David Javerbaum has a really funny op-ed in the New York Times that offers a quantum theory of Mitt Romney, applying Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to note that Romney’s position on every issue seems entirely dependent on the perspective of those observing him take that position.
The basic concepts behind this model are:
Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It isnot that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.
Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms oflikelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, noview can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.
Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”
Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.
Freaking brilliant.
18 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
democommie
April 8, 2012 at 9:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wow, is that like, the glass isn’t half full OR half empty, but just a construct we use to make it seem like it’s a solid object* filled with a liquid media and none of it’s really there?
Oh,wait, I get it, the operant phrase is “not really there”. That describes Mittunswillard to a “T”.
* some would argue that it’s a super cooled liquid; I’m pretty sure that it’s sciency stuff, with math, so I wouldn’t get it, anyway.
jamessweet
April 8, 2012 at 9:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t forget Bell’s theorem, the details of which are somewhat complicated, but which prove mathematically that there cannot possibly be any “hidden variables” that explain Romney’s policy fluctuations.
peterh
April 8, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“…Romney’s position on every issue seems entirely dependent on the perspective of those observing him…”
Any serious performer tries to play to the audience. This clearly implies there need be no concessions to reality.
augustpamplona
April 8, 2012 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
http://www.theonion.com/video/romney-to-travel-back-in-time-to-kill-liberal-vers,27788/
Sastra
April 8, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Very funny.
There are arguments for the reconciliation of science and religion (“spirituality”) which sound suspiciously like this. Take concepts in physics and turn them into metaphors which explain why your favorite form of woo sometimes seems like it’s wrong when it’s really right. Quantum proves everything. I’m not hopelessly muddled; I’m cutting-edge.
Michael Heath
April 8, 2012 at 10:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I loved this article as well, not for its insight but instead its humor given its premise doesn’t hold water IMHO. That is, Mr. Romney’s once taking moderate positions does not make him a moderate or a previous moderate. He’s clearly a social dominator where his personal sentiments favor Christianists.
Social dominators do not prioritize ideology but instead the accumulation of power. His dominant perspective had him successfully pandering to moderates while involved in Massachusetts politics, but his current role has him pandering to a group much more in line with his personal patriarchal, plutocratic, Christianist positions.
slc1
April 8, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Michael Heath @ #6
The only philosophical position that Mr. Romney holds is that he should be elected president. Otherwise, he’s open to just about anything.
Freeman
April 8, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That was hilarious!
“Schrödinger’s candidate”
“any person who tells you he or she truly “understands” Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation”
“his face-time continuum”
“Duality. Many conservatives believe the existence of Mitt Romney allows for the possibility of the spontaneous creation of an “anti-Romney” (Fig. 2) that leaps into existence and annihilates Mitt Romney. (However, the science behind this is somewhat suspect, as it is financed by Rick Santorum, for whom science itself is suspect.)”
ROTFLMAO!
ArtK
April 8, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, if we put him in a box with a radiation source, a Geiger counter and a copy of the Affordable Care Act, will he be in favor of it or opposed?
Rob F
April 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Which Mitt?
Rob F
April 8, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To respond to myself, I’m not sure where I found that link.
sailor1031
April 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think what has happened is that all Mitt Romneys from every region of the multiverse are actually simultaneosly occupying the same location in spacetime. Too bad it had to happen in our universe. The good news is that after november all but a few of them will be gone again.
dingojack
April 8, 2012 at 1:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Toward a Quantum Theory of American Politics:-
Mitt Uncertainty Principle – It is impossible to know simultaneously both the path of the cognitive twisting AND the final ideological position Mitt will claim he sincerely believes in at any particular instant.
Ron Paul Exclusion Principle – No two voters for Ron Paul can exist in the same state, at the same time.
:) Dingo
Zinc Avenger
April 8, 2012 at 3:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The shortest distance between any two opposing viewpoints is Mitt Romney.
timberwoof
April 8, 2012 at 7:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Do I understand the Feynman diagram right? It seems that you could rotate it 90° and get the interpretation that if you throw a $20 bill at a Romney, the $20 turns into a beta particle and the Romney turns into an Antiromney.
Infophile
April 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@15 Timberwoof:
The caption implies that it’s intended to be an illustration of the annihilation of Romney with anti-Romney, though the diagram itself doesn’t quite bear this out (in particular, the arrows aren’t pointing in the right directions; as drawn, it implies we’ll get out an anti-$20 bill, and that the Romney we know is in fact made of antimatter).
Going with how the diagram is actually drawn, we have two new possible interactions that are shown here: Emission/absorption of a photon from a Romney, and a $20 bill splitting into an electron and a photon. So, a few possible interactions are:
Romney+ + Romney- => e- + anti-$20 (as mentioned before)
and
Romney- + $20 => Romney- + e- (and similar antimatter equivalents)
Basically, Romney is equivalent to a charged particle (so he should radiate light when he accelerates – someone test this), and he has exactly the right mass that when two Romneys annihilate, the leftover energy tends to form pairs of $20 bills and electrons over other possibilities.
In other words, this is proof that the appropriate net worth for Mitt Romney is $10. We really need to tax him at a higher rate.
Pierce R. Butler
April 9, 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Freaking brilliant.
Why, thank you!
augustpamplona
April 10, 2012 at 1:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are arguments for the reconciliation of science and religion (“spirituality”) which sound suspiciously like this. Take concepts in physics and turn them into metaphors which explain why your favorite form of woo sometimes seems like it’s wrong when it’s really right. Quantum proves everything. I’m not hopelessly muddled; I’m cutting-edge.
One of my favorite quotes is from Richard Dawkins as quoted in a movie review about the movie _What the Bleep Do We Know_ regarding the assumptions of the movie:
“Quantum physics is deeply mysterious and incomprehensible. Eastern spirituality is deeply mysterious and incomprehensible. Therefore they must be saying the same thing.”
From http://goo.gl/xtnWY
Study Channels of PakistanMitt Romney and Quantum Physics | Dispatches from the Culture Wars » Study Channels of Pakistan
April 9, 2012 at 2:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] article: Mitt Romney and Quantum Physics | Dispatches from the Culture Wars Comments [...]