October 13, 2025

THERE IS NO AFGHANISTAN:

What’s behind the escalating tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan?: A Good Chat with Asfandyar Mir on the latest strikes – and what to watch. (Christopher Clary and Asfandyar Mir – October 13, 2025, Good Authority)

Why did the strikes happen now? I mean that both in the sense of what triggered these strikes in the immediate sense, but also whether there is a deeper context that helps explain the strikes.


The immediate trigger for these strikes appears to be a series of attacks in western Pakistan in September and October, which resulted in over 100 Pakistani security forces fatalities. Pakistani security forces losses in 2025 from anti-Pakistan militants are on track to be the highest ever – and there is a genuine case that this is a result of militants being able to organize in and operate from Taliban-provided sanctuaries.

More generally, despite a long history of Pakistan backing the Taliban both in its formation and later in its insurgency against the United States, Pakistan has developed deep animosity toward the Taliban since their return to power in August 2021 – largely because of their state support for anti-Pakistan groups in Afghanistan, particularly the TTP. When Pakistan asks the Taliban to rein in the TTP, the Taliban either urge Pakistan to negotiate and make concessions to the TTP, or claim they cannot control the TTP. Sometimes the Taliban does both. Over time, the Pakistani leadership has come to believe the Taliban are deliberately weaponizing the TTP and other anti-Pakistan militants, either to expand a Taliban-like regime into Pakistan or to enable an allied Pashtun entity to take over northwest Pakistan. In an added twist, India has also pursued a normalization of ties with the Taliban, just as Pakistan-Taliban ties have nosedived. This contributes to the Pakistani inference that the Taliban are pursuing a hostile agenda against Pakistan, in coordination with their archenemy India.

THE NECESSITY OF BEING OBSERVED:

Quantum Mechanics and the Problem of Minds (Society of Catholic Scientists, October 13, 2025, Church Life Journal)

This leads us to a basic question. In quantum mechanics, there is always a “system” that is measured and that is described by a wave function, and an “observer” who makes observations or measurements of the system that collapse the wave function. The question is where the “system” ends and the “observer” begins.

Suppose that I am the observer, and the system I am studying is a radioactively unstable nucleus. One could count only the nucleus as the system, and consider the Geiger counter, my sensory organs, the part of my brain that processes the information from my sensory organs, and me in toto as the observer. Alternatively, one could lump the Geiger counter in as part of the system, meaning that there would be a wave function describing both the nucleus and the Geiger counter. Everything else would be considered the observer. Or one could consider not only the nucleus and the Geiger counter but also my sensory organs as part of the system. One could move more and more over from the observer side of the line to the system side. So it is somewhat arbitrary where the line between the “system” and the “observer” (sometimes called the “Heisenberg cut”) is drawn. Nevertheless, the logic of quantum mechanics requires that it must be drawn, and it must be drawn in such a way that there is something on each side of it. If one tries to put everything on the “system” side, so that there is nothing left on the “observer” side—so that there is no longer an observer at all, or any observation—you end up with a wave function that never collapses and probabilities that never jump to give definite outcomes. To quote Eugene Wigner again:

Even though the dividing line between the observer, whose consciousness is being affected, and the observed physical object can be shifted towards the one or the other to a considerable degree, it cannot be eliminated.

What is it that must remain on the “observer” side of the “Heisenberg cut”? It cannot be any part of his or her body, for these are physical and should be describable by wave functions. It is hard to escape the conclusion that there is some aspect of the mind of the observer that is non-physical.