Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Symposium

Revisiting the Sokal Hoax

Ronald McKinney, Symposium

Published Jan 1, 2010• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In the first section of my paper, I want to consider the “paradoxes of complementarity” between polarised notions such as the quantum concepts of “wave” and “particle.” I will argue that if we treat this topic with all the “gravity” it deserves, we will be able to understand once and for all why this debate (and others like it) can never be completely resolved (paradox intended). In the second section, I want to consider the notion of “parody.” At the end, astute readers must determine for themselves whether I can be trusted to mean what I say, or whether this is all merely ironic, a post-modern hoax, one that undercuts the very boundaries it installs.

DOI
10.5840/symposium201014222

Related papers

The Domain Theory

Asim M. Babikr

● The theory in this stage is merely a proposal, an attempt to start looking and find the missing variables of Mechanics raised by Einstein in his papers, where he stated that Quantum Mechanics is correct indeed, but it is not the complete way of describing reality, we try to continue after his footsteps here. ● I am not saying or considering the theory as an empirical fact yet, -even if the style of writing would give such an impression, the style meant to help readers to live the possibility of the hypothesis and also for the purpose of convergence of views- but what I'm really saying, it deserves the investigation. ● The theory is intending to build upon the current theories and complete them, and it is not intending to replace them.

•Mar 1, 2015•0 citations

Different Levels of the Meaning of Wave-Particle Duality and a Suspensive Perspective on the Interpretation of Quantum Theory

Yong Wook Cheong, Jinwoong Song

Science & Education•Aug 5, 2013•33 citations

The continuum Universe

John P. Ralston

We review why quantum mechanics was once considered very difficult. The first enemy of understanding is the Newtonian notion of a point particle, which never appears in the theory’s formulation in terms of continuous waves. The second enemy is a presentation that came out of history. The old order of presentation confusingly assumed the point particle and the theory developed from 1900–1925 were foundation points, while those foundations had disappeared. By adopting a modern order of assumptions many paradoxes vanish before they appear. The actual theory of quantum continuum waves is simple, sensible, coherent, and intuitively appealing.

Morgan & Claypool Publishers eBooks•Apr 1, 2018•0 citations

The Paradoxes of Quantum Physics and the Complementary Mode of Description

Martin Strauss

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1972•0 citations

Some Critical Considerations on the Present Epistemological and Scientific Debate on Quantum Mechanics

G. C. Ghirardi

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•4 citations

Quantum theory and its interpretation

Alexander E. Wendt

Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2015•55 citations
In the first section of my paper, I want to consider the “paradoxes of complementarity” between polarised notions such as the quantum concepts of “wave” and “particle.” I will argue that if we treat this topic with all the “gravity” it deserves, we will be able to understand once and for all why this debate (and others like it) can never be completely resolved (paradox intended). In the second section, I want to consider the notion of “parody.” At the end, astute readers must determine for themselves whether I can be trusted to mean what I say, or whether this is all merely ironic, a post-modern hoax, one that undercuts the very boundaries it installs.
● The theory in this stage is merely a proposal, an attempt to start looking and find the missing variables of Mechanics raised by Einstein in his papers, where he stated that Quantum Mechanics is correct indeed, but it is not the complete way of describing reality, we try to continue after his footsteps here. ● I am not saying or considering the theory as an empirical fact yet, -even if the style of writing would give such an impression, the style meant to help readers to live the possibility of the hypothesis and also for the purpose of convergence of views- but what I'm really saying, it deserves the investigation. ● The theory is intending to build upon the current theories and complete them, and it is not intending to replace them.
We review why quantum mechanics was once considered very difficult. The first enemy of understanding is the Newtonian notion of a point particle, which never appears in the theory’s formulation in terms of continuous waves. The second enemy is a presentation that came out of history. The old order of presentation confusingly assumed the point particle and the theory developed from 1900–1925 were foundation points, while those foundations had disappeared. By adopting a modern order of assumptions many paradoxes vanish before they appear. The actual theory of quantum continuum waves is simple, sensible, coherent, and intuitively appealing.
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.