The alternative which I was trying to lead our discussion toward earlier, is to assume that the tinted glass cannot be avoided. This is to deny the reality of the non-dimensional point at the present, and to deny the soul its immaterial view point, as impossible, unreal. That is the result of your objection earlier, which is a standard materialist objection to dualism, that such a point would disallow the possibility of interaction between the soul and the physical world. All of this lead me to the long digression concerning the nature of "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, ok :wink: When I said I was "defeated" I meant that I admitted that we cannot accept both relativity and "the immaterial perspective". Yeah, a solution might be admitting we cannot "go outside" all "tints".

So we assume that the soul is fundamentally united with matter, and cannot be separated the immaterial perspective is impossible. We assume that the glass through which the world is observed is tinted, and this cannot be avoided, the tinting of the glass cannot be removed to give us a clear perspective. Therefore we must determine the nature of the tinting and account for this. Now we're back to where we began the discussion, with a slightly different perspective. The soul "interacts" with the world, and this means that it is a cause and an effect. An observation cannot be pure because we cannot adequately distinguish cause from effect, and this is the tinting of the glass. So we must determine the nature of the tinting. The soul interacts with the world through the concept of "matter" (in modern physics, "energy"). Matter is the potential for change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, if we cannot avoid all "tints", then we cannot have the "pure perspective", of course. So, our perspective will be always "conditioned" by some tint or an other. And even more importalntly all our observation cannot be "perfect" since our observations play a causal role.

So, in this view "the pure observation" seems nothing more than an useful abstraction, like, say, a "free particle". The problem is, however, that if there is not a "total pure point of view", then it is impossible to the "soul" to know "how things really are".

The illusion, which results in a failure to properly account for the tinting, is in the assumption that matter or energy is something physical rather than something conceptual. If the soul is fundamentally united with matter, or energy, denying the possibility of a clear perspective, then matter or energy is conceptual, of the soul. The soul observes the world through this concept (tinted glass), and when it is not diligent it perceives this matter, or energy, to be a property of the thing being observed, rather than as the concept (tinted glass) through which the world is being observed. The fundamental point being, that "matter" is a concept introduced to allow us to understand the nature of change in the world. There is nothing to prove that "matter" refers to anything real, independent of the mind (what Berkeley demonstrated). Aristotle simply assumed "matter" as a necessary assumption in order to make change intelligible. So it is something we assume "about the world", but it is fundamentally conceptual, therefor not really "of the world" — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed! In that case, the "reality" outside our mind(s) is simply unknowable to us. In fact even if we change our "basic concepts" we would still have the same problem. It would simply changing a tint with another one. In any case, the the tint through which we "see" reality is always arbitrary and therefore all "truths" we find are not "absolute truths", but truths that depend on the "tint" we use. We can still have "universal truths" (universal = shared truths by all members of a group), among who use the same "tint" but this ambiguity introduces a "pluralism" of "truths". This, therefore, undermines the possibility to find out, trough science how things are in themselves. Personally I have not a problem with this perspective (in fact I think this is exactly our "situation", so to speak).

Light is fundamental to the concept of energy, and the concept of energy relates light to matter and mass. As described above, the tinting of the glass is this concept, we interact with the physical reality through this concept. The extent to which this concept misrepresents itself, is the extent to which the tinted glass is a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is not better to say that "the extent to which "reality", is the extent to which the tinted glass is a problem"? If we rephrase in this wa the sentence then I agree. The problem, in any case, is that if we cannot avoid the "tints", then such a problem will never be solved.

What I suggest is that physicists are at position #2. The concept of matter, energy and mass, is the tint. The physicists know that they are looking at the world through this tint, but they do not actually know the tint, and how it affects the observations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed!

The appropriate metaphysical procedure is to recognize that we must determine precisely how the glass is tinted, before we can produce any accurate descriptions. However, the commonly practised metaphysics is to claim #3, that the physicists already know exactly what the tint is, they know what the concept of energy, mass and matter, "adds" to the observations, and therefore accurate descriptions are being produced. Adopting this metaphysical perspective amounts to, in reality, #1, that they are looking through a tint which they do not know is there, because they have assumed that all the tinting has been accounted for within the concept. This is why I say that if the concept represents itself, or is represented as, accounting for the tint, when it really doesn't, then there is a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

In fact I think that many physicists simply ignore this problem due to some "aversion" to philosophy. It is undeniable that, for example, QM is a great theory which is in (almost) perfect agreement with experimental data. But at the same time, we do not "build" all the "fundamental concepts" that we use to create the theory by "observation". In reality, even how we observe is conditioned by our "fundamental concepets", which as you rightly say are, in fact, our tint. However, many scientists tend to forget this issue, due to the fact that no other "mode of inquiry" has produced such spectacular results. I agree with it. But at the same time I admit that it is "a mode of inquiry, not the only possible mode of inquiry". I think that many issued about the so called "scientism" is due to this kind of problem.

This is also one of the most important reasons (if not the most important one!) why I follow more or less Bohr's (epistemological) perspective on QM.

Thanks for the insights! :wink:

,


As I said, MWI-supporters take the correspondence between reality and mathematical formalism to an "extreme" level. Interestingly it is a MWI-supporter, Tegmark, who both holds the MUH (mathematical universe hypothesis) and gives a fundamental role to consciousness (which according to him is a "mathematical pattern"). But generally "mathematical consistency = actuality" is a very questionable tenet, even if in fact mathematics does a wonderful job to describe regularities in nature. But again I find this line of thought somewhat reductionistic: I cannot, simply, agree that our "existence" is described perfectly by mathematics.What about ethics, values, aesthetics etc? In fact I prefer Plato's view that if mathematical "ideas" exist then also the ethical, aesthetical "ideas", for example, exist. Regarding determinism, this is the main reason of my "break" with Spinoza and Schopenhauer. IMO while compatibilists disagree, ethics requires free will.

Anyway, according to them reality is the universal wavefunction. From the "bird's eyeiew" (an expression used by Tegmark quite often) there is nothing but it. We however cannot see the universe from the outside. Instead, what we are "bounded" to the "frog's eye view", where we see a particular "branch". So, from the bird's eye view, it is a perfect monism (in some sense similar to Adviata) whereas form the frog's eye view there are indeed "many worlds".

But even if we accept that "mathematics is a reality", this is very far from saying that "whetever is mathematical is actually existence". At best mathematics describes a potentiality!

I would disagree. Opponents take a distinction that arises naturally in everyday experience and then their conclusion generally involves denying that same distinction. For example, "How do you know everything isn't an illusion?" or "We don't perceive things as they really are, because illusions". — Andrew M

Ah ok! Yes, with this I would agree. In fact "illusionism" if we want to call it in this way, is a very peculiar form of "direct realism". But I was thinking about the "common-sense direct realism".

Perhaps so, but his "primary qualities" and "secondary qualities" isn't a natural distinction. Trying to draw a line regarding which qualities the apple "primarily" has is to misunderstand the nature of language abstraction. — Andrew M

Yet, If we close our eyes reality is not coloured, anymore. So IMO if we want to avoid solipsism, a distinction between "how we percieve reality" and "reality beyond our perception" is necessary. In the case of Locke the second one was given by the "substances". Since the apple does not appear "red" if we close our eyes, then its colour is not a "property" of the apple itself, but of our perception of it (of course I accept that science explain why we percieve a red apple instead of a blue apple, but I am thinking about the "redness" of our experience!).

I find Rovelli's RQM very intriguing as well, but it is a realism of sorts. Its difference to MWI is that only interactions of other systems with the system in question define what is real for that system. So you can't compare accounts between systems until they interact, in which case their respective accounts will always be found to be consistent. — Andrew M

Agreed!

It seems only as many as is necessary. Note that the vast size of Hilbert space is the same under all interpretations. If it is not interpreted physically, then where do the unitary transformations happen? — Andrew M

Well, here is the contention! The problem is IMO that you are regarding the "Hilbert space" as something actual. Even if we accept "mathematical realism" we can think about different "levels" of reality: the other branches exist potentially, and not actually. I concur that this solution appears inelegant, mathematically. But as I said I find alla interpretations somewhat "lacking". In some sense I agree with Einstein. And because of this I find Bohr's epistemogical take as "the most correct".

In my view the universe just is quantum mechanical at base. If decoherence emerges from QM, then perhaps gravity does as well. For a possible explanation along these lines, see Sean Carroll's recent talk entitled "Extracting the Universe From the Wavefunction". The main idea starts at 29:49. — Andrew M

Yeah, I respect your viewpoint (and thanks for the video! I'll surely watch it...). You are maybe right. However, personally I find "many-worlds" idea quite "inelegant" (ontologically, so to speak). Also the idea that "what is mathematical is actually existing" presupposes that (1) our world is no different from a mathematical structure (2) that the mathematics we "use" is a perfect representation of the "actual existing". Again, while I respect that viewpoint, I do not think that (1) and (2) are correct. I know that, strictly speaking, is not a "scientific" argument, though.

There are several other reasons for my not acceptance of MWI. But in this discussion are quite useless, so I do not write them (unless one is VERY curious and VERY patient to read them, of course ;) ).



Hi,

I agree with you. There is indeed the splitting (we infer it because we observe a "classical" world). However all "universes" are in fact an "aspect" of the same "thing" in MWI!

To begin with, I find that there is ambiguity with "self" which I think I should try to expose to some extent... — Metaphysician Undercover

Hi,

Yeah, I noted the great ambiguity, here! I think that both "mind" and "self" can cause confusion, so I go with "soul" ;)

Special relativity explicitly denies that there is such a thing as absolute rest, and by replacing absolute rest with the constant, the speed of light, it produces a condition in which the "correct" way of representing motions is in relation to light. However light is itself a thing in motion, and this assumes that time is necessarily passing. The constant, or fundamental premise is the activity of light, and activity assumes that time is passing. So this is fundamentally different from the premise of absolute rest, which assumes the immaterial soul to be at a point where no time is passing. The difference being that absolute rest provides a viewpoint for the observation of time passing and therefore all motions, while special relativity ties "time passing" to the activity of light. So special relativity provides no viewpoint to observe the activity of light, and if there is any inaccuracy in the assumed relationship between time passing and the activity of light, then there is a tinted glass problem.

The consequence of this difference is that the premise of the non-dimensional point, absolute rest provides a position to view all motions in relation to each other, including the motion of light. The premise of special relativity does not allow this, because it sets as the viewpoint, the activity of light. So the soul's perspective, from special relativity, is as moving light, a photon or some such thing, and all other motions are viewed from this perspective. If we had a complete understanding of the activity of light, and how other activities related to it, then we could use this as an accurate viewpoint. But we do not, so we have created for ourselves, a tinted glass problem. We have assumed a perspective, the activity of light as a constant, without properly understanding that perspective, and what it adds to (how it tints) our observations. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see your point, now! Since we cannot define a particular reference frame for light, then we have still to resolve the tinted glass problem. After all light is still "physical". And the tinted glass problem seems to require that we must have a "reference" frame outside all physical processes. Right now I cannot find a counter-argument to make SR compatible with the tinted glass problem. (If I manage to find a solution, I will let you know BTW...). So I declare my "defeat" in this debate :wink: ... (for now :cool: )

However there are still two possible (very inelegant, but possible) solutions, maybe.

The first is this: "c" is the speed limit of relativity. Strictly speaking relativity does not imply that light moves as fast as "c". Interestingly you can read this article https://www.sciencealert.com/heavy-light-could-explain-dark-energy . This solution is very inelegant, especially due to Gauge symmetry problems. But IMO it is possible. If indeed no particle is massless, then IMO the tinted glass issue can be circumvented.

Another possibility maybe is Lorent ether theory (LET), which posits a preferred frame of reference. There is a serious attempt to explain gravity in this framework http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/.

What do you think about them?



Yeah, IMO an universe seen as an inscindible net of interaction is compatible to "panpsychism"!

So I'd say we agree on this point, and what would be left would be to work out finer details, such as the relationship between the self, and the flow of time. What I proposed, is that the self desires to position the flow as external to the self, and this would alleviate the tinted glass problem. It places the soul at the eternal, unchanging now of the present, with all change occurring around it, giving the soul the "clear" perspective of all material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

This position reminds me the Sankhya school of Hindu philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/

You can ignore to the sake of the discussion the following paragraph. It is only a tangential remark due to personal considerations...

To be honest I am also very drawn to Buddhism, which explictly denies the "existence" of this kind of "self" (interestingly there was a "Personalist" school in Buddhism which disagreed on this point with all the others. See https://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/.) . But again the "tinted glass argument" or the similar "eye and visual field analogy" (i.e. the knowing self and the known world are in a similar relationship to the eye and visual field) are actually very strong arguments to the "existence" of some kind of self. In particular Humean-like arguments do not really apply (since of course we cannot find the "trascendental" subject as an object to experience). By the way Buddhism is not materialistic since it is very clear between the distinction between "vijnana" (consciousness) and "rupa" (matter). Our minds are often compared to "streams", without a fixed "center" - i.e. it seems that both the "knowing" and the "material" aspect of reality are viewed as "in flux". But again, Buddhism seems to be very "empirical", i.e. concerned with the analysis of experience whereas the "self" we are discussing is, in fact "outside" the realm of experience.

Special relativity however denies the reality of that perspective. It posits vagueness with respect to the division between past and future, and makes the point in time, which crisply divides one duration from another, unreal, inconsistent with physical reality. So special relativity adopts other principles which deny the soul this perspective, forcing us to look for another means to avoid the tinted glass problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here I disagree. In fact I find a very strong analogy with the "immaterial" self we are discussing and the "observer" in SR. Both are not "part of experience": the "immaterial" self does not "participate" in experience, since it is in its timeless "realm", so to speak, whereas the "observer" is an abstraction (on the reality of which physics makes no claim). In any case if the observer of relativity is real, he certainly "knows" the "events" that are associated with its light cone. Therefore each observer has its associated "perspective" on the world (or even its own "world"). Again the "flow" is a property of the "changing world" and not of the observer itself. SR does however deny the existence of a "preferred" reference frame. But if we accept that every subject has its own experience on the world I do not really see how the immaterial self we are discussing is "questioned" by SR. IMO SR denies only that the events that one subject might take as "future" are "future" for all the subjects, but it does not mean that for each subject the above considerations we have made do not apply.

Again, relativity theory messes this up, because with relativity, the state at an particular point in time, is dependent on the frame of reference. Assumed states, are dependent on the non-temporal moment in time for their staticity, and without that required moment in time, the statements cannot adequately describe reality. So, the self desires to posit that moment of division between future and past, as the pure observation point of temporal existence, but relativity has stipulated that this observation point is unreal, and has forced the tinted glass problem back upon us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, I disagree. The tinted glass problem simply states that the "self" to really know the "world" must be outside it, in a "timeless" realm. All selves have "their" distinction between past and future. But nowhere it is stated that this distinction must be unique. As I said above what SR denies is precisely this uniqueness. Even without considering relativity all selves must have their "own" experience of the world, SR only introduces the idea that each "world" correponds to the "light cone".

In my opinion, this concept which accounts for the underlying thing which does not change, "matter" or "energy", can be reduced to the passing of time itself. If we put aside special relativity, for the moment, we can assume that the passing of time is the underlying thing which does not change throughout all physical changes, and this provides the potential for change, the exact criteria for the Aristotelian concept of "matter". Once we take this step, we have the three aspects clearly individuated. The soul takes its observation point as eternal, and distinct from the passing of time. The changing forms of physical existence are apparent to it. The changing of those forms is made intelligible by noting the consistency in the passing of time. How we, as human beings interact with the changing forms, is now tied up with how time passes. This is how the eternal "now" relates to the changing forms of physical existence. This is the existence of the self, the interaction between the eternal now and the changing physical forms, which is the passing of time. How this is possible is the secret which will be unveiled when we discover the principles to unscramble the vagueness of the present moment which is disclosed by relativity theory, thus removing the tinted glass.

If you refer back to my earlier post I described this as objects passing a plane. And if we assume that bigger objects take longer to pass that plane than smaller objects, this necessitates the conclusion that the point, which is the now of the present, is not a point at all, but it must have some dimension, the plane has breadth. That is why there is a trend now in the philosophy of time, toward a two dimensional time, we must give the present breadth. Within this breadth, interaction can be accounted for. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting ideas! So all selves aknowledge both the "flow" and the consistency of the "flow". This make them "self-aware" since as we both noted without the experience of change it is not possible to be "self-aware". At the same time all selves have a very clear distinction of "past" and "future". The passing of time is in this "model" the "result" of the aknowledgement by the "selves" of the changeable forms.

However until now I do not see how SR (and GR) can be used against the "selves". In fact the "phenomenal" world is what is directly visible to the self and one self cannot "take" the perspective of others, because of subjectivity. Considering this and considering that "space-time" can be taken as an "abstraction" there is no tinted glass problem, here. Simply because the "phenomenal" is simply the experienced world.

Regarding your last paragraph, thanks for the input. I will reflect upon it. In some ways it, in some ways, can be used in support to the idea that the "self" can be both "unchanging" and "active", i.e. interacting. You speak of a "trend". Could you please indicate some "references", links etc about this (if possible, of course)? :smile:

Yes, though this is a perfectly natural and ordinary distinction. For example, the straight stick appears bent when partially submerged in water. But it's something else entirely to say that the straight stick is itself merely an appearance. This kind of "Plato's Cave" conclusion was just what Aristotle rejected. — Andrew M

Agreed. IMO one of the reason that I always disregarded "Aristotelism" is actually its "direct realism". Plato on this was much more interesting. Anyway in the years I came to appreciate some other parts of Aristotelian philosophy. But here I am going too "off-topic" ;)

So I read it in the other direction. I see these philosophical innovations as a rejection of Aristotle's natural empiricism (where distinctions arise naturally in one's ordinary experience of the world) and instead as a reintroduction of Plato's dualism in different forms.

I also see the ordinary language philosophers as a corrective to that kind of thinking. For example, Wittgenstein's private language argument and Ryle's regress argument against indirect realism. — Andrew M

The problem of direct realism is that even an optical illusion can be used as a strong argument against it. At the same time however "indirect realism" tries to speak about a "hidden reality" which can be inferred from inference and our "percieved reality". IMO the problem of indirect realism is that we have no clue wether our "categories" do apply to such a "hidden reality". This does not mean we can make "reasonable guesses" as I said elsewhere. But in order to avoid skeptical arguments of all sort we have to speak og "reasonable guesses".

Regarding Plato, in a sense I agree. In fact Plato explictly denies the "reliability" of senses. But at the same time he regards "phenomena" as changing, without substance. Substances are to be found in the Forms. Locke instead thought, like Aristotle, that they are in the world. So I see Locke as an Aristotelean trying to defend Aristotelism (in some forms) from Platonic attacks.

What interpretations would you suggest should be preferred to MWI for that reason? Note that MWI requires the least number of postulates of any interpretation and is also a local theory (so is naturally compatible with SR). — Andrew M

Agreed that mathematically is the simplest, but not ontologically. I prefer Bohr's take of Copenaghen Interpretation. Bu anyway I find all interpretations somewhat "lacking". CI seems to imply really anti-realism, which I find very problematical. Rovelli's take is very intriguing but it seems to go towards a sort of "solipsism". MWI has too many "worlds". Regarding Bohm there is the explicit "non-locality" and the ambiguity when it comes to define "real". Even the "nomological" variant which asserts that the "wavefunction" is nominal seems to go against the tendency to see reality in a way free from our "pre-conceptions" (I find the "point particles" an outdated concept).

So, in my opinion this shows that "beneath" QM there might be a "subquantum" theory. Maybe even weirder!

Edited for clarification.

My view actually is that while we can say that even dreams are real, we have to make some "distinctions" between "the levels of reality". For example there is clearly a distincion between a "table" and an electron. And between an electron and a dream.

Edited because the response was incomplete. Sorry, Rich !

That is an insightful comment. What you’re touching on here is the relationship between ‘the uncreated’ and the phenomenal domain - the domain of sensory experience. Nowadays any mention of ‘the uncreated’ is categorised as a religious idea - which I suppose it is in some ways. But in the Western philosophical tradition the main source of philosophy about ‘the uncreated’ is the neoPlatonic tradition (as Metaphysician Undiscovered mentioned). And according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, such philosophers are still categorised as ‘pagan’. — Wayfarer

Yeah, actually what we call "Catholicism" comes largely from St Thomas Aquinas. And IMO in Aquinas there are a lot of ideas that come directly from Platonism (both "old" and "neo"). These "pagan" philosophies ironically over the centuries helped to "define" the "orthodoxy".

Overall, ‘the uncreated’ is a very difficult idea to grasp. Originally, the intuition was that ‘the uncreated, unconditioned, unborn’ was understood as ‘the source of Being’. In the early days of Christian theology such ideas, originally from the Greek philosophical tradition, were assimilated into Biblical prophecy, although the combination has always been characterised by some tension; the wisdom of Jesus being described as ‘folly to the Greeks’. Nevertheless Greek-speaking Christianity thoroughly absorbed the neo-Platonic philosophy. The Greek reverence for rationality and mathematical reasoning was based on the intuition that mathematical reasoning was inherently more reliable than the testimony of the senses, because the objects of dianoia we’re inherently knowable and constant in a way that sense-objects were not. So they were nearer to the uncreated, in that they likewise weren’t as subject to change and decay as were sense-objects. They were lower than the Ideas, but higher than knowledge concerning particulars. — Wayfarer

Agreed! At first the "uncreated" was thought in a lot very ancient philosophies (see the "Apeiron" of Anaximander, "Brahman" of the Hindus, the "Dao"...) as the "Source". It was seen as a sort of "ineffably simple", so to speak, ground of being that "is" (rather than ex-ist). Interestingly in the Greek World, especially in Platonic philosophies the idea of "simplicity" reamined and in fact in neo-Platonism "the First" was seen "beyond being", simple etc. At the same time however Plato introduced the idea of a plurality of "uncreated" objects, the Forms. This appealed to those who believed in a "Personal God", since it was very simplet to identify them with the "ideas in the Divine Mind". For example human beings were seen as "particular" of the idea of "Human Being" in God's MInd.

But the relationship between the "pagan" thought and Christian orthodoxy was always a complex one. For example the view that "the pious is loved by the gods beceause he is pious" comes directly from Plato and IMO it is the reason behind the "primacy of conscience" of Catholic theology. At the same time however Catholicism aaccepts the "salvation from grace". Or the view that we can know God by His creation (an idea found already in the Pauline Epistles) but at the same time we cannot really know Him without the Revelation. So there are a lot of "paradoxes" raised by this issue.

I was trying to explain above, originally the intuitions of mathematics and rationalism were regarded in ancient philosophy as morally edifying, not simply for their instrumental value or technical power. But it was the association of mathematical and rational insight with mystical insight, typical of the Pythagoreanism, that differentiated Greek from Indian philosophy and was one of the major sources of the Western tradition of natural science. However, science has now basically abandoned the notion of the ‘uncreated’, perhaps because of its religious connotations. — Wayfarer

Yeah, the Greek emphasis on mathematics and quantitative reasoning is IMO the greatest break between Western and Indian (and Daoist) philosophy, according to which the only "reality" that was important to study was the experiential one (again Buddhism IMO is the most radical form of this type of "view"). At the same time however the notion of "uncreated" seems to be central to most of the major philosophical and religious system both of the East and the West. And also the reason behind the rise of science in the West rather than in the East.

Being myself interested in both "studies" I have a hard time in reconciling the opposing tendencies of the two types of philosophy.


Regarding the "uncreated", in contemporary science this notion is seen as "unnecessary". In fact to the scientific study the "uncreated" has no "quantitative" role. The problem is that to many scientists this means that it is either an "useless" or even a "superstitious" concept.

Apart from the consideration on Dark Matter, Big Bang etc I think that your objections are against how "scientists" present science itself. In my opinion, much of the concepts you are criticizing are either "speculative" or "metaphyisical". The problem IMO is that amongst scientists there are a lot "physicalists", i.e. who believe that only the "physical" is real. This is not my view, of course. But at the same time it seems to be the "metaphysical position" prevalent among scientists. This conditiones clearly how science is presented etc. For example many "materialist" use the term "phyisical laws" as a "figure of speech", i.e. they do not "reify" it. They use this term because it has less "metaphysical" connotations than "mind" (and therefore methodologically it is "more suitable" to use the term "phyiscal laws" than other terms - the contention is probably due to the fact that the "materialists" confuse the methodological with the ontological, so to speak!).


Regarding Aristotle, I admit that I was not clear. What I meant it is that Aristotle introduced a dualism between "the substance" and "the accidents" regarding "things in the sensible world". Of course Aristotle, as far as I know, was a direct realist and therefore he thought that we see reality as it is. The problem is that when epistemological concerns are appreciated, then there is another level of "accidents", i.e. how things appear to us in contrast to how things are in themselves. IMO Aristotle disinction between "substance" and "accidents" was the foundation of the distincion between "primary qualities" and "secundary qualities" of Galileo (and Descartes, Locke...). This introduced the "indirect realism" which then influenced Kant etc. For Plato the "changing world" was without substance, a world of accidents, so to speak. The epistemological concerns that began in the 17th centrury were due to Aristotle, rather than Plato (of course Aristotelism can be considered a "form" of Platonism, hence the saying of Whitehead "western philosophy is a series of footnote of Plato's philosophy").

Regarding Everett's interpetration. Yes in a sense I agree, it is a "issue" of "preference" on my part. But the same could be said for preferring SR (Special Relativity) over LET (Lorentz ether theory). Both give the same results and in their limits of validity can be considered two different "interpretations". But when GR came, SR was much more compatible with it (altough interestingly http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/ here there is a serious proposal to make an extension of Lorentz theory to gravitation*.). In the same way I believe that MWI is a less "reliable" description of reality than other interpretation. Of course this is a "metaphysical/interpretative" reason. But it is the same reason why before the introduction of GR, SR was to be preferred over LET.

*Actually the reason of this proposal is the "non-locality" of Bohm's theory. Bohm theory is compatible with LET and not with SR (in its usual form. See for example https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4102), therefore the idea is to extend LET in order to make a theory of gravitation compatible with Bohm's theory.


Thank you for the insightful response!
I will reply as soon as I can ;)

Personally I agree that there are different levels of reality, and this is the reason of much confusion. For example if we interpret Plato as saying that "math" exists like a "material thing", then of course it is quite naive. On the other hand in "this world" we have a lot of examples of "layers of reality". For example chairs and tables "exist" even though the standard model does not mention them! The problem is when we conflate two types of "reality".

If we give to "existence" its etymological meaning, then what "exists" is "what" arises or what is "created". Whereas "reality" is a much more general concepts, for example even "dreams" are a "reality", in some sense. The "Absolute" of many philosophies instead simply "is", since it does not "arise". The same in some sense can be said to "truths" IMO, like mathematical ones (albeit there is also an element of contingency in mathematics: the language used etc).

So In my opinion the problem that our language is insufficient to express what we mean correctly and therefore confusion arises in philosophy. For example a chair does not "exist" in the same way of a "muon" but we normally use the word "exists" for both.

Hi,

there are IMO two things that we should be aware. One is the fact that the "flow" of time means that there is change. Change actually undermines our "preconceived" view that it is possible to "name" objects (I am thinking to Cratylus for example). With this in mind, it might be true that the application of logic on reality is impossible. In fact concepts and names are "fixed", stable (that's why Plato thought that if they existed they would be not in this world).

However in relativity particles are "fixed", i.e. do not change every moment. Therefore we can use "names" and "concepts".

Regarding being in the states H and N is not possible in relativity. The relativity of simultaneity simply asserts that two events that for us are simultaneous (say, I see an apple falling from a tree and at the same time my phone rings at the same time) are not simultaneous for other observers. Of course the two descritptions are different, but they are different because the observers are different (it is like seeing a lake from two different perspectives, the lake is the same but how we see it is different).

The reason of the impossibility of being in two opposite states is because in that case we (an observer) would observe a contradictory "event". So relativity at the level of a single perspective does not introduce contradictions. Contradictions arise when we think that our perspective is "absolute", so to speak.

I hope that I adressed your point ;)

In a way yes, and a way no. How much of it do they perceive, how they may articulate it, how much they can articulate it (considering they both depend upon academic careers) only they know. They, as everyone else lives within constraints. Just recognize that any academic or researcher is subjected to enormous, career ending pressures if they stray too far from the materialist lines that given academic funding. — Rich

Agreed. Of course we are conditioned by our education, environment etc. What I meant is that they knew that physics is based e.g. on quantitative predictions. And while they of course had a strong metaphysical component in their thought, they were well aware about the difference between the two.

"Science" had morphed into a huge money making industry that depends upon the supremacy of chemicals over mind. While "science" has no problem fabricated unprovable concepts such as the Big Bang, Laws of Physics, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Multi World/Multi Universe, Thermodynamic Imperative, Selfish Genes, Space-Time, etc., they do have a persistent problem with the everyday ubiquitous experience of Mind. Fundamentally, money distorts and pollutes any and every endeavor. The more the money involved, the greater the distortion. One in a while something interesting comes out of the corners of scientific research but it is tough to find. — Rich

Well, again in some aspects I agree and in others not. "Multi World" for example is IMO metaphysics. For example in the string theory version the idea is that all that is predicted to be possible, happens. To me thinking that this is scientific is very problematic, to say the least. In some senses I agree with what you say about "Laws of Physics": of course there are "regularities" but at the same time we need not to thin them as "things". The "Big Bang" is simply the "beginning", i.e. we see that our measurements suggest that the universe had a "start time". So it is an inference of our theories. Of course not all physicists might agree, but it is a "scientific concept", IMO. The same can be said for Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Especially for "Dark Matter" we see that if GR is right at cosmological scales, then we have to admit its existence. Alternative theories are, to my knowledge, at least, inelegant (and also they have difficulties to "reproduce" the same results of GR where it works well). Regarding "Selfish Genes" I do not know much, but IMO it is a speculative approach, and even not so "well accepted" by biologists. I do not know anything about Thermodynamic Imperative, instead. Finally "space-time" is at least a very useful concept. However here I agree that there is some tendency to reify it.

All fundamental concepts of physics are unfalsifiable. Scientists just don't use the word Mind because that ends funding. They use substitute words such as the Laws of Physics in its stead. — Rich

Physicists do not use the world "Mind" because it is not a concept that can be treated quantitatively. I cannot even imagine a formula about "mind". But again, I am not saying that your view is wrong ;) By the way as I said before "laws of physics" is a meta-physical concept, not a physical one in my view!

Inanimate objects, other than the manifestation of decay, no longer have the vibrational capacity to create, though in their own way (a super nova for a example) they still do create. It is interesting. — Rich

Actually in a different way I wondered about the capacity of inanimate processes to maintain themselves. For example a star is a system that has a tendency to maintain its identity due to internal processes of energy production. Again, I might even agree that a latent form of "mind" is present in them, but it is not useful as science is concerned.

Science's alternative explanation is that there was this Big Bang (quite a comical concept if you meditate on it) and then Everything Just Happened By Accident. Even Erik Verlinde mocked this explanation.

Stephen Robbins provides a coherent explanation of perception, the "hard problem", in a Bergsonian framework here: — Rich

I wasn't familar with Verlinde view. Interesting!

Thanks for the video ;)

Actually memory and mind, which are aspects of the same. But I think you get the point. Science pretty much accedes to the memory/information part, they just can't get themselves to acknowledge themselves, that which is creating all like these theories and ideas. The rest of your summary it's pretty much on the mark. It is very holistic with a very precise ontology based upon memory, mind, and will. The only requirement is that one accept Mind as fundamental as opposed to the scientific explanation in which it magically appears out of no where, and is just an illusion created for no apparent reason or without any theory. — Rich

Yeah, I am actually drawn to "panpsychism" and related ideas (after having read Spinoza's theory of psycho-physical parallelism). For example the simple fact that the universe has regularities suggests that some "latent mind" is a reality, IMO. I agree that physicists nowadays tend to be too much skeptical or even "a-priori" contrarian to this sort of ideas. As I said elsewhere this is IMO a mistake. They tend to refute these ideas too quickly.

I'm not particularly familiar with Schopenhauer's position. However I tend to identify with Aristotle's position that the intelligible world just is the sensory world (as against the various two-world dualisms held by thinkers such as Plato, Descartes and Kant). We represent things from a point-of-view, but those things nonetheless precede their representation (as the existence of the Earth prior to the emergence of humans to talk about it attests). — Andrew M

Actually the term "dualism" has a lot of meanings. For example the Kantian version the "a-priori forms" are simply about how our mind works. Aristotle IMO it is still a dualist since he makes a distinction between the sensory world and "the real world" (again, it is not directly what Aristotle thought but it is heavely implied!). Schopenhauer's view ws very similar to Kant's. By the way only a naive realist would assert that the "percieved world" is the same as the "real world". I think that we are agreeing, and interestingly QM in its various interpretations seems to suggest the same!

Yes, they remain true. I see the bases in QM as similar to the reference frames of relativity. Just as descriptions are indexed to a relativistic reference frame, so they are also indexed to a basis (or a relative state within a basis). Any basis is valid and, if suitable language has been developed, can also be described (e.g., a particle that was detected at a particular position can also be described as having been in a superposition of momenta). — Andrew M

Again interesting! The problem I have with MWI is that there are too many worlds. I find it very problemtic. But again it does not mean that some ideas are very sound!

Cool! Although, as far as I'm aware, this is the mainstream Everettian view. For example, David Wallace says, "But emergent processes like [decoherence] do not have a place in the axioms of fundamental physics, precisely because they emerge from those axioms themselves."

The idea here is that things do not need to be fundamental nor precisely-defined in order to be real. Wallace often gives an example with tigers. They are real even though the Standard model doesn't mention them. — Andrew M

Yeah, I agree. They are not "real in themeselves", so to speak. But of course they are real (reality seems to have layers).

Anyway I also agree that decoherence is emergent, and in fact the "purest" MWI does not even have that axiom. But again, this does not mean that decoherence cannot be addes to the formalism (and adding decoherence is not as adding "particles" etc).

Yes, it's based on Carroll and Sebens' derivation which uses math from Zurek's envariance paper. Sean Carroll discusses it on his blog - here's a summary quote: — Andrew M

Thaks! I will read!

A wave can have different frequencies and shapes especially as it spirals. This is how the mind creates matter out of itself. It spirals, vibrates and spreads and in so doing creates perceived density. Perception is a sensing or feeling of the different vibrational and frequency patterns. Different life forms are tuned to different frequencies and waveforms all of which are embedded in the holographic universe. — Rich

Ok, but I do not think that Verlinde, Bohm etc arrived to such conclusions (as far as I know). Anyway such a "universal mind theory" IMO will never have a scientific "proof". I am not saying that is wrong BTW, but it is only speculative. It somewhat reminds me some "concepts" of string theory like the idea that particles are mode of oscillation of strings. But as physics is concerned there is no "mind" involved, simply because it is an unfalsifiable concept.

It is not that life depends upon complexity, life creates more complex forms by movement (action). An orchestra sound would be an analog for this process. Many minds (the musicians) play different sounds frequencies via their instrument to create more complex (our less complex) music (waves and frequencies). How is this accomplished? Via lots of practice that builds skills. This is evolution — Rich

Well, I guess what you mean by "life" ;) If panpsychism is true then what you say is obviously correct. But again except for "living beings" I do not see any "purpose" in the action of inanimate objects. In animals and humans I see it very clearly, of course. In plants for example there is clearly the tendecy to "live", albeit in a completely insentient way. In inanimate processes honestly I cannot say if there is a very subtle and latent "purpose" or not. IMO at this level we can only speculate. If there is, then it is so "subtle" that at the pratical level we cannot find almost a trace. Anyway again, your view reminds me the one of the stoics. They thought that indeed there was the "Universal Soul". So I concede that possibly in some forms your view can be right. However it is not scientific (but again as I said some time ago, we are in a Philosophy Forum!). Regarding the "orchestra" however I agree, it is "we" that collectively learn by our experiences and can in fact create complexity. Regarding instead the origin of "life" in general, however I only say that we cannot either prove or disprove theleology. It is a possibility that there is purpose, that the "Universal Mind" created everything, but in a way that there is no visible "purpose", at least as science is concerned.

Experiences would be a pattern of memory. Memory is created and embedded in the holographic fabric of the universe. Observe a holographic waveform embedded in the media. That is memory which is accessed by the mind via brain wave transmission/reception. — Rich

To summarize your view it might be said that all things are either information or minds. Minds learn information and act upon such information. Minds also interact to each other is some ways. And everything is the result of these "interactions", these acts etc performed by the minds. However those minds are not really many, but neither are "one" (since there is plurality of minds). In a subtle level they work also at the level of inanimate processes. It is much more evident as "complexity" arises, like in animals and humans. But the "ultimate reality" is mental and an active mental "substance" that continues to act, learn etc. Is it a good (basic) representation of your view ?

It may be that the most fundamental experience of time is as a simple now, but I don't think that is the case. I haven't read a lot of phenomenology, but I think the basic argument is that a conscious self doesn't not recognize oneself as being at the now, the present, until one already apprehends memories and anticipations. So recognizing oneself as being at the present, is posterior to recognizing a past and future.

And recognizing a past and future is to already apprehend external change, the flow. So that argument concerning the "self of solipsism" is really not applicable, because the conscious self only shrinks oneself to a timeless point, without temporal extension, after already apprehending the reality of the past and future, and the flow itself. Producing a timeless point, as a point of view for the conscious self, is only deemed necessary in the attempt to understand, and make sense of the physical world, to avoid the tinted glass problem. Consider the timeless point which divides two time periods. Imagine if we didn't have a timeless point which divides yesterday from today. Suppose that at midnight, we had to leave a period of time, five minutes for example, to account for the transition between one day and the next. What would that five minutes consist of? Instead, we give ourselves a timeless point which separates one period of time from another.

So contrary to what you say, the self as a point in time without extension, is necessarily already self-aware. And this self-awareness is an awareness of the past and future, and consequentially the flow. This representation of the self is only produced after an apprehension of the past and future, and is produced only for the sake of giving oneself a position relative to the past and future; the past and future having been already apprehended. Once the self assigns itself this timeless point, it can project that point anywhere in time, to individuate particular periods of time, between this point and that point. — Metaphysician Undercover

The first two paragraph was actually my point. Especially "recognizing oneself as being at the present, is posterior to recognizing a past and future". This is why I think such a "self" cannot be said to an "actual self". To be an "actual self" (and so to speak not only "in potentia" - I am using Aristotelian terminology) one must experience the "flow". What I meant is that without the "experience" of change, there would be absolutely no self-awareness - and therefore nothing that could be rightly called as "self".

With what you are saying in the third paragraph, I am paradoxically in agreement. In fact to be aware of oneself as a "timeless" point one must clearly have been before self-aware. But we saw that self-awareness arises when AFTER there is the awareness of change. So in this case, to be aware of the "static now" requires, paradoxically, that one has been aware of change. If there is a "substantial self" then maybe it could actually be self-aware "timelessly" only after having "learned" self-awareness from change. Hope it made sense ;)

Simply put, the observer, the self, is aware of the flow of time, as you say. Then it determines that in order to understand the flow of time (avoid the tinted glass problem), it must give itself a perspective outside the flow, and this is the now of the immaterial soul. So it is as you say, that the experience of change and flow is most fundamental to the experience of time, but the self sees within itself, that the capacity to experience the flow is even more fundamental than the experience of the flow, as necessary for that experience. Therefore the self seeks to adopt this position, the most fundamental position which is prior to the experience of time, as the capacity to experience time, in its most pure form, and this is to separate oneself from the flow of time, in order to fully understand it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I can agree. There is however IMO a problem with this theory. We assumed that in all this it remained the same. So I was wondering does it interact in some way with "matter", or is it only a "detached" observer? If it interacts however it can change, and therefore the self does not strictly remain itself as time passes. But conversely if it does not change, how can it "learn" to be self-aware and to search to find a "a-temporal" perspective?



Yeah, that is the paper I was referring to!

Actually I'm not suggesting an axiom for "mind" as such (that's too dualist for my taste), but I am suggesting that the human perceptual point-of-view is implicit in how we represent the world. The key distinction I'm making here is that interactions between objects (including those prior to human existence or far away from Earth) don't depend on humans or sentience. So there need be no preferred basis in the world itself, things happen (or not) in every basis but humans have evolved to perceive the world in the decoherence basis. I think this explains why humans have a basis preference without requiring additional structure or axioms in the quantum formalism itself. — Andrew M

Ok, In some sense this view reminds me Schopenhauer position that the world as an empirical object necessitates the "opening" of the first sentient "eye" in the world. It is certainly interesting. But how can, say, the cosmological model fit in such a description? Our "hypotheses" for the past are indeed in the "preferred basis". Do these "hypotheses" remain "true" in your view or they are a sort of "fiction"? (this point was never clear to me, I apologize if this question is obvious. But it is clear that all non-quantum theories work in the "preferred basis branches"... so if such a theory is correct how is the status of "predictions in the past"?) Anyway I think that your "solution" is a possiblity to avoid the rejection of "simple" MWI by Schwindt's argument. I concur, thereofore, that it is a valid "escape" from refutation!

In my view, the Born Rule can be explained. Briefly, in wave functions where the relative states have equal amplitudes, we would be indifferent to which state we would find ourselves measuring, so branch counting is sufficient. When they are not equal, the wave function can be transformed such that all the states do have equal amplitudes. For example, a superposition of two states with (non-normalized) amplitudes of 1 and 2 respectively can be mathematically transformed into five states each with amplitude 1. And then branch counting again gives the correct probabilities according to the Born Rule. — Andrew M

Mmm interesting! I cannot say if it is a valid counter-argument, but maybe it is. Just for curiosity, is it based on some papers?

Yes, I agree that the two cases are different, of course. And like you I prefer Bohm's and Bell's view over MWI. Regarding your definition of "life" and "matter" honestly I have a hard time in following you (maybe it is because I do not know almost anything about the authors you have named. I think I will read the thread about Einstein and Bergson). Rather than a frequency IMO it is the disposition of "matter" that counts. Our bodies are extremely complex "structures" of matter, so to speak. To make an analogy a very good concert is one where there is a perfect harmony between various instruments. So "life" depends on complexity rather than "frequency". Anyway in this view we are not of course "biological robots". Also, the experience of time is more related IMO to the immediate perception of change of experiences (see also my response to Metaphysician Undercover). But again it is also true that certainly this is only the "basic" aspect. On a more "complex" level there is also memory.


Hi Andrew M,

you might enjoy this paper by Max Tegmark who uses mind/consciousness as a defense to the criticism of Schwindt. However while it is an interesting defense, it posits a "fundamental role" of consciousness. Problem is that his theory about consciousness is highly speculative. Schwindt's criticism however applies to the "pure" version of MWI, i.e. one without "subsystems", like Copenaghist observer or Tegmark's mind. Positing a "mind" is adding an axiom to explain the efficacy of decoherence (which alone cannot refute Schwindt's criticism). But if you add additional structure, then the theory loses its simplicity and it is not more "simple" (mathematically) than Bohm's. In any case there is also the Born Rule problem.



Yeah, sorry I misunderstood the tinted glass argument. I never encountered it before, actually. But now I think is clear. Thanks, for the explanation!

I disagree with the idea that for the mind, time is "flow". I find that most fundamentally, for the mind, time is the division between past and future. But since things are changing, while the division between past and future stays the same, we posit a flow. Things were different yesterday from today, so we say that yesterday was a different time. Since we have different times, we conclude that time must be flowing. But this is a constructed "time", just like we have a constructed concept of "space". All that is immediately evident to the mind, concerning time, is that there is a past, and there is a future, and we are at the present. We can sit at the present, meditate, calmly removing ourselves from the flow, while the world changes all around us. And this just makes us more keenly aware of the division between past and future.

So let's look at this from your perspective of a distinction between experienced time and physical time. I say there is no flow in experienced time. There is an experience of being at the present, which is the experience of being at the division between past and future. This is the immaterial perspective which I claim that we need to understand material existence. What we observe is that all around us, material things are moving from the present into the past. we assume that they are coming from the future, and moving into the past. So the "flow" is part of the physical time, it is the physical objects moving into the past. The state which exists in front of you now will be in the past by the time you say "now". You are the immaterial observer, at the static, non-moving "now", independent from the temporal world, while the entire physical world moves past you as time goes by. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting view!! It reminds somewhat the "metaphysical subject" of the Early Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer etc. The most basic experience is possibly the "now" you are talking about. In this view the most fundamental experience is not even the "distinction between past and present" which already requires the cognition of a "dynamic" change. At this level the experience is to speak "timeless", there is no awareness of change (since "change" requires already the perception of the flow). Timelessness is like the "point" in space, a dimensionless object (In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein actually says: "The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension"). The problem in this view is that such an observer cannot be "self-aware" and therefore it is quite inappropriate to be called thought as a "self", since self-awareness IMO occur in time. If the flow of time freezes, I believe, we can not have an "experience" of self-awareness (and a non-self aware soul can still be called a soul? ). To be a "self" IMO there must be some type of experience of change.

Timelessness is certainly like a dimensionless point but can we say that such an experience of "now" is an experience of a "self"? It sounds like the same "state" if there was a "stopping", a total "cessation" of the flow of "time". Maybe there would be some awareness but I am very hesitant to calling it an awareness of a "self". In timelessness there is no self-awareness. For the observer in fact to have a "feeling" of distinction between himself and "the physical world and other minds" IMO there must be some experience of change. So while maybe you are right to say that at the most fundamental level "time" is a "static now". But at the same time without the "flow" in my opinion the "observer" ould not be self-aware. This is why IMO for a "self-aware" subject the basic experience is in fact the "flow", the awareness of change. *

The "soul", as I use it, is the principle of life, what it means to be alive. So when I say that the soul has created the body, this is what has happened over time, in the process of evolution. Now the living human body is the perspective which the soul has created for itself, from which it observes the world. So if we consider that the soul is immaterial, and its body is its observation instrument, then we must understand what the instrument is contributing to the observation in order to avoid the tinted glass problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah ok... Again note that if the soul "acts"/creates, then it must be aware of the flow of time. But in this case the soul is indeed "interacting" with the physical body. So, in order to interact it cannot be "static" but itself a dynamic process, much like the "physical" body it uses as its instrument. So I still think that for such a "self-aware soul" the time is percieved as a "flow", rather than the "static now". Regardless, I think I agree with the tinted glass argument. I will ponder over it in the next days!

*@Wayfarer, maybe my response to Metaphysician Undercoverer is of your interest!

But this is unacceptable because we really need to respect the fact that the human being is doing something when it is producing sensations, and unless we can adequately account for what it is doing, and separate the procedure, from the observation, our observations will be inaccurate.

There is an age-old argument for the immaterial soul, the tinted glass analogy. It's simple, and self-evident that unless you determine that the glass you are looking through is tinted, then all your observations will be tainted. So the argument is, that if we want to understand all of material existence, then we must give the soul a purely immaterial perspective. This is why dualism is unavoidable if our goal is to understand all of material existence. It is required to accept dualism in principle, to get there, to assume the immaterial perspective, and if it is wrong, i.e. the immaterial perspective is impossible, then we will just never get there. But we will not know until we try. Therefore we need to assume the immaterial perspective if our goal is to understand all of material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that even sensing is an act. And in fact in classical mechanics the idea is that the "interaction" due to the measurement is negligible, whereas in QM the issue is of course problematic. I am not sure however how this argument helps to show that there is an immaterial soul. In fact even the emergentist would not say that "the mind" is a material "object" but rather an immaterial one (the closest analogy that an emergentist would give is that of a "phase" of matter, like say solidity. But even this analogy for the emergentist is very poor...). I possibly misunderstood your argument but if the "tint" is the immaterial aspect of reality, then you are saying that if we want to understand the glass (matter) we should verify if there is or not the "tint" (and therefore we need the concept of "tint" in the first place). But as I said before this reasoning can be used only against strict reductionists ("eliminativists") who argue that there is no absolutely anyhting that is not material.

The basic assumption which is required then, is that we need to find the immaterial perspective. That is why I suggested time as the 0th dimension. We take the division between past and future, which forms the passing of time, as the immaterial perspective of the soul. This boundary has been assumed, in the past, to have no temporal extension, therefore it provided for the location of the soul, because no material existence is possible at this point in time, which has no temporal extension. To exist is to have temporal extension.

Now, we find with modern physics, that this immaterial perspective may be illusory. Perhaps, the "change" from future to past is not absolutely instantaneous. Perhaps some types of objects move from future to past before other types of objects. If this is the case, then we need to determine the soul's immaterial perspective. So we need to refine our position, find out exactly what it means to move from future to past, to restore our hope of understanding all material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually "physical space" and "physical time" should not be confused with "experienced time" and "experienced space". If we accept that "consciousness" is something real (i.e. we reject reductionism), then the two should not be confused. For the mind time is the "flow" and "space" is given by sensations, proprioperception etc. The problem is when we conflate the two creating conceptual confusion. Saying that according to physics our "space" and "time" are illusory is IMO meaningless since in the first place the concepts were different. At best we can say that "experienced space" is a "mental construct" that is used to represent the external objects whereas "experienced time" is instead correlated to physical time. But conflating the two creates only confusion: our "time" is not an illusion... instead, so to speak, it is the pre-condtion of our experience. Our experiences "appear" in the percieved time. If there were no consciousness time would be merely physical, i.e. the causal nexus between events. But since there IS congnition our "time" is not reducible to the time of clocks, it is a different, albeit correlated thing.

BUT it is also true that the causal nexus itself appears dynamic (if we are not advocating the "Block Universe") and therefore we have to say that "material" past and future events are non-existent. But while for material objects we can think that time IS change (the causal chain...), for us time has also a cognitive aspect which is a precondtion of experience. But I think that maybe even the psychological/experienced time is "quantized" even if it appears to not be the case. But possibly we will never know it. Anyway calling our "perception" of time an illusion simply because, say, there is a temporal dilation effect between our head and our feet whereas for us it appears "the same", is a product of either a mistaken reductionism (our consciousness IS our brain) or a conceptual confusion (the percieved time MUST have the same properties of the "clock/physical time"). Nobody actually estabilished that it is so. So who say so IMO is only speculating and not using "scientific evidence" in the correct way.

Here's the problem I apprehend with the differential in time scales. For the sake of argument, let's assume the soul's immaterial perspective, at the point of division between future and past. Let's assume that when an object goes past this point it becomes observable to the soul. Going into the past is what constitutes observability. For a spatial analogy, consider a plane. Objects are crossing the plane and you see them only when they emerge on one side. This is what constitutes the object's existence from the perspective of the soul, its being in the past, across that line of division. Now let's assume some very large objects, and some very small objects. Suppose that a very large object, due to its size, takes a little longer to get into the past than a very small object which crosses the plane instantaneously. We can make a time scale by watching large objects go into the past, and, we can make a time scale by watching very small objects go into the past. But since the amount of time that it takes for a large object to go into the past has been assumed to be different from the amount of time that it takes for a small object to go into the past, then we need to determine this difference in order to properly relate these time scales. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah ok, a very creative thought 8-) Well... If you followed my reasoning about the difference between the two "types" of time, then I think you can rightly imagine that something similar actually happens. Our percieved time flows in a way that in principle is different than the "clock time". In our analogy, we might even think that instead of a plane there is a sort of "membrane" that has a small, but non infinitesimal, thickness. In this case the "crossing" might depend a lot also by the "orientation" of the objects. Or maybe the thickness might change during life and therefore the mechanism of "crossing" varies. What I want to say is that our "experienced time" might be very different from both our intuition and the "clock time" when analyzed carefully. But if we do not conflate the two "times" I think that we can accept this "weirdness". And if you believe in an immaterial soul, this should be more acceptable to you than an emergentist IMO. In fact the time of our immaterial soul in principle might be very different from the material/physical "clock time" when analysed in the details simply because we are talking about two different "substances". IMO even if physicists actually observe such small durations your reasoning can be still applied to our "experienced time". By the way your spatial analogy might apply also to "physical time" but I have reservation in accepting it because it is too complex. I prefer to keep the two times separate, since one involves a cognitive aspect (and cognition is immaterial).

With dualism we can extend this way of looking at things to include the entire human body. Not only does the soul create concepts which are the constructed map, the way of looking at the world, but the soul has created the entire human body first, as its way of looking at the world, its map. The map, the body, is the medium through which we are looking at the world. We need to account for all the elements of the medium, giving the soul the purely immaterial perspective, in order to avoid the tinted glass problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mmm, to me matter is not created by mind/soul but mind/soul is not reducible to matter (regarding the pre-existence of the soul or the after-life I am agnostic by the way... simply because I have difficulty to think that it is possible to have a self-awareness without a body). But while I agree that the mind creates concepts and also participates actively in creating the "direct experience", I would not said that it creates the body. It certainly creates however a "map" of the body itself. Yet there is in fact a sense in which what you say is true: we never experience "matter" itself. Therefore our experiences about both our body and the external world are in fact a product of the mind. And as for our direct experience is concerned the "material world" reduced to the "map" we create about it. As I said "outside" the experience we can only make reasonable guesses. So yeah the immaterial part of ourselves is in fact what "is central to us" and certainly uses the body as its "medium" with reality. But I would not say that it creates the body. (The difference IMO is that you speak of creation in an ontological sense, while i think it is true at the epistemic...)

Hope to have not misunderstood your post! (also my exposition maybe was not very clear this time :( )



In a sense I agree. But what I meant is that we never "experience" or "observe" with lab instruments the splitting in MWI and therefore it is impossible to "visualize". This however is not a problem for MWI since we already know that this "uniqueness" is due to our ignorance. Maybe "illusion" gives the wrong impression. I would probably used "distorsion". According to MWI our perspective is distorted in a way that we cannot see "reality-as-it-is" but only a sort of "reflected image" of it. This idea is not very different from Bohm's idea that we experience the "explicate order" instead of the "implicate".

They are perfectly compatible. At least they are compatible in the absence of time travels. But since time paradoxes are IMO nonsense (it is not possible to change the past and so on), they are compatible.

The relative simultaneity at best say that descriptions of some phenomena of two different reference frames are different. But in "the big picture", i.e., tha mathematical framework of the theory they is no contradiction (in the same way that the measurement of velocity of a car measured in its rest frame and measured by a speed camera are not contradictory).

I think this is exactly the point I was making. I wouldn't say that being observed by instruments is being observed, in any unqualified sense. That is because the instruments gather information, and the information must be interpreted according to theories. So there is an extra layer of interpretation there which is dependent on the validity of the theories employed. Take your map analogy. Suppose we have instruments, satellites for example, which are observing the earth, gathering information. Then, with the use of theories, the instruments produce a map of what a human being would see on the earth. You might say that the satellites allow us to observe the earth, but the observations are only as accurate as the theories which are used to interpret the information. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok I see. In principle you are right. We cannot have a "direct experience" of what the instruments in the labs register, i.e. we have an additional interpretative level. Or rather two... Let me explain what I mean.

What we experience is that the instruments "do some stuff" (pardon the imprecise language) and we interpret it an "observation". However it is an assumption, albeit a "very reasonable" one. We do not oberve what the satellite are observing but only how the satellite is "behaving". This is VERY similar to Heisenberg/Bohr reasoning, minus the fact that even they assumed that the observation is an interaction between the experiment apparatus and the "thing" observed by it. To me this is also the reason why science cannot "prove" itself. We need philosophy of science, i.e. we need to explain what we are observing when we analyse the experimental apparatus. But in the strictest sense this is not science, anymore. It is philosophy of science. But even if we accept that there is still a layer of interpretation, i.e. we need to use some assumptions in order to interpret the "results" of the observations. In the case of the satellites it is simple (in fact we can see the Earth...). But with an atomic microscope we cannot be so sure: we have not a direct experience of the atoms, for example (in fact this was, more or less, the objection of Mach against the atomic theory). We need a theory that can account for how the observation, i.e. the interaction of the instrument with the "thing" observed, happens. Here I think you are right, our theories actually condition how we interpret even how we interpret observations themselves. And in fact Bohr, for example, was agnostic about "the nature of the quantum world" - except the fact that the "cause" of the observation is a sort of interation of the "quatum stuff" and the experimental apparatus. In a similar way we can say that in fact we cannot really know "what the quantum world is" by performing experiments. After all it was Bohr who said:
"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." and "We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. " https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr (however I suggest you to read https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/ and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/)

Yes, I think that all observations are ultimately reducible to constructs, and the accuracy of the construct is dependent on the theories employed. So even if you sit at your window, and describe what you are seeing outside, your description is limited by your language capacity. Your language represents the theories you employ in describing the situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I think I can agree. Direct experience is after all in some sense both "pre-conceptual" and "beyond concepts" (Very "zen" X-) ). We use our constructs as a map (this is not to say that they are "false" or a "misconception"...). For example a "chair" is concept we "impose" on our experience. But our experience does not tell us that there is a "chair". Yet conventionally/practically it is very useful to use those concepts. As I also said about the "world outside our experience" we can be agnostic and make some "reasonable guesses". (That's why I am very interested in many "eastern" philosophies which are interested in the "direct/non-conceptual" experience!).

I think that the standard caesium clock measures a time period much longer than a femtosecond. Regardless, I think that the clock doesn't "observe" the time duration, for the reasons discussed above. The clock gathers information which is interpreted according to theory and this produces an "observation".. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ooops sorry, you are right. Atomic clocks arrive at "picoseconds", those who arrive near the "femtoseconds" seem to be "mode-locked" lasers.

According to what we have said, yes. But still I think that our present theories are so successful that we can say that it "observes" such a small temporal duration! But in principle you are righ, I think. And in fact this objection is even more justified for smaller scales

I look at "the cause of our experience" in a different way. I think of the biological systems of the human organism as the cause of our experience. Our bodies take information from our environment, interpreting it, and constructing something which is presented to the conscious mind, which interprets this, and constructs something again. So the causation is really within, in the act of constructing. — Metaphysician Undercover

But... our "biology" is conditioned by the external environment, as you say. So causation itself IMO is also "outised" us. The problem is how we interpret it. This in fact can be said to be "within". All our experience "arises" from the "contact" of our consciousness our biological systems and "something external" (unless one is a solipsist we have to admit that "the external world" co-causes our experience... but maybe a solipsist does not even accept the existence of the body). For example when we touch something, that "something" produces signals that are interpreted by our brain and our consciousness (brain and consciousness are not identical for the emergentist - let alone dualists or other theories). So causation cannot be said to be wholly "within", but at the same time our "description" of it IS "within".

It is necessary because the nature of free will, creativity, and all that "construction" which occurs within us, that I just described, which indicates that we need to assume something more than the "causal chain of happenings" to understand reality. As a free willing being, I see possibilities in the future. I can influence the future with my decisions, such that I can start a causal chain of happenings intended to bring about what I want. This ability to start a causal chain of happenings, at any moment of the present, needs to be understood. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, so in our view time is in fact "within us"? I think I can agree: the "time" we "experience" is NOT the time "measured" by clocks. Are you saying this?



I agree that it is extravagant, but this argument is that it is even either more extravagant than Bell thought (i.e. there are "Many-Many" worlds) or describes a "universe" where literally nothing happens. In any case in MWI the "reality" is the wavefunction.

Of course even somehow we can "avoid" the objection raised by the article it is very "extravagant". We are in a sort of illusion, thinking that our world is "the reality". But even all "the stories" together cannot be said that are reality. The reality according to them IS the universal wavefunction which is eternally in a superposition state (the cat is always both alive and dead BUT we are inside the universe so we observe either alive or death). Interestingly both Bohm and Bell held that in PWT the wavefunction is as real as MWI, but according to them our "story" is "real" because there are also particles. This raised an objection to PWT itself (mainly by MWI-advocates) since if we hold that the universal wavefunction is real, then it never collapses and therefore there are, in fact, other stories but they are "empty" of particles. MWI-supporters see PWT as an unnecessary complication whereas PWT supporters raise the objection above and the (fatal IMO) objection that it CANNOT reproduce, without additional axioms, the Born Rule (the probabilistic predictions of QM). MWI-supporters (e.g. Tegmark, De-Witt, Deutsch...) hold that both are "resolved" or "not very important", but I never found a convincing "defense". Also some PWT no more treat the wavefunction as real, but as "nomological", i.e. a sort of physical law, because of the problem raised about the "empty stories".

Regarding your question about split... Well, no. But remember that according to MWI our world is not real as we normally think. To a well-written FAQ about MWI see http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html.

Personally I find too much "extravagant". I am more in line with Bohr and in a lesser grade Rovelli (but interestingly I am fascinated by also Bohm). MWI also would be very elegant (mathematically) but thetwo objections above IMO rule it out.

By the way Everett's original interpretation was a bit different, it was called "relative state interpretation", the MWI it seems is its most famous type. But I do not rember very well these things.

See also this for a "mental" interpretation of MWI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation (this might of your interest!)

Thank you for sharing the sutra, very interesting and clear! So both the Mahayana and like the classical Theravada refute in a very expliciti way this type of "nihilism" (apparently however in different ways). Sadly it seems that reductionism influenced many Buddhist out there.

My view is that Nirvāṇa and the unconditioned is never an object of perception however the mind constantly tries to find or identify it as an object. Ceasing from that false effort is ‘the way of negation’. Actually it’s somewhat similar to the mystical approach ‘cloud of un-knowing’, except that it is not focussed on deity. — Wayfarer

Yeah that is also my interpretration. In fact the language is "apophatic" in order to not "cling" to a false concept of Nirvana. Regarding the "cloud" I agree the approach is similar.

But nihilism is nevertheless a pitfall for Buddhists. It comes from interpreting śūnyatā as merely nothingness or non-existence. In actual fact, śūnyatā refers to ‘conditioned existence’ i.e. all objects of perception, sensation, thought, etc are compound, subject to decay, and so on. — Wayfarer

Agreed! the "voidness" simply points to the lack of "fixity" * of the conditioned. It is a "no-thingness" rather than a "mere nothingness". It allows change and therefore also life. After all if we were "fixed" we could not have any chance of make progress.

*I prefer the term "fixity" rather than "permanence" since Buddhism refutes "annihilationism", i.e. the view that at death the "self" is destroyed (and therefore it refutes the view that "something" can remain "fixed/stable" for a while and at a certain point being destroyed).

Thank you very much for the insights! (Y) :)

Ok I think I understood your view. Thanks for the clarification.

And also thanks for the insights about Tai Chi and for sharing your experience!

Yeah I agree... If you accept that "ultimate reality" is the "Mind", then the "real" time is the "percieved/experienced" time. There is no distinction between the two. In this framework "life" and the flow of experiences (i.e. the "flow of time") are the same (except the fact that maybe the "Mind" is a "center of awareness", but I do not really know much about Tai Chi, so it is only a guess...). It seems interesting.

Do you know if there are some online resources about it? May you please give some links - if there are any?



Interesting! Regarding the first part I think I agree. I see it as follows: we "map" reality according to certain assumptions. The "validity" of the map, however depends on the map itself, its properties. So a-priori even the smallest "observable" scale depends on the particular "way" we "map" reality (however being a theoretical physics student I believe that it is the "best" map, until contrary evidence). This however raises as you say the question: how we a-priori distinguish the two "realities", i.e. the sensible and the "intelligible" ? Actually if by sensible we include also what can be "observed" by the instruments (i.e. the definition of "observable" in physics) of the lab Heisenberg and other Copenaghists would say that there is no difference. Others, like the Bohmians disagree.

As an example, imagine if we make a complete description of what is occurring right now, then use logic and theories, to deduce what must have been occurring five, ten, or twenty years ago. We cannot say that these past occurrences are actually observable. We do this with geology, various morphologies, to project way back in time, and with cosmology we go right back to the big bang. We know that we do not actually observe the big bang, it is a product of the theories. But for some reason, when we take theories in the other direction, to look at shorter and shorter periods of time, instead of longer and longer periods, we tend to fall for the illusion that we are actually observing these short periods of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mmm, interesting view (I hope to have understand what you mean...). Ok, it seems a strict empiricism. In this case, however all our scientific pictures do not refer to observation but to a "construct" of it (apart of course theories that predict only perceivable results by our senses).

Let me ask a question. Suppose you have an atomic clock. Why do you think that they do not "observe" such small durations (femtoseconds for instance)?

In my mind "unobservable phenomena" is a self-contradictory statement. If we observe physical activity, and apply logic, to conclude that it is necessary to assume that there is something unobservable going on to account for this activity, then we cannot refer to this as phenomena because that implies something perceivable by the senses. If we allow that "phenomena" refers to things apprehended by the mind, as well as by the senses, then we would need to adopt some other principles to distinguish between what has real material existence, and what is a product of the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, I see. What about "happenings"? :) Well I speculated a lot about the issue wether it is even possible to think that something can exist, but it is impossible to percieve in any possible way. My "hypothesis" is that the answer is "yes", but we cannot know anything about such "things". We can only "guess" or "speculate", without any hope to really know. Therefore even the existence of "matter" is a convenient "guess": we cannot prove its existence in any way. Outside direct experience and inference about direct experience we cannot have any "certain", so to speak, knowledge. We can however IMO make some reasonable "guesses". For example I have not find any "proof" against solipsism, however it is not clearly true. But the fact that it is extremely difficult - if impossible - to reject shows something interesting: outside the "direct experience" we cannot have certain knowledge. So in a sense we estabilish the existence of a reality "behind the phenomena" as a reasonable "leap of faith", so to speak. Do you agree? Therefore the only principle that I can (at least for now) propose is the "causal" argument: the "external reality" is somehow the cause of our experience (to avoid solipsism). However we can only make reasonable assumptions and inferences about it (and even for its existence). Note that since the Copenaghen interpretation became the "standard" one, physics now is seen as dealing with what is "observable" by physical instruments (and therefore claims about what "there is behind it" are seen as either speculations or fictions).

If the goal is to understand, then we cannot say that this is "unnecessary". Since the goal of scientists is often to predict, rather than to understand, then so long as the mathematical equations are set so as to adequately predict, understanding is "unnecessary". But as we found out with the discovery of the heliocentricity of the solar system, real understanding opens up vast new opportunities which cannot be accessed by mere mathematical predictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed! In my opinion the fact that there are many interpretation of QM means that we have yet to understand it. But it seems that many physicists do not agree, sadly.

The flow of the river is not explained by the water. The water is one element, there is also gravity, and the form of the solid ground. So if change is related to time, like flow is related to the water in the river, we still have the background existence (the riverbed), and the cause of change (gravity) to identify. The cause of change, is more properly associated with time, than change itself, just like gravity is more properly associated with the flow than the water itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. I think I understood... So in your view time is the cause of change. But why do you think it is necessay to posit it in the first place? In other words why the "causal chain of happenings" is not sufficient to understand reality, but need a "cause to exist"? :)
Personally I cannot see how such an "additional" cause might be required.


P.S. For those interested in interpretation of QM, I have found a nice criticism of MWI (many-worlds):
https://rekastner.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/decoherence-fail.pdf
Here there are no formulas and the argument is quite clear IMO: in order to explain the "split" we already have to know how the worlds must split (this problem is called "preferred basis problem" in literature). The problem is that according MWI in its most rigorous formulation only the universal wavefunction is real and a-priori by it we cannot know how the universe split. Therefore it becomes either a "many-many worlds interpetration" where there are many-many ways in which worlds split or "a no-world interpetration", where literally nothing happens.

For who is interested I give the link to two threads of "physicsforums":
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-nothing-happen-in-mwi.822848/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/many-worlds-proved-inconsistent.767809/

and the link to the pre-print of the paper where the criticism is found:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447

Another idea: if "time" flows indipendently, then is it not correct to say that in fact that time passes is itself a "change"? In fact if we try to "imagine" it, we think that it passes, i.e. there is some activity.

Mmm interesting... I try to give you a rapid answer (hope it makes some sense X-) ):

Yeah to give some "support" to your view, maybe the Planck time is a limit for our "ability" to measure duration, i.e. it is the smallest observable duration. But again, even if it is so short to be unobservable, maybe we can still imagine that the same can be said for physical changes. I mean we can imagine some phenomena might have a duration which is inacessible to our measurements.

The reasoning is somewhat similar to the idea behind the "hidden variables". According to these theories we do not observe "reality as it is" but we can still understand quantum phenomena as the "result" of unobservable phenomena (i.e. the movement of the particles etc). In the same way even when we will (possibly) arrive to a quantum theory of gravity, IMO we can still think that there is a "subquantum" world.

By the way the problem of your hypothesis (at a scientific level) is that such a time would be a sort of "unnecessry" since it is a sort of "stage" where phenomena happen. So it is not to say that it is wrong, but for a scientific POV it is "unnecessary".

Regarding a metaphysical level, I think that time IS the "flow of change". This does not mean that it is "reducible" to the "events" themeselves. It simply means that as there is no flow in a river without water, there is no "time passing" without change. However the "flow" does not of course coincide without water.

IMO if time is not the "flow of change" then it "exists" as a sort of indipendent "process". But if that is the case, how can exist such a process?

Scientifically speaking, however, I do not think that a "time apart of change" can be really useful. But science is NOT metaphysics and therefore if we do not adhere to scientism it is not a problem ;)

Well, thank you! Our approach seems quite similar. Curiosly, I have a deep interest in platonism, too (I am very inclined to beleieve that there are "eternal truths" - and I do not think that this is in contrast with Buddhism since truths are not necessarily "substantial", however I saw that many Buddhists would disagree as it happens*).

To clarify what I meant by "experiential", let me quote an excerpt of the Dhammapada (from: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=093):
"His path [i.e. that of a liberated individual] ,like that of birds in the air, cannot be traced."
This suggests to me a total freedom from all designations. Regardless of the acceptance of the "doctrine" of a particular school, this "image" is one of an absolute freedom. This - united to the fact that the there is a strong emphasis on the "here and now" - is what attracts me to Buddhism. While I think that the "metaphysics" is also interesting, I think that this "experiential" part is even more important (I admit that this a somewhat "perennialist" approach, but IMO it is the experiential part that is important regardless the fact that the "doctrine" is actually true or not). This experiential, in fact, part suggests me an absolute "boundlessness" (and actually my nick reflects my interest on the concepts of "infinite, boundless, ineffable" etc X-) ) .

Meditation therefore for me it is meant to "see" really important aspects of our existence that in "normal" life we neglect. And I also think that in ancient times where lives were less "constructed", so to speak, meditation (and other techniques) were possibly more effective. And the "boundlessness" which I referred before. At the same time this "openness to the higher", so to speak, must be accompained by a reduction of the "ego". If there is not this "reduction" the danger is a sort of "vainglory" (which is a quite important issue according to a very large number of traditions).

P.S. (maybe too much OT)
In many Buddhists for example I encountered a sort of "fear of the eternal". But IMO while, of course, transience is of a fundamental importance in Buddhism, nowadays it seems to much "emphasized". I read, for example, opinions (even among very respectable and serious teachers and/or monks) suggesting that "Nibbana/Nirvana" is nothingness, an "absolute void". I find such interpetrations somewhat "off" (albeit sometimes very logical and rigorous), I cannot articulate the feeling but it seems that I am "certain" that they are "wrong" (maybe it is only "clinging" X-) ). Personally while maybe nowadays it is a common interpretation, it appears that in ancient times, in fact, it was not. For example it seems that the ancient Theravadins held that Nibbana was "permanent, eternal..." as you can see here https://suttacentral.net/en/kv1.6 (however considering it "something" is maybe inappropriate. But considering it "nothing" is even worse..., possibly "no-thingness" in contrast to "nothingness" ). Anyway, I also see that even before the beginning of the Common Era there was a wide range of views about many tenets. This, oddly, quite conforts me and actually motivates my "skepticism/questioning".

Thank you. You might be interested in reading https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html and Smolin's thoughts (he wrote a book called "Time Reborn").

Yes I think that time is not like the spatial dimension. However I have some difficulty accepting that time passes without "any change". But I find it a respectable view. I will think about it in the following days.

Thanks for the link about Wittgenstein (I knew about his "spiritual side" which IMO is often unrightly disregarder - however it is true that he sometime compared to both buddhist and daoist philosophers).
Regarding Watts I only read that book and I found it well written. I like in particular his "free" quest, outside any particular organisation (in this experientially I feel very similar to him).

Actually to be more precise Buddhism attracts me on the pratical side rather than the "doctrinal" (which from a buddhist point of view might sound "weird" since "right view" is the first step) due to both skepticism and to some "views" that I have that might be regarded as "eternalistic" in a buddhist community. Also I have a hard time to accept a particular doctrine since I still percieve that there is an immense treasure of wisdom in other traditions. Doctrinal problems aside, on the experiential level I am finding Buddhism the most "accessible" since it refers to the actual immediate experience (to practice it one simply can start from his immediate experience without taking "tenets" on faith). On the other hand however other "doctrines" fascinate me a lot (and above all the unexpected similarities between them!). So I consider myself still a (very confused) questioning "agnostic".

Regarding the obstacles, thank you also for this link! It confirms my idea that spiritual life is full of paradoxes.

By the way I learned to accept my limitations in the practice. At first I expected only immediate results. After some time I came to realize that the practice is gradual and it must be done, as you say, to the "sake of doing it". It required some time (and also some suggestions from a "online" friend). But IMO if one cannot come to terms with himself the practice becomes impossible. So actually meditation, if anything, even stripped of its "spiritual" connotations should IMHO be performed to the simple sake to come to terms with oneself, to have a better outlook on life etc. But there is too much "hurry" in the modern society as others have mentioned: deadlines, bureocracy*, part-time jobs, obsessiveness with productivity, "publish or perish" attitude in the academia etc. From the Tao Te Ching (Lau translation, https://terebess.hu/english/tao/lau.html):

20

The multitude are joyous
As if partaking of the offering
Or going up to a terrace in spring.
I alone am inactive and reveal no signs,
And wax without having reached the limit.
Like a baby that has not yet learned to smile,
Listless as though with no home to go back to.
The multitude all have more than enough.
I alone seem to be in want.
My mind is that of a fool - how blank!
Vulgar people are clear.
I alone am drowsy.
Vulgar people are alert.
I alone am muddled.
Calm like the sea;
Like a high wind that never ceases.
The multitude all have a purpose.
I alone am foolish and uncouth.
I alone am different from others
And value being fed by the mother.

Yeah with all this "hurry" even meditating for reduce anxiety can lead to a certain amount of isolation, sadly.




*the Italian one seems to be quite infamous (I am Italian BTW)

thank you for sharing your experience! Excellent post (Y)

Personally I studied a bit of eastern philosophy almost four years ago. I read the "Tao Te Ching" simultaneously with some insights of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and for whatever reason I found a strong similarity between them (I remember that for many days I had a sort of "intellectual excitement" that suggested that there was surely a connection between the two works). Then I began my quest to discover eastern philosophies motivated also by the fact that eminent physicists like Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr, Bohm, Heisenberg etc were attracted too. So I started to digging in the net and at first I conflated Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism thinking that "they were the same" (actually reading "The Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance" did not help with this error). Then I began to appreciate their difference and I began to be more attracted by Buddhism, especially Theravada. Anyway until last summer it was merely an intellectual interest, nothing more. However when I understood that my intellectual questioning (especially about the "Unconditioned/Nibbana" and the doctrine of "rebirth") was meaningless without the actual experience, I decided (actually after a suggestion of a friend) to start meditation (at the same time I also read the "Way of Zen" of Alan Watts). Now I am trying to maintain a constant practice of both vipassana and samatha. I found the effects of medition immediate but a mixture of intellectual skepticism, doubt, laziness, anxiety, horrible time management etc is interfering with my "actual progress". Still this living experience is actually confirming the benefits of spiritual practices. Anyway while I am still higly skeptical of many "supernatural" claims made by religions and ancient philosophies I have to admit that in reality in many ways they store a lot of pratical and intellectual wisdom, sadly unrecognized in contemporary society.

Also I found that - to my knowledge - most (if not all) forms of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism all agree about the importance of trying to be not self concerned (and at the same time however you become aware of the "higher perspective" (e.g. in Buddhism the realization that all conditioned things are impermanent leads one to detach and to be less concerned...) -another paradox).

"Spiritual" practice make possible to actually, so to speak, experience the "wise words" of the sages. An intellectual understanding can of course give a "glimpse" on them, but the practice in fact permits to actually "see" them.

Excellent ;)

Regarding the marketing... yeah sometimes I have the same impression!

You are welcome! And thanks you for the links about Bohm and Verlinde!

Interesting. Thank you.

Yeah, I agree that the term "surrender" might be misleading. In fact what I have in mind is only a "surrender" of a particular type of will. But not of the "will itself". So IMO our perspectives are very similar on this. On the level of the will itself there is only a "calming", a "stilling" etc, not a real surrender. But normally our actions are somewhat conditioned by the "will to power". In order to achieve the calmness this "will to power" should at least in part "disappear".

I think it is only a matter of perspectives. If I realize that I cannot "rule over everything" I will in some sense surrender and give up my expectations. Possibly then I can work for calming my mind etc. After that as you say the will is spontaneous.

Actually this perspective reminds me a lot of Chan/Zen Buddhism (other than of course Daoism) where spontaneity, free action is seen as a liberated action. In both traditions the goal seems to be a state with no more plans, chains etc only spontaneity, freedom - the same spontaneity found in the flow of a river (except of course that we are aware and the river is not :) ).

Maybe on Zen @Wayfarer can confirm (or reject) what I have said.

So what about rephrasing the issue in these terms: It is a "surrender" of a particular type of will, namely the "will to power". But when we consider the "will" in fact the process is not really a surrender but only a calming, stilling etc.

Interesting... you might like also the idea behind Digital Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics (the rather questionable assumption is the computability of everything. But maybe the centrality of information in these (speculative) theories might be of your interest )

Regarding your concept of Mind... Do you think that "Mind" is the ultimate reality?

@Metaphysician Undercover
I am rather curious to know your understanding of the concept of "time". What do you mean by time as the "0th" dimension?

Probably the word "surrender" here can create problems.

What I meant was not really very so different to what you said now. The will cannot cease (while alive, of course). However as you say it can be quieted, calmed. And even calming the will is something that seems to go against our "intuition": we think that the "victor" is one who manages to "impose" on reality his/her will. Instead what I meant is that paradoxically it is the one who calms, quiets etc his will.

I do not know very well Daoist meditation (except for what I read about "zuowang" - sitting and forgetting) when for example you say:

It is all just quiet. My approach is Tai Chi which allows me to gradually sink into the state. One complete routine is usually about 27 min. At the end I feel the energy in my body as water flowing inside of me and moving me without will (Zhi). Something else is moving me.

it strongly suggests me the idea of "surrender". The will is completely calmed, there is no need to "control" everything etc. But if I am not misinterpreting what you say, you actually are "going along with the flow", at least for a while. In this sense I think that we can agree that the word "surrender" can apply.

What is more controversial is the possibility of a total let go/surrender. Regarding such a possibility I am more skeptical. But what I can say is that that a moderate "surrender" IMO is exactly the "calming" effect that you describe.

IMO in fact we are inclined to think, even unconsciously, that we can control everything. This leads us to express our "will to power" in order to "dominate". When however we begin to realize that such a control is impossible and our attempts in doing so are counterproductive we begin at least to question the validity of our expectations, desires, attempts to control etc. From the perspective of our instinct to dominate, the calming is really a surrender, I think.

As I said the real "denial" is actually continue to negate our inability to control things;)

Agreed.

As I said in my post I think for most authentic spiritual practices the idea is that one has to "surrender", to "let go", to "trust" etc. Paradoxically that "surrender" is correlated to (the highest) "victory" according to many religious traditions. The idea is that the "ego" shrinks to zero, so to speak, while the mind "joins" the infinite (in whatever form). The self-mastery has nothing to do with an egoistic drive. The self-mastery increases as "egoism" decreases.

This in fact contrary to our intuition. In fact we would expect that one who is "in control" is one who rules everything, or even imposes his will against others. But those who try to "impose" their will actually are those who actually lose (and are those who suffer the most).

Sadly it is very difficult to surrender :(

Hi all,

there are several approaches in meditation, of course. The most common are the "calming" ones where the person attempts to be mindful to a certain object of meditation, like for example the breath. These techniques are very useful to deal with anxiety attacks, stress etc. IMO there is no "denial" here: simply one tries to maintain self-control by trying to remain focused on some objects. For example this type of meditation is called "samatha" in Buddhism. These calming techniques are accessible to all, regardless their philosophy, religion etc

However there are of course other types of meditation. In Christianity there is the "contemplative prayer"*, for example (in fact the "eastern" meditative approaches should be called IMO "contemplation"...). In Buddhism as @Wayfarer mentioned there is the "insight meditation" (vipassana, zazen..) where one "observes" the arising and ceasing of bodily/mental feelings to realize their transient, unsatisfactory** and "not-self" nature. In the Chuang-Tzu (Daoism) there are mentioned various approaches. For example the "zuowang" (ch. 6) where one "sits and forgets" to become one with the Dao. In all these cases the idea is that one manages to acquire, so to speak, a different perspective on existence, rather than become calm and focused. But IMO it is necessary to emphasize the differences between the traditions. For example the "zuowang" appears similar to "zazen", "vipassana" etc but whereas in Daoism one tries to "unite" with the cosmic proccess, in Buddhism one tries to stop the "I-making" and "my-making", i.e. he tries to be free from identification and possession (and therefore in Buddhist eyes the Daoist approach is still characterized by a subtle tendency of "I-making", "my-making".).Therefore in Buddhism saying that one has the goal to become "joined" the "whole universe" is mistaken: in fact while "monists" seek to trascend duality to become "one", in Zen one searches to become "not-two" and "not-one", i.e. beyond all possibile conceptualization. Christianity is of course very dissimilar: one here searches to build a better relationship with a Divine Person, who is distinct from oneself (this is why the "total absorption in the Divine" is regarder "heretical" or at least "heterodox" in Christianity). To a skeptic maybe Buddhist "insight meditation", zazen etc are more appealing since are simply based on the observation of the experience. By the way even these "specific" types are seen to bring a better relation with life, i.e. they also have a sort of "calming" effect. This list IMO is very limited, however. ***

Despite the enormous differences between the various techniques however I should not call meditation as a type of "denial". Actually in order to meditate one must face his own problems, try to find the best technique that "fits" with himself, one must have a LOT of patience (since while some results are sometimes immediate the progress might take even years). IMO "denial" might manifest in an unwillingness to adimit that "something is wrong" and trying to "live as nothing is wrong". This at least should be clear with the "calming approaches" (and in them I include approaches of modern psychology like CBT, autogenic training...), but the same can be said for the "specific" techniques that are unique to each religion.

Finally I wanted to add that despite the enormous differences the "calming result" in most approaches (to my knowledge) arises from the "letting go". We let go our tendency of "controlling" (excessively) our lives. For example a Christian might try to have a more solid "faith" with God (in the same sense to the "faith" that we have with a friend, i.e. it is a "trusting" rather a "dogmatic faith"). A Daoist seeks to "go along with the flow of the ten thousand things". A Buddhist of course seeks to "let go completely of his tendency to grasp" etc it seems that an authentic meditation practice involves a radical effort to "let go", "trusting", "surrender" etc.However this "surrender" allows one to live better, i.e. to paradoxically "win".

*Of course for devotional practicies (i.e. those involving the worship of one or more "higher beings") arguably all types of prayer are a form of "meditation" and in fact they are expected to bring the same "better relationship" as the "contemplative prayer".
** to be more precise the momentary experiences are regarded "unsatisfactory" because of our attachment. However the contemplation on their impermanent nature should render us "dispassionate" (neither attached nor averse) to all of them.
***For example we might include all types of devotional practices, mantras etc

Edit: I forgot to mention also the post of @gurugeorge, who treats almost exactly the things I have said in a slightly different way.

Yeah, I agree entropic gravity is a very interesting approach (even if I do not really understand it very well). In some sense it reminds the ideas of the later Bohm, IMO.

Regarding the article about Bohm, thank you. I was familiar with the attempts to build a Bohmian version of QFT. However I did not know that there were so many attempts in doing so! As I said the Bohm approach is certainly very interesting even if I now prefer other interpretations. However as Feynman said theoretical physicists should know the greatest possible number of "formulations" of a given theory, in this case QM, QFT etc

Yea, I agree. Bohm was a very interesting scientist (and philosopher). I find him very insightful. But actually many of the "founders" of QM and relativity were in fact very nice philosophers and scientists (and also there was much less "aversion" between philosophers and science until circa the '80s).

Thank you for the mention of his "holographic view". I will check as soon as possible. ;)

For all,

Regarding the issue about "Bohm as a materialist"... Well the original work (i.e. the article of 1952) describes a "world" made of "point-like" particles which move in a deterministic fashion. It sounds pretty materialistic to me (however it is also true that the position of each particle in the universe depends on all other particles - the "influence" does not really decrease with the distance etc so while being "materialistic" it is of a curious kind!). I also agree that it is not the most mathematically elegant theory, but IMO it is very interesting. However some time later Bohm created an interesting philosophical system about "the implicate order" and "the explicate order". See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order . The later Bohm IMO cannot be "called" materialist, at least not in the "common" sense of the world (for those who are a bit familiar with Hindu philosophy, the "implicate" order seems quite similar to the notion of Brahman of some Vedanta Schools (Advaita and Vishishtadvaita for example)).



Yeah, I do not like the "new atheist" movement. I find their arguments very shallow and motivated by a sort of "a-priori" rejection of religion and metaphyisics. While of course for certain types of "religions/metaphysics" (i am thinking about the "anti-science" movements) they are right in their criticisms, I do not think that they raise serious objections to any religion. They seem, as you note, stubbornly convinced that religion and metaphysics cannot do anything good for the human being. They are dogmatic in their own positions. And sadly, I know many people who are "in agreement" with them. They are just too skeptical... But I want to emphasize the fact that this general aversion and skepticism is also due to the fact that too many religious people are skeptical about science (or even averse to it). And of course those "false gurus" are the worst!

Regarding Bohr and Heisenberg I agree (actually Bohr IMO was a really good philosopher). Thank you for the various link ;)

Other interesting info:

Another variant of PWT is the "t'Hoof theory" where however superdeterminism is accepted (and therefore it is local!).

Also see these links:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-refutation-of-bohmian-mechanics.490095/ (where many "objections" to Bohmian PWT are refuted... there are a lot of similar threads in "physicsforums")
http://www.bohmian-mechanics.net/whatisbm_links.html
also these Wiki articles are fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics


To me it is a very interesting "perspective" on QM, even if however I am more drawn to something along the lines of Rovelli and (especially) Bohr (of which I like his emphasis on the epistemological, rather than the ontological...). However to be honest all interpretations seem to me incomplete. However this does not of course undermine their value! It only reveals IMO that there is "something deep" beyond QM (and QFT), so to speak.

Actually I am a student of physics at the university and I have to say that I agree with you! To be honest I am quite dissatisfied by the "strict pragmatic approach" that many physicists use, especially after the '80s (however the problem is very old. For example Einstein famously was concerned with the hostility against what he called "epistemology", i.e. philosophy of science amongst some physicists of his time*). According to them physics deals with finding the best way to make "predictive calculations". In my opinion instead physics gives us information about "reality" and when you see it in this way, it is impossible to "separate" it from philosophy (epistemology and metaphysics). For example while the mathematical formalism of QM is well estabilished, there are a lot of interpretative problems. For example those who support the "pilot-wave theory" (let me call it "PWT") are very adamant in criticizing their colleagues because they feel that the lack of realism is meaningless. At the same time however some "Copenaghists" criticize the PWT for its explicit non-locality (this is the most serious problem of PWT, but not the only one) and other more techical stuff. A very interesting "school of thought" derives directly from the founder, Bohr. According to Bohr the "quantum world" is unknowable. Therefore concepts like "position", "velocity" do not apply to the "quantum world" because they were introduced for the classical "realm". This in a way resolves the "non-locality" problem, since even in quantum entanglement you cannot "see" the "supposed" faster than light interaction simply because the "signaling" process is a "classical concept" and it does not apply to quantum world**.

The Copenhagists on the other hand are criticized because they create a dichotomy between the quantum and the classical "realms", that sounds quite arbitrary (Bohr response to this issue, the so-called "correspondence principle" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/) to someone is not really satisfying) So there is also the "relational approach" proposed for example by the Italian physicist Rovelli. Briefly according to Rovelli QM must be able to describe all non-relativistic physics (and relativistic QM also the relativistic, but i prefer to not consider now relativity, since the relativistic version of QM, QFT, among other things is a field theory and there is even more confusion). The idea is that each "observer" "sees" his own "reality". Therefore in the "Schroedinger cat experiment" while, say, the cat observes its state as "alive" (fortunately for the cat, I love cats X-) ) while for the evil experimenter the cat the cat is "neither alive not dead" until he performs the observation. I do not know the precise details but according to Rovelli the non-locality is a non-issue in his interpretation. Then there is the MWI which is mathematically the simplest one but has problems with justifing the "Born Rule" (i.e. the "probabilistic rule for predictions") and also has a technical problem, the preferred basis problem (i.e. it does not really explain why we "observe" a classical world). So as you can see once you step in "philosophy" (personally I would call it "physics" but I am a "weirdo", it seems 8-) ) the views are many. It is IMO a shame that in the university classes it is seldom (if ever) mentioned.

*https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1910s see the quote relative to EInstein's speech at the obituary of Planck.
**Since I noted (from other threads) that you have at least a very strong interest in buddhism, I find it somewhat reminiscent to the (mainly Mahayana) buddhist position about the fact that for "conditioned phenomena" neither "existence" nor "non-existence" apply. However do not take too seriously the analogy, take it just for "fun".



Regarding materialism, I also agree. But IMO in fact there are a lot of scientists that are actually "open". The problem however is that there is an awful number of (often "self-described") "gurus", "spiritual teachers" etc that insist that science either "proves" nonsense or that science is useless***. This behaviour causes a lot of skepticism among scientists. Also science is very empirical and therefore when one makes a lot of claims about "reality" which is not "in line" with the accepted theories (even after being corrected more than once...), scientists are (rightly IMO) adamant in dismissing him/her. The problem is that somewhat unconsciously this "aversion" sometimes is also "extended" to honest "inquirers", simply because sometimes the language is different. There is too much "suspiciousness" which is partly justified by the real presence of "crackpots" but I agree it is excessive (for example I find Krauss argument against the existence of God quite "shallow", since he does not really understand that "nothing" cannot be compared to either the "vacuum state" in physics or "the phyisical laws").

Regarding Bohm, we have to remember that his work had different phases and the latter part was not always "in line" with the early. The original article of Bohmian mechanics (the 1952 article I mean) does cite the "quantum potential" but it is a non-local deterministic theory. Later however he tried to introduce in physics his (interesting) concepts of "implicate and explicate order" in his scientific work. However usually physicists refer to the "early stages" of his work. And also now many "bohmians" do not accept the ontological status of the wavefunction and reject the "quantum potential" altogether (they do accept the strong non-locality of the theory, though, and consider the "wavefunction" simply as a sort of "physical law"... it is called the "nomological variant of Bohmian mechanics"). Also "Nelson mechanics" is causal, but non-deterministic, pilot-wave theory to my knowledge. If I do recall correctly it is partly based on the Pilot-Wave theory of Bohm (1952)| .

*** Edit: minor correction in this phrase.

A shorter (and possibly clearer answer).

The wavefunction according to the "standard/pratical interpretation" is merely a tool for the calculations. However the wavefunction itself does NOT give you the probability distribution. So it is not an observable and not therefore a physical "thing". To a physicist what we observe is what is real.

And what about the unobservable? Here to the pratical physicist you are already in philosophy (and some physicists actually have a sort of "aversion" to philosophy).

In the case of the experiment therefore: the "real" is the interference pattern (which of course is observed). If you perform a single-particle experiment, of course, you do not observe the interference pattern (and therefore you infer that the "quantum particle" behaves as a particle). However if you do a "large number" of single-particle experiments you will find that the "total" interference pattern follows a wave-like law. And therefore you conclude that the "quantum particle" behaves like a wave. The wave-like nature however is apparent only when you have a statistically significant number of single-particle experiment (or if you perform a single experiment with many particles).

Consider the case of a single experiment with a single particle. Are the other "possibilities" in some sense "real"?

1) If you accept the Copenaghen interpretation: no. They are not real. What is real is the observed. The quantum system, when unobserved is either "unknowable" or unreal. So do the other possibilities exist? Possibly some phyicists would say that "it does not apply". The question itself is meaningless. We can only say meaningful things about what we observe (similar to positivism). Or maybe "it does not apply" for other suggests that the "unobserved quantum particle" is indeed a "reality" but we cannot describe it in any ways.

2) If you accept the Many-Worlds yes. But you cannot observe them since the "other" paths actualize in "other worlds". In this interpretation actually the only fundamental "reality" is the universal wavefunction, which "never collapses". The fact that we observe only one occurence is due to the fact that we cannot observe "the universe".

3) If you accept the Bohmian mechanics actually the particle follows a precise path. The other paths are so to speak "empty". The other possibilities are "real" if you accept the wavefunction as a "thing" or "unreal" if you do not accept the wavefunction as real. Also in this case the only "true" wavefunction is the universal one which "guides" all the particles in the universe. However in practice since of course we cannot observe the whole universe we have to use "conditional wavefunctions" to describe the dynamics. Are the conditional wavefunctions real? No, they are only a tool.

There are also other interpretations. However they are all in agreement with the "observed reality". The contention is about how to interpret what we cannot observe. And in a sense speaking about what we cannot observe is "meta-physics". And in fact many physicists do not engage in philosophical discussions because of this, To them speaking about the "unobservable" is futile or "beyond our range". Therefore when someone begins to "philosophize" sometemise they grow angry!

However the real problem is not philosophy. The problem is that sometimes people try to use QM to "prove" that nonsense like "law of attraction" & similar are "true". For this reasons many physicists have a strong aversion to philosophy and tend to react "badly" IMO to honest philosophical discussions.

Hi @Wayfarer,

I try to answer in a non-relativistic point of view.

Short answer: the particle does not interfere with itself. In QM the interference pattern is predicted by the form of the wavefunction which can be inferred by previous observations or by theoretical assumptions.

But I then introduced the argument that this shows that the 'wave equation' is independent of time (and therefore space, as I had understood these two to be related as 'space-time' in relativistic physics). I said, in particular, that 'what is causing the interference pattern is outside, or not a function of, space-time'.

In my opinion here you are right. The wave equation is in fact independent of time in QM in form. However the wavefunction is of course a function of the positions (which in QM are (hermitian) operators, i.e. observables) and time (in QM it is a parameter and not an operator).However in non-relativistic QM the "squared modulus" of the wavefunction is proportional to the density probability to find a particle in a position at a given time.

However strictly speaking the cause of the interference pattern is not "outside".In this case, in fact, the wavefunction is a sum of two terms: there is a term that describes the path through the first slit and another relative to the other path. However the wavefunction itself is not an observable. What you can observe is the probability distribution. Forgive me if I use a simplified formula:
Let F be the wavefunction, f1 the part relative to the first path and f2 the path relative to the second.
F = f1 + f2. The wavefunction however is complex. So the probability density distribution is:
FF* = f1f1* + f2f2* + (f1f2* + f2f1*)
The first two terms (f1f1* and f2f2*) are always positive. The sum of the other two (the interference) however can be negative (hence the minima)! What you observe is that the particles follow that probability distribution (which of course is related to the interference pattern: the maxima of the interference pattern are the points where FF* has a maximum and the minima where FF* has a minimum). The interference therefore is given by the wavefunction itself: if our system is not time-invariant of course the probability distribution can change during time. The interesting feature of QM however is that you do not observe F (and so f1 and f2) itself but FF*. So it does not intefer with itself, simply the interference pattern depends on the (a-priori unknown) expression of the wavefunction.

The interaction is between the particle and the experimental apparatus. However the wavefunction has all the information about this interaction.

Remember that in a single experiment what happens is that we observe only one "path". To observe all possible path and therefore to verify that there is a "probabilistic" law we have to do a lot of measuerements. Consider a simplified version ot the experiment. Suppose that the particle can be observed only in two points of space, P1 and P2. Prior to the experiment you cannot know where the particle will be observed. You perform the experiment and you find the particle at P1. You perform a LOT of experiments and you find that with a probability p1 you find the particle at P1. QM says that when you perform another observation you will find the particle at the position P1 with a probailty p1.


Of course you can also predict the form of the wavefunction theoretically (i.e. from theoretical assumptions) - and in fact it is what is almost always done in physics. In fact you can include in the wavefunction all the information about physical interaction (i.e. for example the influence of a electro-magnetic field).


Regarding the ontology there is a lot of views.
Some adherents to the Copenaghen interpretation think that the real is what is observed, therefore until observed we cannot say that the particle "exists". (the wavefunction is not real and until observed the particle does not "exist" - Recall Einstein objections)
Others adherents instead think that it is an epistemological issue. They think that we can only make meaningful statements on the observed. Therefore prior the observation the "ontic status" of the quantum system is unknowable. In both cases the wavefunction is a "predictive tool".
Then there is the MWI (many-worlds). They think instead that the only existing thing is the universal wavefunction which never "collpases". All possibilities are actualized (therefore the particle goes to both slits!). The fact that we observe only a determinate path is due to a sort of an illusion.
The original Bohmian-mechanics treated both the particles and (universal) wavefunction as real. The wavefunction guides all the particles of the universe. Again we observe the probability distribution because of our "ignorance" (we do not observe the whole evolution of the universe).
The "new" Bohmian mechanics instead treats the wavefunction as a "law". The only reality is given by the particles.
There is also the Relational Approach, Statistical interpretation and others.



I suggest this link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

I hope to have been of help :-#

Hello everyone,

I am an Italian physics student with a strong interest in philosophy. In particular I am fascinated by epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and "spirituality".
I like also to write about philosophy (I also have some readers among my friends X-) ).

As a hobby, I also like fantasy (for a while I considered to write a novel but I realized that it is an impossible task for me), sci-fi ecc