My Hidden Weirdness

My definition of the accompanying text (below) is that the text  is a fine art picture. . So I can frame it and hang it in my salon (a picture) and I can read it like the page of a book (a text).

There is nothing special about it in our every day (classical ) world. But when people visit my salon they ask me “from where did you get this picture” and when they take a closer look they discover the text and read…. and suddenly they ask me “what is it a picture or a text on quantum mechanics ?”… and my answer its “both”…….That’s weird….now in an oblique manner the text below is weirder because in the quantum world the word “both” has a precise meaning : wave and particle and all that follow from it… but I  was told that I am a part of the quantum world… So am I weird ?….


Quantum mechanics states that you cannot precisely measure both position and momentum. Just because you can’t measure it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have position and momentum at the same time. The theory seems based on this principle, but why?

Viktor T. Toth
Viktor T. Toth, IT pro, part-time physicist

No, quantum mechanics does not state that you cannot simultaneously measure both position and momentum precisely. It is a consequence of the theory, but it is not what the theory is based on.

Quantum mechanics states that a classical position, classical momentum, or other classical observables do not exist except in the rare cases when the quantum object interacts with something classical (such as an instrument.)

When you look at the mathematics (and you have to look at the mathematics; quantum mechanics cannot be intuited) something amazing emerges. The formal equations of quantum mechanics, such as the Schrödinger equation, can be “derived” easily from classical physics. However, this equation offers many more solutions than its classical counterpart. Quantum mechanics begins when we look at these solutions and accept them as valid descriptions of reality, despite the fact that they seemingly make no intuitive sense, certainly not in the context of classical physics.

Now you may wonder, what on Earth possesses us to go down this rabbit hole? Very simple: physics is based on experiment and observation. And we found that this is how the physical world works.

When we look at this much richer world of quantum solutions, we find that indeed, most of the time that particle does not have a classical position or a classical momentum. Moreover, the math tells us, when it is confined to a classical position by a measurement, its classical momentum does not exist; it remains in a superposition of states.

So when you think of an electron inside a cathode ray tube, going from the cathode to the screen while mysteriously going through two holes at the same time, and ask yourself, “What was the electron’s path?”, unfortunately the only legitimate answer sounds just as mysterious as the little boy telling Neo in the film The Matrix that there is no spoon: There is no (classical) path. It’s not that we cannot measure it. It truly does not exist. And whether we like it or not, that’s the way Nature works. But there is one advantage that we have over a piece of fiction like The Matrix: our outlandish statement is grounded in firm mathematics that leads to testable predictions, through which our outlandish claims can be  (and have been, countless times) verified and validated.


Why Emmanuel Levinas… and why “Face a Face” in Painting


"Face a Face", Levinas.
“Face a Face”, Levinas.

I am a visual artist. A large part of the subject of my paintings and drawings, are people. They are not “copies” of the real people, (the global reality). I’m using the format of comics that  came to me directly and releases me from the need to be  close to this global reality. I prefer to create my own local “reality”.

I paint and draw people’s faces. Their face is an external surface. I’m guessing through this surface what they feel and express. In contrast, Rembrandt, when portraying  himself, knew what he felt when he painted them. The viewer is affected …but he only guesses what  Rembrandt really feels…Rembrandt is veiled.

The Veiled Look
The Veiled Look

And here comes Emmanuel Levinas  in…

I discovered him by chance. I saw the documentary film  “Absent god” (see here) where Levinas speaks, among other things, about his concept of “Face” ,. He says:

“…But this shock of the divine,
this rupture in the immanent order
the order that I can embrace, grasp,
the order I can make mine, possess,
it is the other person.
The way I phrase it,
it’s the face of the other person”…(Quoted from the subtitles accompanying a conversation  with Levinas in “Absent God”)


…and Derrida says on Levinas’s  “Face a Face”:

…”Ici Jacques Derrida [ …] en appelle à la tora pour contester Lévinas qui, lui, en appelle à la religion. Dans un premier temps, le texte indique “Or l’Eternel s’entretenait avec Moïse face à face, comme un homme s’entretient avec un autre” (Ex 33.11). Puis dans un second temps : “Tu ne pourras pas voir ma face, car nul homme ne peut me voir et vivre (…) Tu te tiendras sur le rocher. Qand ma gloire passera, je te mettrai dans un creux du rocher, et je te couvrirai de ma main jusqu’à ce que j’aie passé. Et lorsque je retournerai ma main, tu me verras par derrière, mais ma face ne pourra pas être vue” (Ex 33.20-23). Dieu parle à Moïse face à face, mais sa présence n’est jamais totale. Elle n’est que trace, effet de trace, effacement de la trace. Selon Lévinas, dans le face-à-face humain, il n’y a pas de symétrie. Autrui, qui ressemble à Dieu, nous parle depuis une hauteur. Tout dialogue est discours avec dieu. …” see here

J'ai vu  Levinas
J’ai vu Levinas

.From another point of view here is an excerpt from ” Violence and the Vulnerable Face of the Other” by professor  Roger Burggraeve :

“”What Levinas really means by the “face of the other” is not his physicalcountenance or appearance, but precisely the noteworthy fact that the other—not only in fact, but in principle—does not coincide with his appearance,image, photograph, representation, or evocation. “The other is invisible” (TI6). According to Levinas, we therefore can not properly speak of a “phenomenology” of the face since phenomenology describes what appears. The face is nonetheless what in the countenance of the other escapes our gaze when turned toward us. The other is “otherwise,” irreducible to his appearing, and thus reveals himself precisely as face. Surely, the other is indeed visible. Obviously, he appears and so calls up all sorts of impressions, images, and ideas by which he can be described. And naturally, we can come to know a great deal about him or her on the basis of what he or she gives us “to see.” But the other is more than a photograph, or rather not only is he factually more—not only more in the sense where there is always more for me to discover—but he can never be adequately reproduced or summarized by one or another image. The other is essentially, and not merely factually or provisionally, a movement of retreat and overflowing. I can never bind or identify the other with his plastic form (EI90–91). Paradoxically, the other’s appearing is executed as a withdrawal, or literally, as retraite or anachorese.

My local singularity
My local singularity
 The epiphany of the other is always also a breaking through and a throwing into confusion of
that very epiphany, and as such the other always remains “enigmatic,”
intruding on me as the “irreducible,” “separate and distinct,” “strange,” in
short as “the other” (AS81). The other is insurmountably otherwise because
he escapes once for all every effort at representation and diagnosis. The
epiphany of the face makes all curiosity ridiculous (TI46).”” see here.
So to conclude this short note  metaphorically, the Levinasian “Face a Face” is a mystery, some sort of singularity where the picture breaks down. I as a picture maker am always positioned at the event horizon, a veiled horizon.
My Event Horizon
My Event Horizon

…And finally, it is worth reading the article by Professor Hagi Keenan  “Facing Images: after Levinas”,