned into a hotbed of Islamofascist indoctrination. Boys and girls are "voluntarily" – which really means by intense bullying – segregated. Students who are "just" girls have to sit at the back of the classrooms. The obscurantist outfits are demanded. Sex education of any sort is impossible and even some other subjects often disappear.

The school is de facto controlled by the brother of a convicted terrorist, Razwan Taraz (official deputy principal), and Tahir Alam (an unofficial Islamic hardliner who seems to be the real puppet master, superficially a consultant). Some non-Muslim kids are not getting any education in some subjects at all. A hardcore anti-Semite and Al-Qaeda sympathizer is being routinely invited as a guest preacher. Some of the plans to Islamise the education are freely available.

The inconvenient non-Muslim principals have been fired by an orchestrated campaign involving the Islamofascist parents – a method resembling what the global warming alarmists and other left-wing radicals are doing with the climate skeptics and other sensible folks in various institutions. 20% seems to be enough for such a speedy arrival of a fascist atmosphere.

Read the article in The Telegraph to get familiar with the other terrifying things over there.

This is where the PC, multi-culti policies sort of inevitably lead – and this isn't necessarily the end of the process yet. It may be just an alarm telling the Britons to wake up. In a recent Internet poll, about 98% of Czechs said that they would outlaw Islamic schools etc. in Czechia. I suppose that almost all of them would extend the ban to a ban of all principals who would prefer the Islamic traditions and values at school over the traditional Czech ones.

We are not threatened by Islam in any way. There are 20,000 Muslims in Czechia, tiny 0.2%. But if we imagine that the Muslims would take over the U.K. and Western Europe including its armies etc., our military obviously wouldn't be strong enough to defend our land – without the help from someone else who would be strong enough and immune to the hypothetical Islamic pandemic – so the opinions of 98% of Czechs could very well be rendered irrelevant. This is one of the scenarios that make me think that it is important for us to remain a "sort of an ally" with Russia, too. Western Europe continues to be rich and OK but it seems too vulnerable towards many new (although not quite new, structurally speaking) major threats and diseases that seem to be arriving.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (105) :


reader Zephir said...

Yep, this is there very first post of yours, where I'm forced to agree with you in full extent.


reader Lokal said...

True, The situation is deteriorating. I mean, how much more is needed? Does an islamofascist have to behead 10, 100 infidel passers-by in the center of London in order that people would kick out treacherous scum who label such incidents ''betrayal to good islam''. Does the rape rate have to reach that of Sweden?


I was just permabanned on Wikipedia for daring to say islam is an ''odious cult''. I sincerely hope all those far-left lowlifes involved in this madness will end up like their Iranian Communist counterparts, who had helped Khomeini's cutthroats to power. People who have done EVERYTHING within their means to silence all criticism of Islamization, to demonize healthy critical attitudes as ''far-right'', to let the police turn a blind eye to pedophile gangs due to fears of prosecuting Muslims (''islamphobia''!) (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4226/uk-child-sex-slavery), well, if the useful idiots end up like they've ended up in the history, it is a kind of just punishment, too.


Lokalkosmopolit.


reader cynholt said...

There should be no religion in state-funded schools. Those who want their children indoctrinated with fairy tales have the opportunity to have this done in their church, chapel, synagogue, mosque, etc.

And, while we're at it, neither private schools nor religions should be allowed charitable status.


reader Maznak said...

Well, looks pretty bad for sure. On the other hand, some of the Pakis, and maybe most, who left for the U.K. might have been arguably the more "enlightened" souls who do not care for the conservative religious B.S. that much. Some part of the liberal Western environment must rub on them, I would guess. In any case, 2 or 3 generations down the road, with Internet and all the attributes of modern society, probably the medieval bigotry must lack appeal for most of the better to do descendants. I have only anecdotical evidence, but my two FB Pakistani U.K. friends seem quite o.k. and enlightened to me. Young engineers who do not shy off booze, freely date women and are probably set for a succesful careers in aeronautic engineering. My point being, there surely is quite a variability among the Muslims and they are not likely to present a monolitic force.


reader TheDOC said...

As an Asian, I am so jaded by all the constant news of all these antics. I find it disgusting to see how some people can migrate to other countries and be so obnoxious. I am also disturbed by the massive demographic imbalances developing in Europe. Europe is slowly turning into a chaotic and disharmonious 'melting pot' of many cultures and races (much like Asia :D ).

I pray that some sense is knocked into these fundamentalist clowns and that they learn some respect and restraint. Maybe if these extremists cared more about god than spreading 'the message', bullying others and breeding like rabbits, they might actually do better things with their lives instead of being jobless parasites feeding off the charity of many gullible natives.


reader Luboš Motl said...

I am afraid that once they will be beheading 100 infidels in the center of London, they will already be in charge of Great Britain.


reader Lokal said...

For the record, by ''treacherous scum'' I mean the native appeasers, jihadis are no traitors, they're just following what their prophet and Greatest Man of All Times (tm) taught them to do.


reader Swine flu said...

//it is important for us to remain a "sort of an ally" with Russia//


Russia is less prone to being constrained by political correctness than the West, so a minority there is more likely to "behave like a minority" until it actually becomes a majority, but it does have a significant Muslim population whose percentage appears to be growing. I am not, however, sure how strong the Islamist influences are among Muslims in Russia at the present time.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Maybe but I tend to think that the evolution is to the worse.


The original immigrants are often grateful to the host country and ready to adapt because of that. But their children and descendants say "we wouldn't have to be here at all", they're not grateful, and ready to destroy the culture into which their ancestors were led.


So there is a fight between the decreasing gratitude, increasing population, and perhaps decreasing religious fanaticism. The latter may be promising but if the people may be educated pretty much in the same way as in the Islamic countries, the results are bound to be pretty much the same, too!


reader Casper said...

The thing about the leftist 'diversity' agenda is that the inevitable end result is a world full of completely identical multi-cultural shit-holes, ie no 'diversity' at all. In this case, the traditional and unique indigenous culture of Birmingham is in the process of being erased and replaced by standard variety Islamic medievalism found all over the world.



What is the point of cultural 'diversity' anyway? Are their scientific papers which demonstrate its beneficial effect? Or is it just a leftist myth? I have even heard from a respected left-wing journalist the hilarious argument that the reason for importing Muslims into the West is so that they can gain experience of secular humanism. They in turn export this 'enlightenment' back to their original cultures in order to reduce or ameliorate their basic atavitism.



So apparently its okay for us to get fucked over so that Islamic fundamentalism can (eventually) be reduced over there in its original cultural setting. This is apparently the leftist mindset, a sort of diversity reduction in reverse. If you spread the disease around everybody gets equally worse.


reader Peter F. said...

I would agree with most of what you wrote if you stopped praying! ;-)


reader Peter F. said...

As far a QM is concerned a "consistent" interpretation is clearly called for but in case of how to best understand how societies work and are best built and regulated a realistic attitude is surely the best one!


reader Peter F. said...

You sound as realistic as my wife.
What you and she say/s is correct but it makes me have to control a politically incorrect cringe. ;-)


reader Smoking Frog said...

That's what I always thought, but a couple days ago I saw a timeline of the future of the earth and the universe on the BBC in which at some very distant future date "the atoms themselves will be ripped apart" (or some such phrasing). Is that about something other than the expansion of the universe, or are they just being stupid?


reader Dream Chaser said...

When significant portion of young british muslims (young people should generally be the most liberal) believe things like these:
https://i.imgur.com/13xiTqs.jpg

I
am not suprised at all. The leftist narrative of "small minority" of
extremists is a lie. They may perhaps still be a minority among the
wider muslim population, but certainly not small. Its a significant,
aggresive and influential minority.
Besides, if they ever gain power,
people with left-leaning beliefs (atheism, secularism, feminism, LGBT
tolerance..) would be the first to go. How deluded you must be to
advocate for mass immigration of people who would not hesitate to kill
you for your beliefs given the chance? I just dont get it, its the
definition of being self-destructive.

Mass immigration and "diversity" = death of western civilisation.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Smoking Frog, these are subtle issues.

In any realistic yet long timeframe, like trillions of years, atoms are still around.

But when one approaches much longer timescales, things may be different. I think that a theory of quantum gravity is needed to describe - if it is possible to describe at all - what happens at the Poincare recurrence times.

The atoms have quantized energy levels that are calculable from the laws of quantum mechanics and these laws will be valid even after googols of years. So the ground state of the atom will always be allowed to have the Bohr radius.

Another thing is whether the expansion of the Universe implies some small probability than an atom gets ionized, and this small probability ultimate accumulates.

As long as you may neglect the changes of the gravitational field of the atom (!!!) on the region near the cosmic horizon, it's clear that the atom is exactly stable. You may use the static coordinates that make the de Sitter space look constant in time. And in such a static background, it is just like in AdS. The atom is whatever it is, an energy eigenstate, and is there forever. This ground state may be translated to FRW coordinates which are increasingly singular but it's OK.

Academically, all of this breaks down if the gravitational waves were emitted up to the cosmic horizon. This is an extremely weak effect.

The article may have talked about the Big Rip, something that Paul Frampton loves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip



I don't believe that the Big Rip is possible - it requires w=-1.5 or something like that, i.e. it violates energy conditions. It's equivalent to having superluminal propagation of matter etc. With this (probably forbidden) superfast expansion, the observable universe is shrinking and is ultimately smaller than atoms, so atoms found their parts behind the cosmic horizon and they are torn apart. Again, I would bet 99.999% that this isn't how it works (or may work).


reader Giotis said...

“The page presents Krauss as a "top world-class scientist": not bad for a mediocre cosmologist”

Thankfully history of science is written by historians and scientists and not by journalists; so justice will be served at the end I guess.


reader Dilaton said...

Very nice interesting explanations ... :-)

BTW speaking about Paul Frampton, did you hear some news about him ...?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Nope... but you reminded and I sent him a Happy Easter e-mail with eggs and bunnies. ;-)


reader Eclectikus said...

It seems very paradoxical, once again, that "progressive thinking" plus "anti-theist atheism" invariably leads to the Church of Global Warming (and pathological environmentalism). E.g. (here, Lawrence Krauss worried about oceans acidifying):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/end-of-days-danger/

Also, I think it is important to remember that Catholicism is minority (less than a quarter of the population) in USA, and that some of the criticisms to the religious thought, are oriented toward some evangelical sects, who are really unscientific in esence... but I do not think those criticisms can be easily extrapolated to Europe, where Christianity today is far more sensible, and pretty respectful of Science.


reader Smoking Frog said...

Thanks, Lubos.


reader BobSykes said...

The reality is that the children of the immigrants are more radical than their parents, more adherent to fundamentalist Islam and more rejectionist of European mores.


reader Smoking Frog said...

The intellectuals sometimes define themselves as an opposition to the
average Joe. So the intellectuals in the U.S. are predominantly
atheists; there is an analogous tendency within the Czech intellectual
group think to pay lip service to religions (although I don't really
think that they believe in the same sense as religious people in America
do: even the famous Catholic priest and Templeton Prize winner Halík isn't "really religious").


I'm not sure, but I suspect you'd classify the following as "really religious": Christian Fundamentalists; believers who think of God as a white-bearded old man in the sky (although I doubt that such people exist) or who at least think of God as a complex being (they certainly do exist). This would make Augustine and Aquinas "not really religious."

As for Halik, I've watched a few videos of his little talks in English, and contrary to what you say in the linked blog post, I can't say he's an atheist. He might be (secretly), but so might anyone who professes belief. I can't infer it from what he says.

I am mightly impressed :-) by his endless hand gestures, all identical. Maybe it somehow helps him when he's speaking English, but it makes me suspicious of him.


reader Shannon said...

Bloody hell ! Is that where the White man's guilt is leading us? Is this guilt deeply glued into christianity? What is it?


reader Shannon said...

In France, we say that "in a state-funded school (École de la République) a teacher shouldn't even know which religion their pupils belong to".


reader Uncle Al said...

Round them up, send them to America, and repopulate Detroit. Expand up the UP and then into Canada. Claim Lebensraum as a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races. Quebeckers can then work it out with greater Canukistan, refereed by drunken Inuits.



Is this sufficiently internatonalist?


reader Tom said...

Shannon, damned good question. My reading is that throughout Western Europe and the Anglosphere vast majorities, like the 98% of Czechs, oppose this cultural chaos, but the ruling elite nevertheless still imposes this wildly unpopular zeitgeist (it should bring into question what the hell “democracy” actually means). I conclude that the world’s gradient of poor to rich is such a gold mine of political power that the majority of Western politicians mine it even though it means their grandchildren will likely live in a world unrecognizable to us living today.


reader emmaliza said...

Ignorance of how the West became civilized and gained its values has been smothered by atheists for generations. Two books that detail the basis of all values Westerners hold are D'Souza's "What's So Great About Christianity" and Thomas Wood's "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization". When you discard the traditional Christian beliefs, you return to paganism or to barbarism, and stats show Europe has already turned its back on its roots. This time the Muslims not the terrorist barbarians are taking advantage of a lost civilization.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Smoking Frog, I agree with you that Halik is overtly a believer.


reader Luboš Motl said...

I bet that France is placing a much cleaner emphasis on the secular character of schools than the U.K. - it's a part of the modern French identity, I guess - and I may be personally closer to Front National (FR) than UKIP when it comes to immigration and naturalization issues.


reader Gordon said...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.


reader Gordon said...

In Ontario, the provincial govt was seriously considering exempting muslims from our justice system and letting them be tried for most crimes by Sharia law (ie domestic disputes, spousal abuse etc). It almost happened. When the competing PC feminist outrage emerged, the imams said that muslim females would "request" Sharia. It is totally amazing how in the West, an aggressive, proselytizing, intolerant, misogynistic religion can hijack democratic and humanistic values. Imagine if I were to go to Saudi Arabia and demand my "rights" there to be tried under English Common Law. This insanity has to be stopped.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear RAF, Fuchs et al. were surely not the first people who began to use the words such as maximal, complete, and incomplete in physics, were they? Why are you writing things that are self-evidently rubbish?


Why are you trying to pretend that there is some disagreement between me and Fuchs et al. if you must very clearly see that there is none?


Why are you trying to pretend that there is something incomprehensible or ambiguous about as obvious and important words as maximal or complete or incomplete?


I have no trouble with your definitions of the words "subjective" and "objective", either. The different definitions have slightly different flavors but all of them could pretty much be used interchangeably when we say things like "objective reality doesn't fundamentally exist or is emergent and approximate according to QM". These definitions of the words are effectively equivalent. At least I have no idea what you want to say if you try to point out some inequivalence between these definitions that you have clearly not clarified. For me, they're just damn equivalent. The point is that the individual perspective cannot be eliminated when interpreting QM. Use emotional, not objective, moodily introspective, whatever you want. It's clear that the only way how to connect these things with the formalism of QM is the same in all cases.


reader RAF III said...

Lubos - I am quite certain that Fuchs and his collaborators would NOT agree to a frequentist interpretation, even after a large number of trials.
A simple recourse would be to ask him - it occurs to me that a guest post by him (hopefully concise!) could be edifying. He is a very nice fellow and would probably find you tolerable.
My use of the word 'radical' is commonplace in the literature. It is descriptive and not pejorative. That you are unaware of this shows that you possess only a superficial familiarity with QBism and are, like Mermin, defending what I referred to above as QBism-lite.


reader RAF III said...

I was not trying to pretend anything at all. I stated my position as clearly as I could. Every longtime reader of your blog has seen these 'non-existent problems with the terminology' play out in your disagreements with philosophers, computer scientists, and laymen too many times to count.


reader Swine flu said...

Detailed projections for 2030, by country:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/28/muslim-population-country-projection-2030


reader cynholt said...

This is a much wider issue than Muslim radicalization, but politicians seem to be under the impression that inculcating children with various different religions is going to lead to a cohesive society. Keep religion in the mosque, synagogue, etc. I remember having to sing hymns at primary school, time that could have been spent on science instead of worshiping a mythical being.


reader Shannon said...

:-) Indeed and you are right. UKIP are chickens and faggots when it comes to immigration. They wouldn't say No putting their pants down, like in this school in your article. Bloody British faggots.


reader Shannon said...

Sort of funny ;-)


reader cynholt said...

Color-blindness is not allowed. White people are forced to coddle people of color. It's sickening. I refuse to waddle in guilt over crimes of people - real or imagined - who happened to share my skin color. In fact, the very expectation that I would have to is in and of itself complete racism.

And anyone who wants to imbue me with White Guilt is taking a major risk, because I consider it a form of psychological abuse.


reader Shannon said...

Here is an American guy I'd like to hug. The French reporter is selling his reports to French TV channel but this conversation never reached the screen.... You bet.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=098tBQIUSnk


reader John Archer said...

I note there's no comment on this from Gene, for example.

The schtumness is deafening.


reader Smoking Frog said...

Well, that ain't much.


reader Smoking Frog said...

Lubos - Over the years, I've heard an idea from several Mideast Christians and Jews that Muslims don't cause trouble until they become about 15% of the population, and then you're screwed.


reader Smoking Frog said...

I don't fully agree with emmaliza, but I agree with her far more than I agree with you. In case you'd criticize me for not explaining, let me say, you didn't explain, either.


reader Gordon said...

Wow, what an ignorant comment.

Does it really need explaining? Her post is the explanation you seek.


reader Gordon said...

Hmm, cynthia, I have never seen anyone "waddle in guilt"---didn't know guilt caused a gait disorder :)
(wallow)


reader Luboš Motl said...

OK, but that's just the usual quagmire about the frequentist-vs-Bayesian debate.


When I say that it's very likely that after very many repetitions, the number of successes will *probably* be N = p*N0 plus minus five sigma etc., I am doing a circular definition of a "probability" because the statement must still contain the word "probably". I would admit that.


Despite this imperfection, the repetition of the same experiment is the primarily or only way how probabilities may actually be *measured* which is important for verification of science.


reader Brute said...

The manner in which you present the information, dear Lubos, forces many of us to take a step back because, in short, you are talking just like them.


reader JohaniKanada said...

Russia is a fascist country, intent on recreating USSR.
I don't think many would like Putin as their saviour...


reader Meh said...

in a modern world religious minorities will remain minorities or eventually disappear entirely...because children would be able to research their religion (on the internet) and realize it's B.S. these priest or clowns fall as quickly as they rise.
but what you seem to be influenced by Lubos, is the typical immigrant bashing media doctrine, which is not new of course...


reader Luboš Motl said...

The demographic data on the growth of Islam in Europe surely don't allow your proclamations to survive, do they?


reader Meh said...

this is just the law of conservation of religion :p . Muslims have moved from their own country to another country in Europe..no new ones were created. and if you think about it, there's a higher chance for their offspring to lose faith while living in a western country...


reader Shannon said...

If they lose faith the political side of islam will take over since there is no separation between political power and islam.


reader RD said...

Your skepticism is justified. I know him. Krauss is a clown of physics. Proximity to great men is what he needs. No content comes from him.


reader RAF III said...

Lubos - I agree with everything you've written here except for the last sentence.

This region of the landscape is nothing but quagmires. Every word that I 'objected' to above is like a signpost -
subjective/objective quagmire to the left, complete/incomplete quagmire to the right, epistemic/ontic quagmire behind and
QBism quagmire straight ahead. If you stray from the path, you will find yourself up to your neck in interminable quotes from
the philosophical ramblings of William James with only a tenuous thread holding you above the quicksand of solipsism.

I think most of the denizens of these quagmires suffer from RAF IIIs' Syndrome, which I define as: the addiction to the feeling
experienced in the belief that one has confronted or understood something Profound. Hence the constant repetition of phrases such as 'There is no probability', 'degrees of belief', or quotes from James or Wheeler that produce a pleasant sensation in the writer.

Many are 'true believers' in the sense of Eric Hoffer, and, like their counterparts in political movements, though they may
ocassionally say something sensible they really do believe all that other crazy stuff. This is why it is not 'really about the
different emphasis only'; there really is a contradiction here.

There is an old saying - 'When you're up to your ass in alligators it's easy to forget that you set out to drain the swamp'. You
are willing to enter the swamp and fight the alligators in order to retrieve some small thing of value. I say you can find an even
better one on solid ground, so drain the damn swamp!

Of course I have no problem with your circular definition. For years I have told people who worry about such things that the probabilities I assign are, in fact, the expectation values of relative frequencies. They will often go away and think about it.
Unfortunately, they sometimes come back.


reader RAF III said...

Lubos - I would also like to add that any QBist who has followed our discussion would have had a very small degree of belief that the content and tone of your response would be as above. It would seem that your intellectual integrity is an element of reality that can determine the outcome of my provocation. I stand vindicated! Cheers!


reader alfred said...

did someone tell you that? or you just pulled it out of your ass?


reader spinor said...

Sorry, to comment here, but I saw this in an old post (I don't know if you get noticed for old posts).

You said: " electromagnetic mass including the divergences and outdated attempts to remove them as well as a derivation of the flawed 4/3...". As far as I know, the 4/3 thirds paradox has not been solved.



Could you eleborate a bit more or tell me some sources so I can read about it?


Thanks.


reader Luboš Motl said...

It would be more logical for you to add a comment to the older article you are commenting on which was

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/01/feynman-lectures-on-physics-all-volumes.html?m=1

Otherwise, be sensible. We understand the "theory of nearly everything" including all conceivable electromagnetic phenomena, so of course that we also know what's wrong with the derivation that led to E=(3/4)*mc^2 with the extra wrong numerical factor.

The error is essentially due to the neglected cavity stresses, see e.g.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.2250

In some sense, it is exactly analogous to the approximation/error that leads one to believe that gravity is always attractive - although the negative pressure may lead to an accelerated expansion.


reader RMB said...

Then what? They demand a referendum and annexation by Turkey or Iran?


reader Shannon said...

Alfred, did someone told you that your mother pulled you out of her ass?


reader Swine flu said...

Right, and that was exactly the reason for my post.


reader Gene Day said...

I surely qualify as a longtime reader of Lubos’ blog, RAFIII, and I have read scores, if not hundreds, of these disagreements between Lubos and various philosophers, computer scientists and laymen. Without a single exception, the argumentative reader failed to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics. Like it or not, Lubos gets it, Bohr got it and I get it.
These language games that you play may be amusing but they shed no light on the subject at all.


reader RAF III said...

Gene - You're making my point. I KNOW that Lubos gets it. I KNOW that Bohr got it. A major reason that their opponents do not get it is that the language used (especially by Bohr) reinforces their misconceptions.


reader davideisenstadt said...

actually, the koran tells us that. read it sometime...the saudi government publishes a translation approved by the wahabist clerics who run the enterprise...in it you will find that assertion...so, it was actually pulled from the koran.
BTW ever hear of a caliphate, or sharia law?
a bit of unsolicited advice...shut up when youre ignorant no one will know it if you dont let them know it.


reader davideisenstadt said...

pearls before swine, and whatnot.


reader Gene Day said...

Perhaps that is true in some cases, RAFIII, but, as a solid-state physicist myself, I have found Lubos’ explanations of quantum mechanics to be crystal clear. On the other hand, your arguments are difficult for me to grasp and seem rather pointless.
If you think you can do better than Bohr and Motl why not give it a try right here on TRF?


reader John Archer said...

"...like the Red Queen, the words you use mean exactly what you want them to - no more and no less." — RAFIII

By 'Red Queen' do you mean 'Humpty Dumpty'? :)


reader RAF III said...

Gene - I think that most physicists would find Lubos' explanations to be crystal clear because they are already familiar with the subject, i.e.- they know what he means. It may be apochryphal, but I recall reading somewhere that when Feynman was nearing the end of his famous lectures the hall was no longer filled with undergrads but with other physicists. Please understand that I do NOT mean to imply that only other physicists can understand Lubos' explanations, but simply that they are in the best position to appreciate them. Lubos has a deep understanding of physics that he is able to express simply and, apparently, at a moments notice. For many years I have passed

his posts on to my son ( who is now at university) while thinking 'I wish I'd thought of that!'. The disputes in the comments are another matter. What he lacks, as many of us do, is an understanding of how anyone could possibly misunderstand what he has written. I am not concerned with the 'ideologues' (or 'anti-quantum zealots') who willfully misunderstand, but with honest inquiries from those with 'alien' intellectual backrounds which results in the two of them simply talking past each other. You must have seen this. My point is that such people must be disabused of the 'alien' ideas before they can even begin to understand. They MUST learn our language because our ideas cannot even be expressed in their language. One who attempts to explain such things on their terms will bear some of the responsibilty when the attempt fails.

Gene, I think I've been as clear as I can possibly be (yet another reason I wouldn't presume to compete with Lubos, especially on his own blog) and hope you understand.
p.s. - almost any one could do a better job than Bohr. I can imagine Sheldon Cooper saying 'As you know I am a believer in the many worlds theory and I can assure you that in none of them is Bohr thought to lucid or concise!'


reader RAF III said...

Yes. Eugene was first to point this out, but thanks to you as well!


reader Gene Day said...

I do see what you are getting at and I don’t really disagree. The problem of helping a layman to understand quantum mechanics is one that I have personally faced many times both as a teacher (I was an adjunct physics professor after retiring from industry) and with friends and family.
My sympathies do lie with Lubos in this matter because the only thing any layman can do, in my experience, is listen carefully and ask questions. It takes a lot of time and patience to “get it” and most never do. What is really exasperating, of course, is dealing with the pretenders who, in fact, haven’t a clue.


reader statcruxcumcolviturorbis said...

The reality Bob is that all of human behavior which is instinctive is universal, and intra-species behavioral genetics is 100% bs!

Fish swim, birds fly, men speak. Not some men. Almost all men.


reader John Archer said...

Dear Luboš

A little OT but talking of David Mermin, I thoroughly enjoyed reading his Boojums All the Way through: Communicating Science in a Prosaic Age when it came out about 25 years ago.

It's a little treasure.


reader John Archer said...

Doh! :) I thought I'd checked thoroughly. Clearly I didn't. Apologies to Eugene.


reader RAF III said...

Lubos - Holy Crap!!! I just came across this comment of yours (which I'd completely forgotten) regarding QBism: http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/nature-hypes-anti-qm-crackpot-paper-by.html#comment-565439548. You'll be glad to know that I am at a loss for words.


reader Luboš Motl said...

OK, I clearly didn't know what the term meant - assuming it was a name for the Pusey-like crackpottery.


reader RAF III said...

Lubos - You still don't know what the term means. Your initial impression, after looking at Fuchs' paper, was more accurate than your current one. 'Copenhagen' is a fine buzzword, or label, as it has no misleading philosophical implications whatsoever, so why give it up for the sake of modernity? I thought yours was a conservative viewpoint.
My point in this discussion has been that the terminolgy is misleading, and obscures the content. It would be refreshing if you could address the content of my remarks.
There is no need to worry about my mental processes. I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested!!!


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear RAF, the whole industry of the "quantum foundation" is a mess with redundant words where most of the "researchers" are bigots and morons.


The term "Copenhagen interpretation" has unfortunately been totally discredited by the fabrication of the history by this community because they often use it to describe the idea that the "collapse of a wave function is real process affecting an objectively existing wave".


This is completely crazy because Bohr and Heisenberg would never agree with such a thing. For them, the wave function was always a tool summarizing an observer's knowledge about the physical system that stores all the numbers needed to probabilistically predict the outcomes of any measurements. Concerning objectivity (wrong) and subjectivity (right) of the collapse, Bohr and Heisenberg would always say the same things that are said by the "Quantum Bayesianists" although they wouldn't ever use redundant postmodern phrases such as "Quantum Bayesianism".


So you're completely wrong - the term "Copenhagen school" has actually acquired much more totally idiotic and wrong baggage than any other term in these quantum debates!


reader RAF III said...

Lubos - Once again I can agree with eveything you've written except for the final sentence.
My attitude to these false histories is that one should NOT adapt to them. They should be destroyed, root and branch, and the earth should be salted over. The results of 'adapting' have always been deleterious and are evident around the globe (of course I'm referring to more than physics).
Despite my respect for your mental processes I doubt that after a week you have fully understood the underlying philosophy of QBism.
I am, however, happy to let our dispute end here, assuming that you are as well.
Coincidentally - todays SMBC:
Cheers!!!


reader RAF III said...

Sorry, here's the 'missing link':
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3336#comic
!!!


reader MikeN said...

You have to look at what portion of the children are Muslim which tends to be much higher. Mohammed has been a top name for many years.


reader Mikael said...

Dear Lubos,
I agree with RAF III that you may miss a point of about the word quantum qbism. This is that perhaps not in the mouth of Mermin but at least in the mouth of Fuchs or others it means not just a revival of Copenhagen but an actual research program. This program is about rewriting quantum mechanics in terms of actual probabilities instead of the usual complex probability amplitudes. Perimeter has a video lecture by Fuchs online about it and I can look it up for you if you want. As you may expect the math becomes somewhat ugly quickly so it does not look convincing to me and I expect that you will think the same. Morally the approach may look better than the Bohm theory or others but on a deeper level I think it fails for the same reason, the desire to discover some meaning behind the mathematically beautiful but totally abstract quantum laws.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Maybe. The probabilities are still there and probabilities of any well-defined proposition - given by an arbitrary operator, not commuting with others - may be computed. If they are still the same as those in normal QM that are linked to the probability amplitudes, I can't imagine how there can be a difference.


reader Mikael said...

Nope, Lubos, the quantum qbism program is more than about using density matrixes. It is about using actual probability distributions.
See here:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/b8468861-f112-4ea0-8d9d-07733ff85e2f/viewer.html

Note that I am not promoting anything, just informing you, so don't beat me if you don't like it.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Mikael, it seems to me that you are trying hard to raise some criticism against that picture but it seems impossible to understand what the criticism could possibly be.


The density matrix is just a collection of information but what we calculate out of it is always an actual probability distribution, isn't it?


reader Mikael said...

Dear Lubos,
right, but what these reseachers are trying to do is to make the probability distributions and Bayes' theorem the fundamental elements of the description. For example de Finetti's theorem appears etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Finetti's_theorem

I don't have anything against trying this approach per se but if I watch the video by Fuchs their intermediate results don't look to promising to me.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Mikael, I noticed the comments on De Finetti's theorem and I still don't know exactly what it is but it seems like an innocent statement about some general probability distributions that can be written as weighted averages of others. I can't imagine what could be wrong about it.


I would agree with you that they didn't discover anything new yet important but I just can't agree with your suggestion that it's wrong in some fundamental sense.


reader Mikael said...

Dear Lubos,
of course that De Finetti's theorem is a totally innocent theorem of classical probability theory. The question is just if a program to ban the complex numbers out of quantum mechanics and talk entirely about probability distributions is a wise one and I learned from you that it is not.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Could you please show me where Fuchs et al. banned complex numbers? One obviously cannot ban the complex numbers. XP minus PX is equal to i*hbar, a pure imaginary number, and as long as their setup agrees about physics of QM, they have these numbers here as well - much like in the Heisenberg equations of motion or the path integral, whatever is used to calculate the evolution in time.


reader Mikael said...

Dear Lubos,
please go to minute 49:00 of the video I attached above.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, I've listened for several minutes and haven't seen anything like a ban on complex numbers.


reader Mikael said...

Classical probabilities are real and not complex, aren't they? It is no particular result of Fuchs at al. which is disturbing but unlike you I have watched the whole video and understood where they are coming from and what their goals are.
It is frustrating that I need to teach you something and you decide that it is a waste of time.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Yes, classical probabilities are real and not complex. Probabilities in quantum mechanics are also real, not complex. Probabilities are always real and they cover everything that is being predicted by quantum mechanics.


Probabilities arising from quantum mechanics obey all the general rules that classical (Bayesian) probabilities obey - because they *are* classical probabilities. They are just calculated from a different physics framework than from deterministic classical equations of evolution. They are calculated directly from a quantum setup that uses complex numbers all the time. But the experimentally verifiable predictions are always real.


reader Mikael said...

That's fine. So the question Fuchs et al. is asking is what can we learn about quantum mechanics when we look at it from the point of view of classical probability theory. And the question I have about this is whether or not this is a fruitful approach.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Mikael, quantum mechanics is obviously a more specific theory than any theory dealing with probabilities - and all the details matter. On the other hand, it's a rather general one. It's really a valid point that in QM, one derives the Bayesian probabilities directly, not from an intermediate model of objective reality.


I always have trouble with something in your sentences that makes it mandatory for me to first criticize it - but if the bugs are fixed, it is not really clear what you're saying. Nothing is left out of it.


For example, you keep on repeating the term "classical probability theory". I think that the adjective "classical" is meant to link the term to classical physics, am I wrong?

But it is completely wrong. There is nothing "classical-physics-like" about the probability calculus. The probability calculus in QM is the very same probability calculus that was used centuries before quantum mechanics. Without any modifications whatsoever. Probabilities are notions that work in all of physics, both classical and quantum physics. They are more fundamental and unavoidable in quantum physics, so the probabilities that you call "classical probabilities" would be more meaningfully called "quantum probabilities".


In probability calculus itself, the adjective "classical" is also used and is meant to refer to Laplace's and Bernoulli's formalism for probabilities. At any rate, it's the normal probability calculus that is fully compatible with QM, too. This adjective "classical" has nothing to do with "classical physics"



It only makes sense to add the adjective "classical", in the sense of classical physics, if one is actually deriving things from a (typically deterministic) model of the real world assuming its objective reality. Quantum mechanics isn't doing anything like that - and it's really something that Fuchs surely agrees with - so it's totally misleading and demagogic to call the probability calculus in quantum mechanics "classical". It's the same one that was used before QM was found but there is nothing classical-physics-like, inaccurate about this formalism! It's exactly true in QM.


reader Mikael said...

I am sorry now, Lubos, because by now I think that I am actually wasting your time and mine as well. We do not disagree about the physics at all and all you write is 100% clear to me. All I wanted to "teach" you is something socialogical namely you should be careful with the word "quantum qbism" because in the sense of its inventer Fuchs it does not stand for the "shut up and calculate" philosophy but for another failed attempt in the field of quantum foundations . The fail is not in any of the assumptions of the quantum qbism but to look for something deeper there where there is not. My point basically is why do you defend Fuchs at al. if you think that quantum foundations is a failure since 1927. You don't need to answer because everything has been said. Sorry again.


reader Alexander Gieg said...

Wow, what an ignorant (of D'Souza and Wood's books) comment.


reader Alexander Gieg said...

I agree with the 3 first paragraphs, but not the fourth. Ataturk persecuted Sufis, which are among the most enlightened and moderate folk within Islam, the low level ignorants in place. It's no wonder over time this lead to a serious deterioration.



Utilitarian calculation suggests secular governments would do good by helping good and enlightened strands of their native religions to spread against the bad ones, not the other way around, or to fight all strands. Atheists need to ally with the former against the later as a form of cultural immunization. Not doing so is leaving the social body extremely weakened.


reader melvin said...

Pure revisionism, unless we count "enlightened" as non genocidal... but any attempt to organize society along religious lines following 1800 is certainly not something that deserves the label. By that standards, one would call "enlightened" the discussion about the existence of god and aristotelian philosophy in the middle ages. Maybe in comparison to burning witches at the stake, but in comparison to the "separate magisteria", Galileo, the birth of modern science? In the 20th century, the only "enlightened" attitude to be had regarding that question is that religion is a private matter, a state should be arranged along secular lines and not left in the hands of teocrats and religious teachers of any kind, no matter how benign.


"Persecuted?". I wouldn't say so, no more than any other religion -simply the elimination fo special priviledges and and the organization of a state on rational, secular basis i.e. religion as a private matter, separated by the concerns of government-. In this context, sufism simply came to enjoy the same position that any religion has in a modern, decent society.


The context was the ruins of the ottoman empire, I let the relevance of a serious "enlightenend" religious proposal up to the imagination... let's not forget that he had to deal with immediate calls for the reinstatement of the caliphate (conference in Cairo). He had to deal with rebellious stirred up by shehiks that tried to restaurate an Ottoman arrangement (Greeks and Armenians might have had something to object to this rose colored revisionism of teocratic rule).

In this context, keep in mind the part that in sufism plays the santification of shehkis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey#Sufism), and what the notion of a ruler with a divine imprimatur has meant in human history. That's what you are dealing with, as far as "enlightened and moderate" as opposed to "low level ignorant".


A concept quite literally medieval (i.e. pre-French Revolution), that poses obvious problems if you want to build a modern, secular society arranged along rational lines, and considering the massive campaign to promote education of male and female members of the population, I wouldn't say that "low level ignorant" were left behind. The fact that a belief system is not immediately genocidal, and therefore possibly preferrable as an alternative doesn't mean that it doesn't pose its own problems -making sancts out of political leaders such as the sheiks is not exactly what I would call modern and enlightened, unless those terms have simply changed to mean "anyone that doesn't outright promote slavery and decapitation"-.


reader melvin said...

^ Essentially, this ;)


reader melvin said...

I don't know if it's mere simplification, but I do hope you realize the contradiction of "fascism" and "recreating the USSR", a communist regime. I think that it could successfully be argued that it would be preferrable to a teocracy in that at least you would be dealing with a rational actor (an assumption that doesn't hold in the case of a religious fanatic).


I guess that in this respect, one would have to add to the "religiously fanatical" group examples such as Mao's Great Famine and apparent calmness when considering the prospect of a nuclear conflict on a world scale (see Eric J. Hobsbawn's analysis) and Che Guevara's complicity in the show trials/willingness to go to a nuclear war/willingness to emulate Mao's great leap forward (for the last two, we have acknowledge Castro's role in reeling in his batshit ideas).


Asides such extremes (possibly identified by the belief on the plausibility of an utopia -on earth or otherwise-, and their endowement with a "history", if not "divine", mission, I would say that any other actor not already pathologically insane could be treated as a reasonable actor.


As far as the islamist influence in Russia, it is simply non existant -Putin addressed the question by simply stating that anyone who want to live under sharia law is welcomed to transfer to a state where that's how society is arranged, and that Russian law will remain unchanged regardless of the religious predisposition of the interested party... a perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial statement, in any country where the rule of law is one and the same for every citizen, that's the bare minimum standard that any secular state needs to meet in order to not be put in the banana republic cathegory-.


reader melvin said...

I would add that one needs only to look at the situation of the other countries in the region that used to belong to the ottoman empire (even those where a sufi population was present, i.e. Egypt), and see if an arrangement similar to the US "separation of church and state", or similar principles explicitly or implicitly adopted by any secular state wasn't preferrable. The status of Turkey as both a secular and a democratic country shines, despite latest populist/too much teocratic for my tastes derivations.


reader melvin said...

I would also add a personal thought that, to be sure, I can't reall back up with anything but a general impression and a reading of history, but I think that more than to "moderate", "enlightened" religious people, current largely secular arrangements are due to the secularization of society. For example, one could think about fine theologians in the Catholic tradition (particularly the Gesuites). That's were you get discussions as to how "homosexual act are a sin, not homosexuality itself" and have to waste time discussing if masturbation is or is not equatable to contraception, and by inference murder. The reason we don't spend time obsessing over divorce and masturbation, let alone the reconstruction of a Holy Roman Empire or papal state in Italy is because of secularization, and religion becoming a private matter (to be honest, I don't know how many of the people calling themselves christian and even going to church have even read the bible cover to cover... am pretty sure we have rather few theologians debating the minutiae of such passages and trying to adapt them to our modern view of the world). On a general note, it's pretty much impossible to expect the largest majority of the population to scan the religious texts in such depths and try to come to terms with modernity that way -an exercise that I am not sure a strictly logical analysis of the texts themselves would support, to be sure, and that should be no surprise given the time and context in which the had been written... not quite as foolish as trying to settle questions about the embryo by referring to source material that had been written before embryology was even a thing... that way you get the "monkey trial"-.


reader Alexander Gieg said...

No, persecuted as in literally persecuted. He went around killing them.

As for everything else, including your other answers, I agree. :)