Determinism, Speed of Light Take Back Seat

It is called Quantum Entanglement and it has just been proven more true, repeatable time and again with the same identical results (so far), and so must exist as a law, if not near-law, in Quantum Mechanics. The implications of this being law are massive!

Why massive? Let me first share what experiment just took place further proving the truth of quantum entanglement, or what Albert Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,” and what was done and what it means, then I will discuss the possible implications, particularly for ethics and morals.

Two Distant Separate Quasars Judge Proceedings

The old guard, i.e. classical physics and/or philosophy, hold that for an event or action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the perceived space between those points such as a field or unseen supreme being must arbitrate the action. To exert an influence or force, something, e.g. a wave, energy, or particle, must travel through the field between the two bodies, carrying the information/influence. Therefore, the principle of locality implies that an event/force at one point cannot cause an instantaneous, simultaneous result at another point. This also implies then that Quantum Mechanics violates either locality or realism, and models of Hard Determinism. More on this later.

What is undeniable and already happening is the dawn of Quantum Supremacy. What is Quantum Supremacy? Currently, and over the last decade or more, conventional supercomputers and microprocessors like the phone in your hand or laptop at your office do computations using bits-flipped like a coin with heads and tails; 1’s and 0’s and various binary combinations of those 1’s and 0’s. Polarity is another way of looking at it:  positive and negative combinations. The bigger the calculation, the more bits/coins (size and time) the microprocessor requires in today’s supercomputers. With quantum bits/processing (Qubits or Qb’s) they are a combination of 1’s and 0’s, or heads or tails as if the coin was constantly spinning on its axis showing both sides:  the more qubits, the greater the processing power.

quantum computer

A Quantum computer

What these calculating speeds mean is that Quantum Supremacy can make so many large, various calculations simultaneously that the number would exceed all the atoms in the entire observable Cosmos. The observable cosmos is currently measured at about 93-billion light-years in diameter. Try to imagine the number of atoms in that space. Quantum Supremacy is essentially reaching or is on the doorstep of consciousness. These quantum computers and quantum encryption rely on quantum entanglement being real, a law of nature!

Since the 1920’s and 1930’s Quantum physicists have theorized various forms and possible laws pertaining to the activity, behavior, and makeup of subatomic particles and their predicted or probable condition at any given time. However, old habits and stubborn ideologies and traditions die hard. Dare I say they sometimes appear immortal, divine, impervious, and immeasurable.

Not anymore, or not so much.

animated particlesMany scientific experiments have been made to test the veracity of quantum entanglement. All of them in their specific parameters have so far shown that quantum entanglement is real, but quite difficult to consistently explain. The nagging counter-argument has always been the freedom of choice loophole. This loophole basically means or purports that a hidden classical variable (God?) can or does influence (in degrees) how a curious experimenter/observer measures a subject, or in this case an entangled particle. Is that too confusing to wrap your head around? No worries. Here’s a tangible analogy.

Imagine the Universe as a bar-pub with 20 different beers listed above the bartender for you to drink. You think you can order any of the 20 beers, but then the manager from the back tells you, “We’re out of the lagers,” and so it turns out only thirteen of the beers are really on draft. You still have the freedom to choose from the remaining thirteen beers, but you were over-counting your degrees of freedom while unexpectedly reducing your chance of excessive inebriation! Woohoo! A good thing, right? Eh, depends on the size of the beer-drinker, his or her thirst, and the size of beer-glasses, and whether you have that much money to pay… or find your mouth by the time the 10th or 12th beer-glass is served and gravity kicks in like a MoFo! Get the loophole picture? God or gravity does not want you drinking so many good beers.

But in February 2018 our favorite pub-bar was completely redone, restaffed, restocked, and redefined. Sorry Jim, John Zande, and Arkenaten. Using the William Herschel Telescope in conjunction with the Galileo National Telescope—both a half-mile apart from each other—at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, in La Palma, Spain in the Canary Islands, a team of physicists led by Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna and David Kaiser of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, focused on two different High-Redshift quasars billions of light-years away (7.8 and 12.2) in order to determine whether the light-photons are more red or blue than a baseline. Since those photon-lights of the quasars being measured by the telescopes are actually over 7.8- and 12.2-billion years old, the likelihood that some classical mechanism, process, or loophole could intervene/interfere with their tests are precisely 10 ¯²°, or 1 in 100 billion billion. There is no conspiracy because the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. However, there are probabilities as tiny and as far into outer space as you could impossibly imagine!

detector schematic-entangled photons

D. Rauch (Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080403)

For the purpose of quantum entanglement, determinism, and the speed of light, what Zeilinger’s and Kaiser’s two 15-minute experiments—of over 17,000 and 12,000 pairs of entangled photons—showed was that the photon quasar pairs were indeed quantumly entangled even while located billions of light-years apart. Therefore, it is only a 1 in 100 billion billion chance that quantum entanglement does not exist. Like it or not, it is quite real and to Einstein’s chagrin, it is faster than the speed of light. Want a more layman’s description of that speed? If you could travel the speed of light, you could go around the entire Earth 7.5 times in one second. I’ll give you less than a minute to catch your breath.

The Ethical and Moral Implications of Quantum Entanglement

Earlier in this post I mentioned that Quantum Mechanics violates either locality or realism, and models of Hard Determinism. The origin of Determinism, and most certainly Hard Determinism can be found in several ancient Bronze and Iron Age, Classical Age, Post-Classical, and Early Modern civilizations and their histories. One of those civilizations or cultures that heavily influenced our Western Civilizations was ancient Judaism, Judaeo-Christianity, and Medieval-to-Modern Christianity. One consistent theme throughout all three of those aforementioned cultures was the implied and Scriptural sovereignty and foresight of their Judaeo-Christian God “YHWY” or Yahweh. In other words and for our identification and distinction here, God is causa sui, or a self-caused cause, timeless, the beginning of all beginnings in need of no cause to be. The overwhelming (canonical) Scriptural corroboration for this follows:

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14)

Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:2)

“For I, the Lord, do not change… (Malachi 3:6a)

O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
[…]
Even the darkness is not dark to You,
And the night is as bright as the day.
Darkness and light are alike to You.

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:1-13)

And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:13)

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… (Hebrews 1:3)

The Lord has established His throne in the heavens,
And His sovereignty rules over all. (Psalm 103:19)

Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. (Matt. 10:29-31)

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:14-15)

Also Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2:8; and 2 Timothy 1:9-10 and many more.

Clearly, according to the Jewish and Judaeo-Christian or Christian “God” of their canonical Bible there is no room for freedom of choice or free-will. This is also called Incompatibilism. No doubt, there will be thousands of other Christians, preachers and scholars alike (Wayne Jackson), screaming “foul, lies, and apostasy” at me. Yet, as shown by the above passages “God” is in complete and total control of everything and ultimately you. We are merely players acting out our preconceived programmes according to their Holy Scriptures and wildly enough, this is also believed and taught by some non-Christians. This thinking and imposed determinism (apostasy?) was further defined and defended by the creation of at least 10 classic dogmas, three that I emphasize deserve special attention:

  • Being – from Parmenides and Plato to Heidegger and Sartre, all Becoming and Time has been seen as a corrupt this-worldly illusion, preventing us from seeing the Great Chain of Being. All events are extratemporal and simultaneous in the eyes of God. Aquinas’ totem simul.
  • Necessity – Necessity is often opposed to chance. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated. Nothing is contingent. From Leucippus to the Stoics, Leibniz, and Spinoza.
  • Analysis – from Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid, Archimedes, and Galileo comes the powerful train of thought that everything can be explained by analytical mathematical functions. Newton’s mathematical laws of motion for celestial bodies was the crowning achievement for analysis. For William Blake, breaking things into their component parts to analyze their workings was “murder to dissect.”
  • Certainty – Descartes’ quest for an undeniable fact on which he could erect the Truth of Philosophy and the Christian Religion.
  • Logic – Logical determinism is the simple idea that events in the future must be as true or false today as they will be after they happen. Aristotle doubted this in his famous discussion of the Sea Battle.
  • Causality – Aristotle and the great Scholastic thinkers imagined a causal chain from the First Cause to the present moment. Although David Hume said we could not prove causality from mere appearances of Regularity, he nevertheless believed deeply in Necessity, above as the 2nd bullet-point.
  • Physical – The first great determinism was that of the earliest physicists and philosophers Leucippus and Democritus. For them there was nothing but atoms moving through a void. Later the Stoic physicists based physical determinism on the Laws of Nature or the Laws of God, since they identified Nature with God via General Revelation.
  • Mechanism – If classical mechanics could explain the motions of the heavens as the result of natural laws, the same laws might explain human beings, including the individual mind and society. Enlightenment philosophers wrote of “Man as Machine.” Planetary motions and mental processes were compared to mechanical clockworks.
  • Reasoning – The idea that the universe must be rational—because its designer was rational, because thought would not be possible without reason, because natural laws must be rational, etc.—convinced many thinkers that reason allows only one future, and only one possible choice for the rational will.
  • Truth – The idea that one man, one religion, or one state possesses the One Truth (Monisms like 1 Corinthians 1:10) has been one of the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought.
bible determinism

(Abaco Bum, Flikr, Public Domain)

Some of these past thinkers, reformers, revolutionaries, prophets, preachers, apostles, philosophers, patristic fathers and what have you, would turn these dogmas into indivisible, lowest common denominator fundamentals, or immutable laws that all knowledge, thought, or the best science could not exist without one or more of the ten being unequivocally “true.” Bold? Misguided? Ignorant?

As Quantum Physics, Mechanics, and Computing become more understood, more refined, and harnessed beyond the speed of light to the point of consciousness, it would be an understatement to say humanity is near or undoubtedly at an unprecedented place in history. With quantum entanglement and computing anything is or will be possible because observed measurements (moral/ethical judgments) can never be more than probabilities. Hard Determinism denies any randomness in the operation of the world. Old guard traditionalist and Monists deny chance. They turn their eyes away from the underlying chaos in the universe. Probabilities and subjectivism makes their stomachs ill and their skin crawl. As William James succinctly described, Determinists or if I may, Absolute Certainists(?), have antipathy to chance and adequate probability.

Quantum entanglement and supremacy forces them to see the magnificent kaleidoscope of ergodic, creative phenomena that can build adequately determined information-blueprints in spite of, and basically on top of, our perpetual chaos. Hah! Ergodic procedures control, contain, constrain, and co-opt entropic chaos, using it to their own teleonomic ends of biological creativity, and, in the case of animal intelligence, human freedom. In a few words, Monism or classic Determinism, especially hard determinism, or causality is just plain ignorance and there is now ample evidence proving it does not exist. But there will always be hard-line deniers of pluralism and uncertainty.

Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore,” Martin Luther believed. I guess then it follows Luther’s logic that Quantum Entanglement is God’s invigorating libertine, huh? Mmm. Oh the rampant debauchery of it! Be still my thumping heart and nether parts!

————

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Truth, Denial & Phobia

This is the second part of Being Wrong & Feeling Right: Two Parts.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Deborah Lipstadt is an American historian and author specializing in the Holocaust. In 1993 she published her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory where she responds in extensive detail to rising, growing movements in Europe and parts of N. America challenging the veracity of the Holocaust during World War II and claiming it did not take place and was overly exaggerated by the European Jews. David Irving, a Nazi Germany advocate and controversial scholar, sued Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books Ltd in the U.K. for her characterizations of his writings and public speeches writing in her book he was anti-Semitic, preposterous, and barely a pseudo-historian.

Lipstadt and Penguin Books won their case by proving in the British court that her characterizations of Irving’s work and speeches were significantly true and not libelous to Irving. The judge’s decision was a paramount victory not only against Holocaust denial, but also a major victory against shotty, ill-founded denialism while further reinforcing credible, consensual, established academia and scholarship by some of the world’s most elite institutions of higher (highest) education and their renown experts and staffs.

In 2016 the film Denial dramatized these proceedings in British court, the case and the real-life characters, and was deservedly nominated for Best British Film in 2017. For these above reasons I highly recommend watching the movie. The official trailer:

When upsetting, distressing, or traumatic events and/or information arises that shake-up or shatter a person’s belief-system and/or our perception of life, our human brain and nervous system—and if we’re more fully comprehensive, our ego as well—can create a psychological coping routine, a mechanism that neglects and negates what is or has actually happened. Fear and anxiety over being wrong and confused or the potential of it, causes a large portion of the human population to simply deny those events/information exist(ed). For them it is easier to deny than walk the harder, troubling, longer road of learning to solve, adapt and cope. They will often seek out echo-chambers (organizations or groups) to further cement the psychological denial. Over time the repeated immersing into the neuro-cognitive pathologies and regular participation with echoing support-groups can and often do create long-term phobias.

Another powerful motive for denialism is self-interest, that prideful ego which convinces us we deserve favorable praise and inflated importance at the expense of reality and others. Self-preservation at any cost.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair

Or when his image of power is threatened! Sinclair could not be more correct when considering a long, long history of prime examples. I will name only a handful of examples, but the list of overly inflated egos (some tyrannical), self-preservation, severe denial, and paranoia through atrocious brutality is long and always growing:

  • Henry Ford and the too little too late Model A — Henry Ford, Sr. was in Model T La-La land (denial) virtually until his death. He blamed worker unions for the plummeting sales of the 20-year antiquated Model T automobile. When he finally relented to production of the Model A, Chrysler-Plymouth and General Motors had seized the industry’s top market positions, leaving Ford to wither and struggle until World War II arrived.
  • Coca-Cola — a small number of taste-test participants influenced or contaminated Coca-Cola Company’s (un)controlled market testing (Project Kansas) of a sweeter formula being considered as the New Coke to boost sales and market share. The change was an utter failure/denial by Coke executives because the facts of market data showed for decades it was Coke’s brand-name that made and kept loyal consumers, not a newer formula and change.
  • DuPont — and their disposal (or failure to properly dispose) of chemicals used to make Teflon that leak or eventually leak into human or animal drinking water-basins. Well over 3,500 lawsuits against DuPont and/or Chemours still await trial. Both mega-billion dollar corporations deny their chemical or waste management directly cause major health-injury problems in at least 27 U.S. states. However, since 1961 DuPont’s own scientists knew their chemical wastes caused severe and lethal problems in lab animals, but intentionally concealed (denied) these studies from the public and EPA.
  • Lehman Brothers — and their asset overvaluation (denialism & greed) then subsequent bankruptcy in 2008, a major player/cause of the 2008 Wall Street crash then bailout by U.S. taxpayers via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  • Joseph Stalin — the “Great Purge” between 1936 – 1938 when Stalin murdered around 750,000 political rivals and dissenters and over 1-million others he perceived as threats. These are conservative estimates.
  • Saddam Hussein — aside from the gassing of some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis and wounding over 10,000 more in 1988, Hussein convened a public meeting of Ba’ath Party officials in July 1979. He ordered the gathering to be videotaped. Hussein read a list of 69 names of perceived “traitors” who were then escorted out in custody then executed by firing squad or given weapons inside a courtyard and ordered to execute each other or themselves.
  • Intel — for nearly 3 decades (60’s – 80’s) Intel reigned supreme in semiconductors, with their memory-chip and microprocessors both. By 1983 Japanese semiconductors had stolen a big chunk of that market. Intel was in a nose dive. Like Henry Ford, old vanguard CEO’s at Intel thought their long dominance in memory-chips were the future (denialism, skewed rationalism) whereas Gordon Moore and Andy Grove realized the ominous hard data, facts and stats overwhelmingly pointed to the microprocessor and PC’s as the future. Their decision to change the business model—amp up and expand production of microprocessors while cutting way back on memory-chips—saved Intel from looming bankruptcy. “Pentium” is now a household name.
  • ExxonMobil — one of the most blatant hypocritical cases of denialism for self-preservation has been ExxonMobil. Within almost 200 in-house publications between 1977 – 2014, the oil giant’s own scientists admitted (click here) that climate change was unequivocally occurring and caused by human discharge and/or waste.
  • Richard M. Nixon — though a number of U.S. Presidents clearly fall into this denial, truth, phobic examination, President Nixon is the poster-boy of denialism for self-preservation during and after the Watergate scandal in the early 1970’s. A new poster-boy President of blatant denialism and inflated ego may(?) be just around the corner.
  • Adolf Hitler — Duh, of course. No explanation necessary.
  • Should I name all the evangelical pastors or Catholic clergy?
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. — in tandem with The Tobacco Institute and PR firm Hill & Knowlton, Inc., the tobacco industry launched a massive counter-attack against scientific and medical-health researchers determining and publicly publishing the negative impacts of smoking. Their counter-attack? “Doubt is our product.
  • Merck and their VIOXX — Before the FDA could approve Merck’s blockbuster pain-relief rofecoxib hit drugstore shelves, health professionals were finding and reporting in 1999, 2000, and 2004 the drug increased the risks of heart disease. With 88,000 – 139,000 heart attacks (30% – 40% fatal) attributed to rofecoxib, over four years later the drug was finally banned in November 2004. Merck executives knew of these reports, but misled physicians, the public, and the FDA.
  • USS Indianapolis Capt. McVay Tragedy — in the dying months of the Pacific War 1945 the naval heavy battlecruiser, while carrying the atomic bomb to eventually be dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, was headed for her next assignment. At 12:15AM 30 July 1945, the USS Indianapolis was fatally struck by two Japanese torpedoes and sunk in 12-minutes. Due to her top secret cargo and mission she was never reported missing even after 24-36 hours after her scheduled arrival in Leyte. In the end and after an official investigation into the tragedy, the U.S. Navy solely blamed Capt. Charles B. McVay III and court-martialed him, putting the 1,139 lost sailors on his head and in self-preservation of and abdication by the U.S. Navy rather than take the public shame and embarrassment for numerous mistakes in combat intel. For many years after McVay received hate-mail from families of lost Indianapolis sailors. Declassified naval documents now reveal (though too late) that Capt. McVay was in truth not to blame for any causes leading to the ship’s sinking. But in 1968 McVay committed suicide.

These 14 prime examples are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the modern refined art of denial, distorting the truth and reality. I am quite sure you could name off several more I did not mention, right?

Public Outcomes of Denialism, Phobia, and Untruths/Lies

————
Immunization Non-Compliance
— Despite the remarkable declines or near eradication of measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis across the U.S. and most of the world over the previous century and modern, universal availability of vaccines, resurgence of these diseases persist. CDC data for the measles:

immunization-us

click here to enlarge

Paranoia Over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) — Despite the significant consensus by scientists, healthcare physicians, and bio-genetic engineers from many acclaimed prestigious institutions and universities across the world, who stake their lifetime careers and reputations on making these studies and publications, a large percentage of Americans are afraid and skeptical of foods that have been genetically modified. From the National Academies for Sciences, Engineering & Medicine:

gmos

click here to enlarge

One such university, Purdue University’s College of Agriculture addresses the misinformation and conflicting media stories; click here for more details.

The Impact of Ignorance or Restricted Knowledge — Truth or fiction. Fiction or truth. Many selectively choose what they want to accept as factual if it aligns with their own political, social, or religious beliefs. They also choose what is fallacy or untrue, or will ignore the evidence/data when it doesn’t align, whether it is verified, confirmed, factual and true, or not.

9-11 and obama

click here to enlarge

Ideological Divide On Climate Change — Despite the abundant evidence and facts over the last century measuring global climate change, there remains a deep ideological divide in the U.S. about whether it is very serious and harming people now.

climate change divide

click here to enlarge

Holocaust Doubting and Denial — Despite the eye-witness accounts by thousands upon thousands of Allied liberating soldiers and their commanders at Nazi death or concentration camps across Europe in the last months of World War II, as well as the abhorrent physical and forensic evidence at the time, a noticeable population today believe the Holocaust did not occur or was greatly exaggerated by Jews and Jewish sympathizers.

holocaust denial

click here to enlarge

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Don Quixote: My lady

I am not your lady!…
I am not any kind of a lady! 

So of course I became,
As befitted my delicate birth,
The most casual bride
Of the murdering scum of the earth!
Aldonza

Don Quixote: And still thou art my lady.

And still he torments me!
How should I be a lady?

If you feel that you see me
Not quite at my virginal best,
Cross my palm with a coin,
And I’ll willingly show you the rest!
Aldonza

Don Quixote: Never deny thou art Dulcinea.

Take the clouds from your eyes
and see me as I really am!
Aldonza

Those are a portion of the musical lyrics from the song and scene “Aldonza” in the 1972 film Man of La Mancha. Though the beautiful, alluring, prostitute Aldonza is trying to convince Don Quixote that she is not the woman he imagines, it is clear for several reasons that he is not seeing it nor will he accept it. Such is the force of denialism lost in euphoric romance. Emotions have over-powered critical reasoning.

Recognizing Methods of Truthiness, Denialism, or Phobias

This will not be an exhaustive list, but I will spot-light more popular, modern methods of reframing, misdirection, or flagrant deceit by employing pseudo-science or pseudo-historicity (vs. accredited historicity & historiography) that an audience or people are so dazed by the audacity, they may doubt or question their own perceptions of reality. Here are five traits of denialism from the European Journal of Public Health by Paschal Diethelm and Martin McKee:

  1. Pinpointing emotionally based or controversial conspiracies and publicizing those opinions. This would include tainted or polluted peer review or checks-n-balances by other expert colleagues in the subject field. Inversionism is a variant of conspiracy theories which can be utilized.
  2. Employing fake experts or paper-vapor institutions to refute (and slander?) legitimate experts. The internet or world-wide-web is ideal for this tactic.
  3. Specifically isolating or cherry-picking support and sources while ignoring or overlooking exhaustive databases, research studies, and counter-reviews.
  4. Imploring near-impossible or ridiculous standards of confirmation, e.g. the Lenski Affair.
  5. Employing logical fallacies which might include red herrings, straw-men arguments, or false analogies.

————

Attacking Intellectualism on the Rise

Why is the majority of the general public gullible and/or naïve to hyped or erroneous influences? Why do celebrity, charismatic personalities attract droves of people to ill-founded causes and misguided, immoral, unethical ideologies? When we are trapped by self-imposed fears and external turmoil caused and funded by targeted propaganda, it becomes easier to simply deny our imperfections and mistakes, as tragic as they might be, in order to feel right instead of the alternative:  shame or embarrassment.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our nation’s Founding Fathers and the 3rd President, opportunistically attacked intellectualism. John Adams, as well as Alexander Hamilton, got into heated debates with Jefferson about democracy and how it should be governed. Jefferson and his political party supported the wisdom of the commoners, a peer review, if you will, to hedge against tyranny and oligarchies or dictators. Adams Sr. and Hamilton, however, knew too well how poorly educated most commoners of that day were to con-men tyrants and charismatic persuasion by corrupt causes and ideologies. Yet, in today’s more advanced, more widely educated populations—primarily in first-world or advancing second-world nations—as opposed to 18th-century America, the mob revolutions in which Jefferson witnessed in his day occur less frequently due to informed early detection by the citizens.

In other words, today there exists exponentially more credentialed “experts” to police Cults of Personality and protect the less fortunate and more gullible against precisely the cunning tyrants Jefferson detested. One difference in today’s pool of experts is that they are all highly specialized in very specific fields of study, possibly two or three, maybe four on a basic level. But not ten or fifteen or more. Being a Nobel Prize winning expert or scholar in ten or more subjects is humanly impossible. Therefore, like it or not, we must… no, we have no choice but to rely on highly trained, vastly experienced professionals, the “intellectuals” in their fields of expertise. In this regard, even Thomas Jefferson fell short. Now, with all due respect to our 3rd President, if we commission a large pool of experts, ala a democracy of intelligent commoners(?), then we could hope Tommy would have approved.

Pessimistic or Vigilant?

Truth does matter. Truth backed up by incontrovertible, scientific or historical facts, repeatable ad infinitum, do indeed exist. In an interview about the movie Denial and her legal run-in with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt said:

I try to be optimistic about things, but history teaches me that that is not always the case. There are people out there who are very much beguiled by these stories. When I see it seep into the general conversation of people not on extreme ends, that’s when I get worried. This is why it is so important to challenge liars about their lies. Challenge them with the facts.

deborah lipstadtI do have a lot of admiration and respect for what Ms. Lipstadt and her legal team showed and protected regarding accredited scholarship, freedom of speech, and the accountability one must always own in speaking or printing ideas or opinions as facts of science and/or history. She certainly deserves applause and recognition for protecting the atrocious reality of the Nazi Holocaust against saber-rattling, self-proclaimed, self-absorbed, charismatic trouble-makers calling them self a great leader, or reformer, or intellectual. Her victorious feat cannot be denied.

Ms. Lipstadt is Jewish by birth and by all available accounts and information it is reasonable to assume she is still active in practicing her Jewish faith. There is no easily accessible information to the contrary. This leads me to my own question for Ms. Lipstadt in regard to her quote just above.

There are increasing amounts of scholarly and scientific evidence and facts suggesting, even convincingly demonstrating that all three Abrahamic religions are based on beguiling stories which are indeed within general conversations of people not on extreme ends over 2-3 millenia that in the end are hoaxes, gross distortions of historicity, and the three religions worry and cause great concern for a large number of sane, reasonably intelligent secularists and humanists around the world. My question:

Have you or would you, Ms. Lipstadt, put your religious faith to the exact same rigorous scrutiny you afforded the defense of the Holocaust and put bogus Holocaust deniers through?

To my readers, followers, and visitors. Please feel free to share your thoughts, questions, or challenges. They could stimulate an invigorating discussion or debate!

————

Creative Commons License
Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Cheating: More Fashionable & Popular!

Yes, the results of the “anonymous” polls and the historical court records are in, cheating on your spouse (sometimes called “irreconcilable differences”) is today more popular, perhaps run-of-the-mill and even expected, more than ever in our societal facade of til death do you part! Why? Why in the early, middle, or latter years of a long-term commitment do two people wonder away from each other emotionally, mentally, and/or sexually from lifetime vows, promises, and contracts? How many acclaimed cinema films tell the truth about love, dying love, love rediscovered, or mistaken naïve love despite the noble vows, promises, and contracts?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

A May 2016 New York Magazine article says women now “cheat” or have extramarital relations as much as men always have throughout cultural history with their mistresses, concubines, courtesans, and harems, but fortunately with much fewer severe consequences.

It is, perhaps, another milestone in the march to equality. Women and men are now taking an equal-opportunity approach to extramarital hanky-panky. A report out of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University found that, for the first time in modern history, women are cheating at nearly the same rate as men. Another study, published in the National Opinion Research Center’s 2013 General Social Survey, found that while the percentage of men who admitted to infidelity has held constant over the last two decades, the percentage of wives who reported having affairs rose almost 40 percent.

[…]

Another recent study found that some women are genetically predisposed to “extra pair bonding,” euphemistically speaking. Men don’t have this gene.

But the prevailing theory is that modern marriage is what’s killing marriage — that the more deliberation women put into whom they pair up with, the more willing and motivated they are to make a move when something’s not working.

[…]

Women now are more aware of the alternatives to monogamy and more inclined to demand to have all their needs met. That’s because happiness is such an important part of marriage. Fewer women are marrying out of need; instead, they’re marrying to please themselves. But that also means when they’re dissatisfied with something they feel justified to go elsewhere.”

I would argue quite earnestly on the validity of one claim the article made. It says The crazy part, [Rebecca] elaborates, is not the apparent epidemic of adultery, but that it’s the women who seem to be fueling it. I disagree. As the popular and truthful cliché goes it takes two to tango — that is, consensual tango. Thriving and loving lifetime marriages are a 50/50 responsibility as well as a 50/50 risk or reward, no more, no less… always. Is that not the correct definition of full and true equality? And using the description epidemic of adultery is unnecessarily harsh when an action/behavior is a choice, not a contagious virus which is not chosen. Last I checked, adultery is a human choice.

What is wrong with having dreams and hopes in life? Isn’t it inherently and socially accepted, even encouraged, for a man or woman to “have it all” in a lifetime monogamous marriage? The article later reads:

Lauren, 41, admits she wanted it all: “the best friend, the domestic partner, the professional equal, the lover,” she says. She had two out of four when, some eight years and one baby into her marriage, she began sleeping with a co-worker — a guy who was more her professional equal than her low-earning husband, who’d largely given up on his career. “A healthy attraction to a person does demand you have a little bit of intrigue and imbalance, which in male-female-empowered relationships is not a priority,” she says. “Wanting some hetero-normalcy isn’t something people want to talk about, not in that bougie Brooklyn world I live in. A lot of women I know stick with it and suffer through it even as they have that fantasy of being with someone who is their equal, or even their superior.” — New York Magazine article

The journalist Alyssa Giacobbe reports the very real and justified anger of a husband who has been deceived and cheated-on sharing two examples of his public shaming of the unfaithful wife. But once again, if one is expected to impeccably honor their words, vows, promises, and contracts, then it applies equally to both husband and wife. Yet, examining our human social, patriarchal history doesn’t quite bear that ideal, does it? What I found very comically intriguing in Giacobbe’s report was what Dr. Ian Kerner, a sex and relationship psychotherapist, had found in his decades of practice:

When the woman strays, there’s anger, yes, but there’s also much more interest from the [husband] than there ever was to collaborate and talk and work it out, [while the wife has been having an affair with] some douche bag down the street. — New York Magazine article

The husband erroneously thinks it is a phase she is currently going through and will pass like a common cold. Many men rarely ask, Might it have something partially to do with me, or a LOT to do with me!? What a novel question! But to be fair, a novel question for either spouse. And why does it take something so painfully dishonorable or negligent by both spouses, and so late in the infection, if you will, in order for a sudden inspiration “to work it out” and improve, to be a better husband or wife? Why the delay?

Most or perhaps many of the stories of marital struggles and/or infidelity are quite familiar to you the readers I’m sure, and among your social or job circles, possibly within your own family or your own past relationships or marriages. Cheating is honestly not uncommon (to utilize a juxtaposition here 🤭) despite those appearing as “civil” marriages that underneath are hush-hush and closeted. It is however, unsurprisingly, a long distorted and ‘mystified’ result frequently manifested by limiting, proprietary, phobic or paranoid protective (hyper-jealousy), verbally silent, and repressive structures in those marriages. Furthermore, one should never presume that one’s own marriage or long-termed relationship is forever immune to such changes, possibly major surprises and challenges, when humans and circumstances are constantly fluid, moving and changing. I purposely emphasize this to my own heterosexual gender fooled into thinking that a socio-religious contract is unbreakable or unsinkable! Many old and ancient marriages — including those of our grandparents, great grandparents, etc. — simply remained intact due to the potential hardships the woman faced having to survive solo as a divorcee, even harder if publicly labelled an adulterer. Not so for the man.

man checking out another womanWith all of the above said, known, or unknown — intentional distortions, deceptions and mystifying of cheating — is there more to it, something mainstream traditional society has not considered, or is too afraid to seriously consider for far too long? I think so.

I suggest that the old, antiquated, mainstream construct of marriage, in particular monogamous marriage, was never ideal or realistic in the first place. Traditions that fail to evolve and adapt eventually die-out. Therefore, there are a number of reasons (supported by continued, advancing sciences) for our apparent(?) rise of marital cheating. I will list just five important reasons and the last two are critical to understand, possibly requiring our acceptance and embrace if you are a strong advocate for total marital monogamy. If so, if you believe lifetime monogamy is the best or only marital setup, then put on your thickest battle armor and prepare for years of relentless, 24/7, 365 days of acute alertness, attentiveness… never letting your guard down. Warning! Keeping a lifetime monogamous marriage/relationship in tact, much less thriving, is and will be a visible and sometimes invisible struggle upstream against natural (rarely against immoral or evil) forces everywhere. And even if you foolishly believe you have been victorious, sometimes your “enemy” is in and has been in your encampment for a long time and you did not notice. Faulty intelligence is ever-present, anywhere at anytime. That is simply human nature.

Nevertheless, for those who believe in Walt Disney-style eternal love and romance with one person their entire lifetime, it can be done. I have 3-4 different married aunts and uncles who have done it for 50-60+ years. They all have one thing in common:  societal remoteness. In other words, they are quite recluse when it comes to daily social engagement; it’s very infrequent. Think about that.

To the five contributing factors of marital cheating. The first three reasons are summarized from Dr. Susan Whitbourne’s excellent report on PsychologyToday.com. The fourth reason is summarized from Ker Than and LiveScience.com. And the fifth and final reason below is from yours truly. I feel it is an overlooked or badly ignored factor in an already maligned, faulty, antiquated marital construct. Hence, I list it last.

Emotional Dissatisfaction
These spouses are seeking emotional intimacy and understanding they feel they are not experiencing in their primary relationship or marriage. Feeling appreciated and valued on a regular basis is an integral component in marriage if it is to last lifetimes. The precise details of this dissatisfaction can and do change over time for various reasons. The priorities of partners/spouses change and fluctuate over time, for example, when children enter the picture. Or a residential move or job-relocation occurs. How attentive we are to those fluid changes and what actions we take (or not take), verbally and non-verbally, will also dictate or influence future solutions and/or behaviors.

Sexual Dissatisfaction
This is the most common reason cited by clinical-counseling studies. I find this very interesting for two reasons. One, I discuss below in Mammalian/Primate Biology; it’s a natural biological force in 97.9% of humans, for a segment of humans it is a raging force relative to their sexual organs and hormonal makeup, starting as an embryo and genetically from their parent’s families and ancestors. Let me say this though.

Humans want to improve and/or explore their natural sexual desires. Medically, this does not generally decrease until a person’s late 40’s or 50’s, later if they lead a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, participants in these studies cited desires to experience additional sexual encounters with non-partners or outside of their spouse. This number is typically and predictably low due to societal pressure of it being unacceptable, historically of women, as if a marriage was NOT 50/50, but 30/70 or 20/80… where the woman either was expected to have the lowest desire for good/great sex or the higher expectation of responsibility of always pleasing the husband! HAH! Yeah, riddle me that one.

Dying Love and/or Redefined Love
This is a lower cited reason in clinical-counseling studies probably because love is difficult for many people to unanimously define. Today, it is indeed more complex socially (vs. biologically) than it was 100, 500, or 1,000 years ago. Overall, the studies suggest that deeper emotional and sexual intimacy are more compelling reasons for extramarital behaviors. They both can be simultaneous expectations or demands too, not necessarily one or the other. And falling in love with someone new is not often cited as the driving force for infidelity. This might be because keeping an affair secret often requires a sometimes exhausting amount of preparation, forethought, juggling of schedules, physical, mental, and emotional energy, and the careful explanations (disinformation, deception) for activities “without” the spouse and/or kids involved. When a cheater’s secret lover usually only comprises maybe 5% to 20% (give or take) of the cheater’s realistic available time in a day or week (factor in children), there is little to no time for deeper definitions of love to develop. Not in a reasonable, sane(?), stable fashion.

I want to quote one of the paragraphs in the PsychologyToday.com article and invite commentary on its validity:

The findings also show that a substantial group of people who engage in extramarital affairs are pretty good at shifting the responsibility away from themselves. Many claimed that the decision to enter into the affair was a mutual one, that their affairs were justified, and that they felt no guilt.

My contention with these spouses claiming the decision to enter into the affair was mutual, I would immediately rephrase by adding and asking “Was it a verbalized mutually understood decision!?” In other words, penetration was consented to? What type of penetration? What about fellatio or cunnilingus? And often the real biggie, what about emotional attachment or love? Allowed? Disallowed?

what-does-it-mean-when-a-woman-stares-at-youWhy should these liberties or boundaries not be openly discussed, negotiated at anytime in a healthy marriage? Better still, BEFORE the wedding day! More on this later in my last reason for cheating while married. And when should guilt and remorse be genuinely felt and expressed by the cheater, or should it at all? Is this the popular PR counter-move of turning oneself from a villain into a victim while portraying the true victim into a villain. We see this save-face tactic too often in politics by officials in power positions or celebrities in the public eye. The tactic does have its successes, though warped as they are. Take Tiger Woods or President Trump as two prime examples. Both are blindly adored by their fan-base despite their adulterous habits.

In the end, should any of these conditions, reasons, or results be the standard, the higher road? I don’t think so. I think it all stinks, or they set themselves up for future repugnance of the most vilest stench, if I can be frank!

Mammalian/Primate Biology
We humans, us Homo sapiens, are unequivocally lifetime members of the aquatic and terrestrial animal kingdom on Earth. We all share the same origins, period. DNA sequencing has put to bed any slight, wild doubts, misconceptions, or ill-founded blatant denial that this is not true. Much can be learned about ourselves by studying and thoroughly understanding animal mating behaviors. Let me begin this section by quoting a portion of Ker Than’s article from LiveScience.com:

Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent are known to form lifelong pair bonds. This select group includes beavers, otters, wolves, some bats and foxes and a few hoofed animals.

And even the creatures that do pair and mate for life occasionally have flings on the side and some, like the wolf, waste little time finding a new mate if their old one dies or can no longer sexually perform.

Staying faithful can be a struggle for most animals. For one, males are hardwired to spread their genes and females try to seek the best dad for their young. Also, monogamy is costly because it requires an individual to place their entire reproductive investment on the fitness of their mate. Putting all their eggs in one basket means there’s a lot of pressure on each animal to pick the perfect mate, which, as humans knows, can be tricky.

Our closest relatives, or cousins you might say, are the bonobos and common chimps of the Hominidae family of which we also belong from 4.5 – 5.5 million years ago (click here). We share 99.6% of their DNA. I likely do not need to go into the mating and social behaviors of the Bonobo chimpanzees; it is well-known. Read this article if you are unfamiliar with their distinguished behavior and social structure.

As it turns out, the neurotransmitter chemical dopamine is heavily linked to sexual and emotional love. But news flash, it isn’t that simple. Dopamine does not distinguish between monogamy or non-monogamy as some biased experts may claim. In the animal kingdom as well as with humans, individual, familial, diet, exercise, and the social dynamics surrounding those components play a significant part in levels of dopamine production just as much as sexual and/or emotional situations do. According to Healthline.com, there are 10 natural methods of increasing healthy levels of dopamine. No surprise, of those 10 ways, frequent exercise is one. Now, how many various ways can we humans regularly, erotically exercise? Exactly. By the way, emotional exercising is a part of exerting ourselves physically and/or mentally. Hence, how many different ways can we exert and challenge ourselves and our partner/spouse, or significant other(s), mentally and emotionally? I can name a minimum of five ways! Not all discomfort or nervousness is bad or life threatening in moderate, short-term amounts.

Like many different animals in their natural habitats and social environs, we humans also require regular mental, emotional, and physical stimulation in order to live, thrive, grow in strength, i.e. 3-part strength, and pass on the best possible genes and lifestyle to our descendants. That said, why then are cheaters labelled with or risk such distressing, troubling, negative feelings and connotations after engaging in extramarital affairs? Again, it is not so simple.

Poor, Ambiguous, or Impeded Unreserved Communication
These marital situations are not simple primarily because of one initial reason:  communication. Communication between cheating partners or spouses typically has not been open, voluntary, articulated well or accurately to reflect behavior, honest in other words, and therefore not well understood or erroneously understood by the listening, inquisitive, attentive partner/spouse. These ideal, lofty components of a happy, thriving, intimate relationship or marriage are an essential foundation for a long-term commitment to one person, much less a lifetime commitment. Why?

Because everything about humans change, evolve over time and the circumstances around them, e.g. family, careers, finances, ups, downs, health, births, deaths, and a plethora of societal and regional variables are constantly in play, whether weekly, monthly, annually, or longer. The only setup where these variables and components have little effects on a relationship or marriage is if the couple are consistently recluse, or lacking in those aforementioned healthy emotional, mental, and physical exercises. In those recluse cases, the “changes,” the “fitness” tends to be slower (non-existent?) due to much less diverse stimulation and exertion. You don’t know what you don’t actually experience or push yourself to achieve. You are unable to honestly say you have it best if you haven’t tasted the joys or pains of many bests and disasters. Many!

Therefore, everyone should always ask themselves, monitor attentively, maintain attentively their committed relationship, by gauging its health and asking… how freely, how proactively, how accurately, honestly with no reservations or shame or fear of shame do we both vulnerably express ourselves to each other? How often does this intense, safe level of intimate communication/expression occur between us? If your answer is not at all, or not so much, or could be better, or all of these above case studies of cheating spouses and victims admitted the same, examined the same, then the likely conclusion is that they, yourself, and your partner/spouse have poor, ambiguous, or reserved, impeded (greatly impeded?) communication with each other.

Paolo Coelho quote

That silent, distorted, secret or fearful relational environment becomes a nitroglycerin catalyst for much bigger problems and less time to redirect or solve if allowed to fester. In today’s mainstream, traditional, moderate relationships/marriages dishonorable cheating apparently then becomes one of the most common (easier, quicker?) reactions or results of poor, ambiguous, or impeded unreserved communication. The quick fix that doesn’t really fix at all.

What do all of you think? Why has “cheating” become more popular, more accepted, fashionable? Is there an easy or easier preventative measure to be implemented? Let me know in the comments.

————

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

Creative Commons License
This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.professortaboo.com/contact-me/.