Quantum work as a type of the experimental fiction continued


7. Another thing that makes the metaphor of particle acceptable is that the looks of many QG characters are lacking descriptions as if they do belong to the invisible "faceless" world of elemental particles. The reader can describe them, but in a different, not visual, way.

8. To continue our speculations on particle-wave, one may wonder what happens after the motion stops and the wave rolls up into a particle again. Would the particle be the same as it was before it unfolded? From the point of view of a literary person, the before-particle would differ from the after-particle, but no one can tell how specifically because in each particular case it would be different. The deviations could be microscopic; still, their effect on the future could be great.

9. In the same way, each unfolding of the "quantum" character would enrich it with new qualities, and in the end, its "compressed spiral" would be different.

10. The uncertainty effect. In quantum theory the uncertainty effect is linked with the indeterministic nature of the Universe. Heisenberg uncertainty is not for the "ordinary experience."[10]

It's not for the traditional fiction either because the traditional fiction deals with traditional reality. Characters of the "weird-weird" fiction are more likely to be "subjected" to such uncertainty. Let us, first, quote from Heisenberg uncertainty principle to see better what it is all about.

11. "It can be illustrated in a fairly clear way as it relates to position vs. momentum: To see something (let's say an electron), we have to fire photons at it; they bounce off and come back to us, so we can "see" it. If you choose low-frequency photons, with a low energy, they do not impart much momentum to the electron, but they give you a very fuzzy

picture, so you have a higher uncertainty in position so that you can have a higher certainty in momentum. On the other hand, if you were to fire very high-energy photons (x-rays or gammas) at the electron, they would give you a very clear picture of where the electron is (higher certainty in position), but would impart a great deal of momentum to the electron (higher uncertainty in momentum)." [11]

12. Thus, the reason of Heisenberg uncertainty is simply technical. In the same way, owing to the peculiarity of the QG it's practically technically impossible to focus simultaneously on the location and momentum of its characters. Let us see why it is so.

13. First of all, characters in QWs have less "material" and more "positional" [12] qualities, and the same can be said about his space, time, and momentum. [13]The location of the character is his space of action [14]and the momentum may be associated with his drives, intents, motivations, and the like.  To have a picture of the "location" or "momentum" one would have to "build" them himself, using various characteristics and details available in the text. The task becomes even more complex when the inner space of a character is fused with the outer space. [15]

14. Thus, while the interpreter focuses on character's location the picture of the momentum becomes "fuzzy", and vice versa. This is analogous to Heisenberg's uncertainty.

15. Generally speaking, Heisenberg's uncertainty seems to be rather empirical than conceptual view of indeterminism. Unlike Einstein who put theory first Heisenberg was not fond of conceptual thinking. [16] There are pluses and minuses in both approaches. Empirical approach seems to be more practical for some people, but it eventually collapses due to the growing number of new observations not integrated into a comprehensive picture. This has been very well understood by the modern theoreticians dealing with systems thinking. [17]

16. Having said that, uncertainty and indeterminism, including the quantum one, can't be reduced to the technical limitations to see clearly the elements of the system. The question that immediately arises is: what if a proper way of illumination is found and now we can observe both the location and the momentum at the same time? Would it mean that now we can find a deterministic solution to deal with the system? Do the uncertainty and indeterminism disappear with the clear knowledge of objects?

17. In his works on indeterministic systems, Aron Katsenelinboigen referred to the game of chess in order to verify his theoretical statements. He admitted that chess game was a simplified model of what we face in real life. His goal, however, was to demonstrate that even within such simplified model one would have to face uncertainty an deal with indeterministic tasks.

18. How does this relate to literature? The problem of uncertainty an indeterminism in a literary work is linked, first of all, to the outcome. One may use probabilistic approach to characters to make predictions about the end. This, however, doesn't seem to be an effective way of dealing with great, serious literary fiction. Unlike science that tends to unify the diversity through laws, literature and art are directed toward uniqueness. No characters are alike and no settings are the same, even those created by a single writer. Then how can one count probabilities of uniqueness? Probability is based on statistics, after all.

19. Well, one may say, it's simple. Since some characters may remind one of other characters one may assume that… No need to continue. We all know the logic. Aron Katsenelinboigen challenged it, saying the following about probabilistic thinking: "(…) we reduce a unique situation to some previously known one by stripping the former of its specific unique features. This, however, is a pretty risky procedure since the specific features of a unique event could be quite significant, and eliminating them might result in a drastically distorted estimate of the likelihood of the situation occurring." [18]

20. In fiction, it was O'Henry who, from my point of view, ridiculed the probabilistic approach by puzzling the reader with unexpected outcomes. In his short stories he constantly plays a game with the probabilistic mentality, showing that each human being and every situation are unique and probability is inapplicable to uniqueness. [19]

21. Clearly, though O'Henry's stories do not belong to the experimental fiction the degree of uncertainty in them is, nevertheless, quite high. It's increased in the experimental fiction and QG where the outcome is often as vague and "fuzzy" as the beginning and the conflict as well as its resolution might puzzle one with their ambiguity. The Illusive Companion by Nicolas Alexander Hayes may serve as a good example of such uncertainty.