Wendt wildly misreads quantum- its new age nonsense

(Andrew W., PoliSci@Madison, Our place in the universe: Alexander Wendt and

quantum mechanics International Theory (2022), 14 (1), 130–145 doi:10.1017/S1752971921000063)

The great physicist Richard Feynman is reputed to have said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you do not understand quantum mechanics. That has not stopped a lot of people from thinking they understand its implications for other subjects. The theory’s very strangeness, its surreal departures from everyday perceptions of reality, combined with its modern and scientific image, have exercised a fatal attraction on a long series of mystics, gurus, cranks, and quacks. Over the years, airport bookstores have beckoned the quantum-minded traveler with titles purporting to apply quantum theory to eastern religions, reincarnation, the soul, leadership, self-help, healing, and a variety of other topics.1 The typical contribution to the literature combines a tenuous grasp of physics with an impressionistic set of assertions about what it implies for the topic at hand. Undaunted by such company, Alexander Wendt in his latest book also turns to quantum theory to shed light on the human brain, the nature of society and the state, and our place in the universe.2 Wendt claims that his theory solves longstanding puzzles such as the mind-body problem, the mystery of consciousness, the problem of other minds, the agent-structure debate, and free will by grounding psychological and social science in quantum mechanics. Unlike the popular entries in the genre, Wendt’s book is densely written, deeply researched and philosophically serious.3 The claims are nothing if not bold, and if true, the theory would mark an epochal advance in our understanding of humanity and society. Unfortunately, Wendt’s arguments are primarily based on misinterpretations of quantum mechanics, fringe literatures, and loose metaphorical applications of quantum concepts rather than rigorous theory. For instance, Wendt’s favorite conceit, that ‘human beings are walking wave functions’, 4 sounds impressive until you start to think about what wave functions actually are and how human beings are different.5 Wendt asks that we take his argument ‘holistically’ and not judge it by ‘a close reading of everything in the bibliography’. He argues that the strength of each individual claim is bolstered by the coherence of the entire vision. Of course, there is a place for bold sweeping claims and revolutionary insights. Quantum theory is a great example. But, such visions are not science until the logic is rigorous and the implications are empirically verified. Quantum theory overthrew classical mechanics because the math was tight and the experiments confirmed it, not because it was trippier. Wendt’s vision is neither rigorous nor well connected with empirical reality. It is therefore very unlikely to revolutionize the human and social sciences.