via Mike Shedlock
The unknown meet the unknown discussing the unknown. Let’s discuss Schrödinger’s Cat vs Schrödinger’s Trump.
Identities Unknown
CNBC reports President Trump says U.S. met this morning with China, declines to identify individuals involved
“We may reveal it later, but they had meetings this morning, and we’ve been meeting with China,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.
This BS contradicts what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said yesterday as noted in my post China Calls Trump’s Bluff, Trump Backs Down, Now What?
During a roundtable with reporters at the Institute of International Finance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States and China are not engaged in trade talks because the tariffs both countries have imposed on each other have “to be de-escalated before trade talks.”
Earlier in the discussion, Bessent told reporters, “I don’t think either side believes that the current tariff levels are sustainable, so I would not be surprised if they went down in a mutual way.”
He added that he does not have a timeline for talks to begin. Trump told reporters at the White House that the United States is “actively” talking with China.
China Denies Talks
Bloomberg reports Trump Says US Talking With China on Trade After Beijing’s Denial
President Donald Trump said his administration was talking with China on trade, after Beijing denied the existence of negotiations on a deal and demanded the US revoke all unilateral tariffs.
“They had a meeting this morning,” Trump said Thursday during a meeting with Norway’s prime minister when a reporter asked about the Chinese statement.
Pressed on which administration officials were involved in discussions, the US president said, “it doesn’t matter who ‘they’ is. We may reveal it later, but they had meetings this morning, and we’ve been meeting with China.”
Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman He Yadong earlier Thursday at a regular briefing in Beijing dismissed speculation that progress has been made in bilateral communications, saying “any reports on development in talks are groundless,” and urging the US to “show sincerity” if it wants to make a deal.
“The US should respond to rational voices in the international community and within its own borders and thoroughly remove all unilateral tariffs imposed on China, if it really wants to solve the problem,” he said.
Trump has tried to get Xi on the phone a number of times since he returned to office, but the Chinese leader has, so far, resisted. Beijing wants to see a number of steps from Washington before it will agree to trade negotiations, including showing more respect and naming a point person for the dialogue, Bloomberg News previously reported.
Trump shifted his tone yet again on Thursday, criticizing Beijing for refusing to take deliveries of Boeing Co. jets and for its role in the trade of illegal fentanyl. The US imposed 20% tariffs on Chinese imports tied to fentanyl before slapping them with an additional 125% duty.
“Boeing should default China for not taking the beautifully finished planes that China committed to purchase,” Trump posted on social media. “And, by the way, Fentanyl continues to pour into our Country from China, through Mexico and Canada, killing hundreds of thousands of our people, and it better stop, NOW!”
“Better Stop NOW!” or What?
Or what? Mr. President?
Whatya gonna do? Put tariffs at 5,000 percent? Blow snot in a hankie?
Once you have placed maximum pain, there is nothing else you can do.
Talks? What Talks?
- Bessent: The United States and China are not engaged in trade talks because the tariffs both countries have imposed on each other have “to be de-escalated before trade talks.”
- Bessent: The US “does not have a timeline for talks to begin.“
- Bloomberg: “Trump has tried to get Xi on the phone a number of times since he returned to office, but the Chinese leader has, so far, resisted.”
- China: “Any reports on development in talks are groundless.” The US needs to “show sincerity” if it wants to make a deal.
- Trump: “They had a meeting this morning. It doesn’t matter who ‘they’ is. We may reveal ‘later’.”
In retrospect, I left off one important opinion.
The cult says “If Trump says a meeting happened,” then it did. And if Trump says it doesn’t matter who “they” is, then it doesn’t matter who “they” is.
Finally, both trump and Bessent are telling the truth because the meeting both happened and didn’t happen.
To understand how this works we need to explore quantum physics.
Schrödinger’s Cat vs Schrödinger’s Trump
Please consider How Is Schrödinger’s Cat Both Alive and Dead?
The experiment states that a hypothetical cat is locked in a box with some radioactive substance controlling a vial of poison. When the substance decays, it triggers a Geiger counter that causes the poison to be released, thereby killing the cat.
Since the box is locked, and we on the outside don’t know whether or not the radioactive substance has decayed and released the poison, we can’t tell if the cat is dead or alive. So, until we open the box to know for sure, the cat is both dead and alive. Mathematically speaking, there’s a 50 percent chance the cat is dead and a 50 percent chance the cat is alive.
In quantum mechanics terms, the cat’s ability to be in an ambiguous state of both alive and dead until it’s observed (i.e. when someone opens the box) is referred to as quantum indeterminacy or the observer’s paradox. The paradox states that an event or an experiment’s observer affects its outcome. In this case, whomever is performing this hypothetical experiment can affect whether the cat remains in an unknown state or they can open the box and know if the cat is dead or alive with 100 percent certainty.
In “Trumperland”, contradictory statements can both be true, simultaneously, even upon observation!
This is the amazing distinction between Schrödinger’s Cat and Schrödinger’s Trump.
In “Trumperland”, meetings can have happened and not happened simultaneously. It does not matter who “they” is or even if there is a “they”.
Theoretical meetings between unknown “theys” is sufficient to say that a meeting that took place, and also that it didn’t, no matter what was or was not discussed.
It’s quite amazing.
If ever you are perplexed by obviously contradictory administration statements, then think of Schrödinger’s Trump and conclude both sets of statements are true even if direct observation appears otherwise.