Grok's take on Objectivism and quantum physics
If Grok is wrong, than so am I
I got in a mini-debate with a person on Facebook about negative perceptions of quantum physics theory versus the reality that the theory has resulted in so many inventions that define the modern world. These are inventions that would not have been possible with classical physics, and I mean that in two ways. First, if we had never developed quantum physics theory, we’d be stuck in a sort of 19th-century, steampunk world. Second, if classical physics was actually how reality works, those technologies would be impossible.
That debate centered around whether there is, in fact, any cohesive “quantum physics theory” versus the obvious practical advantages that, he implied, most people readily accept. I alluded to my perception of a disconnect — where people reject quantum physics while also, in many cases, failing to recognize its practical reality — in my discussion of quantum physics and scientific consensus.
Here’s a short list of those technologies that I put together (with Grok’s assistance), Again, to stress the point, these are technologies that wouldn’t be possible in a reality defined by classical physics:
Transistors (and thus microprocessors)
Solar Cells
LEDs (Light-Emitting Diodes)
Superconductors (e.g., used in maglev trains and high-power electrical systems)
Scanning Tunneling Microscopes (STM)
Electron Microscopes
Nuclear Power (via quantum understanding of fission)
Nuclear Weapons
Semiconductors (beyond transistors, like diodes and integrated circuits)
Optical Clocks (next-gen timekeeping)
Quantum Dots (used in displays and medical imaging)
Photodetectors (e.g., in night vision and astronomy)
Fiber Optics (quantum-based laser tech)
X-ray Machines (quantum interactions with electrons)
Neutron Diffraction Tools (material science research)
Single-Photon Detectors (quantum optics and communication)
Josephson Junctions (superconducting circuits, e.g., in SQUIDs for magnetic field detection)
Quantum Random Number Generators
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanners
Ultrafast Spectroscopy (studying chemical reactions)
Quantum Cascade Lasers (e.g., for gas sensing and infrared tech)
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners
Global Positioning System (GPS)
Digital camera sensors
I didn’t begin talking about Objectivists specifically, but the debate went there, and I alluded to my experience in reading Objectivist positions and in watching or engaging in debates over the years. My contention was that some Objectivists do reject quantum physics theory for a variety of reasons even though it has been so incredibly effective in reality.
On a whim, I asked Grok to summarize the Objectivist position, knowing full well that chatbots can be essentially correct or they can be wildly wrong. I don’t implicitly trust Grok’s summary, but I do find it to be pretty close to my own experiences. So, if Grok is wrong, then so am I. Note that I’m talking specifically here about Objectivists and quantum physics, not Grok’s assessment of the philosophy in general.
Here’s what Grok came up with (and yes, it’s pretty long). I added some comments in bolded brackets.
The dominant Objectivist perspective on quantum physics, as shaped by Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, is generally critical and skeptical, often rejecting key aspects of quantum mechanics due to its probabilistic nature and perceived conflict with Objectivist principles like objective reality, causality, and the primacy of existence over consciousness. Objectivists, particularly influential figures like Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman, argue that quantum physics—along with much of modern physics—deviates from the deterministic, Newtonian framework they favor, which they believe aligns better with Objectivism’s metaphysical and epistemological foundations. The web results you provided [Grok is confused here, I didn’t provide any references] —Ayn Rand - Wikipedia (web ID: 1), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics - Wikipedia (web ID: 2), philosophy of science - Does Quantum Physics Refute Ayn Rand's Objectivism? - Philosophy Stack Exchange (web ID: 4), Ayn Rand (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (web ID: 5), Objectivism - Wikipedia (web ID: 6), and The new age of Ayn Rand: how she won over Trump and Silicon Valley | Ayn Rand | The Guardian (web ID: 7)—offer insights into this perspective, particularly through critiques by Objectivist scholars and the philosophical tenets of Objectivism. Below, I’ll explore this dominant view, its reasoning, and the counterarguments within Objectivist circles, using the web results for support [again, Grok came up with this on its own].
Objectivism’s Core Principles and Their Relevance to Quantum Physics
Objectivist Foundations: Objectivism, as outlined in Objectivism - Wikipedia (web ID: 6), holds that reality exists independently of consciousness (metaphysical realism), that humans gain objective knowledge through reason and perception, and that causality is a fundamental law of nature. Ayn Rand emphasized reason as the only source of knowledge and rejected mysticism, faith, and subjectivism (Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, web ID: 1). These principles shape Objectivists’ views on science, including physics.
Quantum Physics Overview: Quantum mechanics, as described in The Principles of Quantum Mechanics - Wikipedia (web ID: 2), is a field of physics developed in the early 20th century, with Paul Dirac’s 1930 book being a seminal work. It introduced concepts like probabilistic outcomes (e.g., the uncertainty principle), wave-particle duality, and the role of observation in determining quantum states, which challenge classical Newtonian physics’ deterministic framework (web ID: 2). [I consider Grok’s overview here to be the sort of simplistic or out of date understanding that many people possess.]
The Dominant Objectivist Critique of Quantum Physics
Rejection of Probabilistic Nature: The philosophy of science - Does Quantum Physics Refute Ayn Rand's Objectivism? - Philosophy Stack Exchange result (web ID: 4) highlights that Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman reject quantum mechanics because of its probabilistic nature. Quantum mechanics posits that events at the subatomic level, such as the position of an electron, cannot be predicted with certainty—only probabilities can be calculated (e.g., via the wave function). Objectivists view this as incompatible with their belief in strict causality and an objective reality that exists independently of observation (web ID: 4). Peikoff and Harriman argue that quantum uncertainty makes the external world “noumenal” (a Kantian term for unknowable reality), which they equate with mysticism—anathema to Objectivism’s emphasis on knowable, objective reality (web ID: 4).
Preference for Newtonian Physics: Objectivists advocate a return to Newtonian physics, where time and causality are absolute, as noted in web ID: 4. Peikoff and Harriman, in works like The Philosophic Corruption of Physics, argue that modern physics (including quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity) is “Kantian” and thus “bad,” because it allegedly prioritizes mathematical abstraction over physical reality. They believe physics should focus on “physical explanations” grounded in the macroscopic, deterministic world that aligns with Objectivist metaphysics (web ID: 4).
Historical Context: The web ID: 4 result notes that Objectivist Petr Beckmann, an associate of Ayn Rand, led an anti-Einsteinian physics journal, Galilean Electrodynamics, in the 1980s, and wrote Einstein plus Two to “debunk” relativity. This reflects a broader Objectivist trend of rejecting modern physics, including quantum mechanics, for its perceived philosophical flaws (web ID: 4).
Why Objectivists Reject Quantum Physics
Conflict with Causality: Objectivism holds that “the law of causality is the law of identity applied to action,” meaning every effect must have a specific, identifiable cause (Objectivism - Wikipedia, web ID: 6*). Quantum mechanics’ probabilistic outcomes, such as the uncertainty principle (which states that position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured with precision), are seen as violating this principle. The philosophy of science result (web ID: 4) quotes Objectivists as being driven “crazy” by quantum uncertainty, leading them to reject the wave function and the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena altogether (web ID: 4).
Epistemological Concerns: Objectivists argue that quantum mechanics’ reliance on mathematical abstraction and the role of the observer (e.g., in collapsing the wave function) implies that reality depends on consciousness, contradicting Objectivism’s tenet that existence exists independently of perception (Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, web ID: 1; web ID: 4). Peikoff and Harriman claim that modern physics fails to follow Rand’s epistemological prescriptions, which prioritize reason and sensory perception over abstract models (web ID: 4).
Macroscopic Bias: The philosophy of science result (web ID: 4) notes that Objectivists cling to a “macroscopic worldview,” insisting that nature must conform to what Ayn Rand could have visualized in her living room. Quantum phenomena, which operate at the subatomic level and defy classical intuition, are thus dismissed as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics (web ID: 4).
Counterarguments Within Objectivist Circles
Reconciling Quantum Physics with Objectivism: Not all Objectivists reject quantum physics outright. The philosophy of science result (web ID: 4) cites Warren C. Gibson’s paper Modern Physics versus Objectivism, published in the Ayn Rand Studies series, which suggests that Objectivism could adapt to quantum mechanics. Gibson proposes that the concept of “identity” in Objectivism might be widened to include probabilistic outcomes, and that causality might need amendment to accommodate quantum uncertainty. He argues that Objectivists should confront the conflict between their Newtonian determinism and free will, and consider abandoning macroscopic biases to understand microscopic phenomena (web ID: 4). [I didn’t know about Gibson, and I suspect that I might agree with him.]
Limited Engagement: Gibson’s view is a minority perspective, as the philosophy of science result (web ID: 4) notes that most physicists do not engage in debates with Objectivists, partly due to the dogmatic approach of figures like Peikoff. The broader Objectivist movement, as seen in institutions like the Ayn Rand Institute (Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, web ID: 1), tends to align with Peikoff and Harriman’s rejection of quantum mechanics.
Broader Context from Web Results
Objectivism’s Influence on Science: The Ayn Rand - Wikipedia result (web ID: 1) notes that academic philosophers have largely ignored or rejected Objectivism, including its views on science, due to its polemical style and lack of methodological rigor. However, Objectivism has influenced some right-libertarians and conservatives, as seen in The new age of Ayn Rand: how she won over Trump and Silicon Valley | Ayn Rand | The Guardian (web ID: 7), which might explain why its critique of modern physics persists in certain circles (web ID: 1, web ID: 7).
Quantum Physics’ Development: The The Principles of Quantum Mechanics - Wikipedia result (web ID: 2) provides context for what Objectivists are rejecting: quantum mechanics, as formalized by Paul Dirac in 1930, introduced a probabilistic framework that has been experimentally validated (e.g., through quantum entanglement and superposition). Its success in explaining subatomic phenomena contrasts with Objectivists’ preference for classical physics (web ID: 2).
Final Answer
The dominant Objectivist perspective on quantum physics, rooted in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, is critical and rejectionist, viewing quantum mechanics as incompatible with Objectivism’s principles of objective reality, strict causality, and reason-based epistemology. Influential Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman argue that quantum physics’ probabilistic nature and reliance on observation violate these principles, advocating a return to Newtonian physics (philosophy of science - Does Quantum Physics Refute Ayn Rand's Objectivism? - Philosophy Stack Exchange, web ID: 4). They see quantum mechanics as “Kantian” and mystical, clashing with Objectivism’s metaphysical realism (Objectivism - Wikipedia, web ID: 6*). However, a minority view, such as Warren C. Gibson’s, suggests Objectivism could adapt by redefining identity and causality to accommodate quantum phenomena (web ID: 4). That’s the dominant Objectivist stance on quantum physics, as detailed in the web results.
Grok’s summary is pretty close to what I was thinking about when I wrote that Substack article, and I maintain my perspective that the reason such people reject quantum physics theory is, in part, because they're not necessarily dealing with modern quantum physics or with a complete picture of what quantum physics actually says. Grok doesn’t refer specifically to an unwillingness to acknowledge that quantum physics theory works, so that’s my own addition.
I’m not going to give my own thoughts yet on what quantum physics says. I’m still trying to nail them down. But as I wrote in that other piece, this Objectivist discomfort with quantum physics is, I think, misplaced. There’s plenty of room for objective reality in quantum physics, if you know where to look.