Newton worked within a framework of absolute space and time that we now know isn't real. — frank

Except that 99.99999% of the time we do live within a framework of absolute space and time.

QM says some of our assumptions about reality have to be wrong. — frank

QM says that things work differently at small scale than they do up here where we are.

The first ontologists were doing speculative physics. The two have already melded. There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. Science is almost never pointless, so we might draw a distinction between that pointless kind of metaphysics and science. — frank

As I wrote previously, for me, metaphysics and science are completely different things.

I agree with this, too. — Moliere

Oh... I thought we were disagreeing.

they necessitate dialogue, an other, a community, a group. The poem comes alive in the collective witnessing of the poem — Moliere

I agree with this. There are worthwhile things to say about poetry, but I don't think meaning is one of them except in the fairly trivial sense of knowing what the poet is referring to. Example - In "Wild Grapes" by Robert Frost, it's good to know that "Leif the Lucky's German" refers to Leif Erickson's German foster father.

I like to talk about what I experience when I read a poem. As I see it, that's different from it's meaning. From my point of view, most of the poem interpretations I've read are baloney. I do also like to talk about technical aspects of the poem - meter, rhyme, metaphor - and how they help me share the poet's experience. I don't think that's the same thing as meaning either.

My point is that all is metaphor and poetry. — Hanover

In “Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking” Douglas Hofstadter claims that all human thought is analogical. I've read similar views in other places too.

It's just not the case that something odd is happening at the small scale, but this has no bearing on the way we conceptualize the universe as a whole. — frank

One of the points I've beaten till it's black and blue is that metaphysics is not universal. We don't need a one-size-fits-all universal metaphysical foundation. For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism.

This isn't an idealism vs. realism debate. You're right that much of that debate takes place outside the realm of science, but that could very well change in the next century, so let's not imagine that we've reached the pinnacle of understanding. We haven't. We're just somewhere on the trail. — frank

As I understand it, metaphysics and science are different kinds of things. One is the ground, foundation, of the other, especially if we include epistemology in with the metaphysics. Given that view, metaphysics and science will never meld into each other.

I agree we are nowhere near the pinnacle, if there even is one.

What distinguishes an artistic expression from your expression quoted above? What would a non-artistic expression be? If there is no distinction, then all is art. — Hanover

I don't consider myself a very artistic person. I've done a little fiction and poetry writing. I enjoy the process and I like some of the results, but it's not really my thing. I don't draw or paint, but I sometimes think in very vivid imagery. For me, that kind of thinking is exhilarating. I have had the thought that the distinction between art and non-art communication is artificial. All of it is about taking something from my mind and putting it in yours. But that's not a very interesting argument to make and I think there are some important distinctions.

I guess the difference for me is that non-fiction, including the kind of stuff here on the forum, is about sharing knowledge, ideas, or skills. With art, it's about sharing the actual direct non-verbal experience. As I said, the argument can be made that is an artificial distinction.

Thanks. So you, Banno, and others come crowding on to these kinds of threads to show that you don’t take deep and interesting questions seriously. You know better because you haven’t learnt either the physics or the metaphysics. Ignorance of the subject matter becomes your trump card.

C’mon. You can do better than that. — apokrisis

I think I've shown I do take interesting questions seriously and I am very interested in these questions. As I noted, though, I think the gee whiz gets in the way of the science and philosophy. "Gee whizz" is not metaphysics, but in QM, it is treated as if it were.

Also, I didn't mean to include you among the dorks on the forum, although it came out that way. I have always thought of you, Fdrake, and Streetlight as the voices I can trust in math, science, and related philosophy.

It is the flat contradictions in the causality that creates the angst. Sure, you can take the epistemic or modelling perspective that says we simply construct the pragmatic story that captures sufficient truth at each level. So shut up and calculate.

But this invokes an ontology of emergent properties. And so you are just moving the metaphysical questions back to that next grounding level.

For example, you can get into the hierarchy theory debate about whether emergence is all about supervenience - so microstate realism about emergent macrostates - or instead the kind of Peircean holism that I always promote.

So why is quantum reality nonlocal and classical reality local? Why is quantum reality indeterminate or vague, and classical reality definite or crisp? Is it just epistemic accident we arrived at such contrasting causal axioms, or is it instead the big clue that shows there is a directly reciprocal relation in which reality emerges from the manifestation of that causal dialectic. — apokrisis

To the extent I understand what you're talking about, it makes sense. I'm starting to get a feel for your description of how hierarchy's work - the idea of downward constraints and holism. But on the other hand, who cares? Sure, you do and I do and a bunch of other dorks do. Scientists and philosophers seem as confused about this as the low-lifes here on the forum. As I wrote, I think the taint of mystery and weirdness makes it harder for people to figure out what's up.

I don't even disagree with anything you said. I guess I just place the emphasis differently. People should realize the world is the world, not what they think it is or want it to be. They should get used to it.

Have you noticed how folk tend to rely on this distinction as if it were an argument? I don't understand that. Ontology and epistemology are not like ought and is...

What am I missing? — Banno

Geez louise. Don't be such a doink. Answer the ding dong question.

the mooted distinction between epistemology and ontology — Banno

If you're saying the distinction made between epistemology and ontology is arbitrary and unnecessary, I agree. If you're saying something else, I don't know what it is.

There is an argument to be had there. We can build the subjective anthropomorphic view into our metaphysics.

But how is that to be done in a way that simply doesn't serve to contradict all attempts by physics to then take the objective "view from nowhere" as its highly productive metaphysics? And what happens when that unreasonably effective route has to turn around and recover its own subjective point of departure? — apokrisis

I think I'm trying to address a different issue than you are. It bothers me when everybody, even scientists, keep saying that the quantum mechanics is weird. It's not weird. It's just how things work. Why would you expect events at scales of 10 or 15 orders of magnitude smaller than ours to act the same way they do up here?

So, QM doesn't make the world weird. Apples are still apples and they still fall when you drop them and crunch when you chew them. Canada geese still honk and shit on your lawn. Nothing in your daily life get's any less real. There's no reason to get all excited.

On the other hand, I recognize there is a need for a broader context. Once everybody chills out we can work that out. Focusing on the weirdness of the quantum world makes it harder to understand. You can see the effects of that in this discussion.

That is how all the quantum mysticism arises. If the foundation is the human observer making measurements – regardless of whether it is with their wide bum, or a clock and ruler – then how does this "classical" picture account for whatever emergently leads to the collapse of the wavefunction? — apokrisis

I think it arises from people thinking that QM somehow undermines their experience of the world we see every day.

Have you ever tried making sense of action and reaction as a symmetrically opposed pair of force vectors? Or is it only me that saw that as the answer to how rockets worked in a picture book when I was 7 years old and thought, hey, that's a completely bogus metaphysics! — apokrisis

The law of conservation of momentum always made sense to me, although I'm sure I wasn't aware of it when I was 7. Or Newton's laws either. I'm even more sure I didn't know what metaphysics is. You clearly were a prodigy.

So you were on the nose with your earlier remark about scales of observation. But my point here is about taking the ontology seriously once you have indeed sorted out your epistemology. — apokrisis

As I said, I see the human scale standard as a convention. A place to stand while we take our measurements of phenomena much larger or smaller or much more or less energetic then where we grew up.

It is right that reality looks different at different scales of interaction. And so that makes us ask which scale is foundational and which is emergent. — apokrisis

As a matter of convention, I think it makes sense to think of interactions at human scale as foundational, at least for bookkeeping purposes. It was at that level that the whole concept of reality was established. It's at that level that most people experience reality directly. It's at that level where noting weird is going on.

Not anymore, not with the Wigner's friend experiment evidently. Now science and philosophy are becoming one and the same or at least blending. — Darkneos

Massimo Pigliucci and I disagree.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Questions about our reality are not science.
— T Clark
:fire: — 180 Proof

Thinking about it, I edited my previous post to read "Questions about the nature of our reality are not science." The original seemed a bit ambiguous.

In one sense an interpretation of a poem will set out what it means, why it's significant, the feelings that might arise, — Moliere

I've come to see that art, including poetry, doesn't mean anything beyond the audience's experience in seeing, reading, or hearing it. Art is an artists way of expressing an experience which makes it possible for them to share it with others.

No. Learning is about memory, and memories are things one becomes aware of when something reminds one. Learning about learning is doubly so. I could put it this way; "Awareness is the present moment", and one can be aware of the past but not in the past. I remember being aware as I wrote that last sentence, that it would likely be confusing, and I am aware as I write this one that I may not be clarifying things much. — unenlightened

This point is probably not worth arguing about more than we have.

If someone wants to claim that no quantum theories can be tested even in principle, that's a positive claim and requires some support. It's a strong claim, so it needs strong support.

You just misunderstood the quote, that's all. No biggie. — frank

It's clear to me I've made my point no matter how obstinate you are. Nuff said.

when the authors of the Declaration of Independance wrote that "all men are created equal" they were talking about white men, not women nor black people — Matias

What you've written makes sense. I do think many of our country's founders were aware of the ambiguity and hypocrisy.

There's no way yet. It hasn't been established that there's no way in principle. — frank

It's seems clear to me from the quote that Pigliucci means it can't be done. Before I read that, I had thought it was still an open question. Perhaps that's true, but, to me, it's beside the point. You wrote "You're wrong." I showed you a credible opinion by a qualified person that says I'm right. Although I'm willing to acknowledge that the issue may not be resolved, I think I've established that the position I've advocated in this discussion is a reasonable one.

Did you read what he said about the experiment and how it invites questions about our reality. — Darkneos

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Questions about the nature of our reality are not science.

That's not true. — frank

From the August 2022 edition of "Skeptical Inquirer." Thanks to @Gnomon for the quote.

Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics. — Massimo Pigliucci

Pigliucci is a philosopher of science at City College of New York.

So what about the Wigner's friend experiment. — Darkneos

There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. It is my understanding that there is no empirical way to determine which, if any, are correct, even in principle. Questions which can't be answered empirically are not science.

All decent people today (at least in so-called Western countries) agree that slavery is morally wrong, and that this is not just an opinion, but a moral fact. Most would even argue that slavery has always been wrong, be it 200, 400 or 2000 years ago. — Matias

I think many people knew even 200, 400, and 2,000 years ago that slavery was wrong. America's founders - Jefferson, Washington, Monroe, Madison - knew it was wrong or at least had serious doubts even though they owned slaves themselves. They knew their practice put the lie to their rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't answer your question, but I think it shines some light on it.

Which link was that one? — Darkneos

https://qr.ae/pveiQo — Darkneos

The fact they link to experiments and science sites and I just have your word. — Darkneos

You don't just have my word, you have my argument, which I've made over my past posts on this thread. The heart of that argument is that the question of what reality is and whether or not objective reality exists is not a scientific question, it is a metaphysical, i.e. a philosophical, one. The answer to the question is in philosophy, not science. Scientists are not generally very good metaphysicians.

There's not much more I can say. If you don't get it or you disagree, there's no place else for this conversation to go.

Also - note the poster in the second Quora link you provided agrees with my position, although Quora is not generally considered an authoritative source. You'll find all sorts of inconsistencies and disagreements there.

But I don't think it's awareness of awareness as such. — unenlightened

Being aware of the feelings in muscles, balance, and energy when I move in certain ways is awareness. Observing and being aware of patterns in the way I learn to be more aware in different situations is awareness of awareness.

But perhaps I am wrong about this; perhaps someone can describe the experience of awareness. I await with eager anticipation a better explanation. — unenlightened

I'll try to describe how it feels for me to become aware of something. The first time I remember doing that was while learning Tai Chi. I was having trouble with a move, so I kept doing it over and over. I tried to focus not only on the movements, but how the movements felt in my body. I would ask my teacher "what's it supposed to feel like?" Tai Chi for me has to do with the movement of power through my body, so I would ask "What is the power supposed to do?"

While I did the movement, I would try to pay attention to how my body felt as well as I could. A couple of times I thought I felt something that might be important, so I focused on that feeling when I was practicing, but it didn't help. Then I felt something again, I always call it a "tickle." When I paid close attention to that feeling it grew and came into focus. It was a feeling in my body - the muscles, balance, stress - I had not been aware of. After enough practice, it became natural to be aware in that way. That experience and awareness was helpful in working on other moves.

Since than, I've found a similar process takes place in other areas of awareness - intellectual, physical, emotional, social... I guess that's awareness of awareness.

A good question and a good opening post. I can't come up with a good response right now. I'll think about it some more.

Can you not read something about QM and become enlightened on the topic? — frank

Please explain how I am "talking down."

I get that. And you're wrong. QM is not a matter of "different rules for small things."

Check into any quantum theory. And stop talking down to people. — frank

I disagree. Please explain how I am "talking down."

Because we believe in the uniformity of nature — Srap Tasmaner

But nature clearly isn't uniform. It behaves differently depending on where you choose to look - baseballs or bosons.

the unity of science. — Srap Tasmaner

And science clearly is not unified. We have broken it down into a hierarchical list of different sciences depending on scale and principle of organization. There have been long discussions of that hierarchy here on the forum. I think the important message is that reductionism works - each higher level behaves consistently with the level below - but constructivism doesn't - you can't generally predict behavior at a higher level from principles of the lower level. Example - you can't predict the behavior of biology from chemistry.

And yes of course there are differences between how a crowd of 50,000 behaves and how a group of 5 behaves. Yes, scale matters. But it should be explicable how you crossover from one scale to the next — even if there is no simple, non-fuzzy boundary. — Srap Tasmaner

At some level I think you're right, although I'm not sure it's always possible. I think there has been a lot of work to figure out how the quantum world transitions to the classical one. That seems like a valuable thing to know, but I don't think it changes my position.

Anyhow, that's why at least one person (me) would think that wouldn't be true, based entirely on my assumptions and with hardly any knowledge of quantum theory at all. I've just never understood the "it's just a matter of scale" view — as if Mother Nature checks the size of what she's dealing with and then picks the appropriate rule-book to follow for that size object. That leaves the events at different scales isolated from each other in a way I find incomprehensible. — Srap Tasmaner

I doubt you and I would disagree with each other on a practical level. I think our metaphysical language is just different. When it comes to metaphysics, my rule is to use whatever works. Not everyone agrees with that.

This is squarely false. It is a physics question. There are a number of quantum theories which vary considerably in how they explain quantum experiments, and none of them confirm your folk notions of reality.

You have misrepresented the scientific field in this thread and should by no means be talking down to anyone else. — frank

I disagree. Please explain how I am "talking down."

There are ways of accommodating within a a single metaphysics the situation in physics that the world appears to work differently at different scales. For instance, one can argue, as the followers of Quine do , that facts and value systems ( accounts of the world) are inextricably bound together. Thus, it is not just the human and nano scales of physical description that can’t be fully integrated. It is also the myriad descriptions of reality within the various subsegments of the biological and social sciences. Whatever we study within one approach responds also to other theories and procedures, but with different new precision. Since it responds to various systems, it cannot be how one system renders it. — Joshs

I don't see how this substantively differs from what I wrote. It seems like there's just a language tweak that allows you and Quine to bundle a bunch of different metaphysical approaches into a single mega-metaphysics.

I have no problem with that I guess, I just find it less clear than the way I describe it.

That isn’t disparaging. It is to say it is is another level of semiotic regulation. And we can aspire to professional standards and evidence backed practice. It isn’t something mystic that can only be acquired in encounter groups or exotic eastern practices. — apokrisis

I didn't take it as disparaging, I just think it's inaccurate. I see self-awareness as a skill, not a technology. I don't see self-awareness as mystical either. As I said, I think it's everyday, bread and butter human behavior, although I admit it can feel magical sometimes.

But is that attaining self awareness or shedding it? I’m talking about finding a better way to integrate with a community of minds rather than just escaping its constraints. Our challenge is how to find a balance in that regard, not particularly about finding a way to disappear into some sublime sense of self. — apokrisis

I agree this has nothing to do with "some sublime sense of self." Oh, good. I get to quote from the Tao Te Ching. From the Ellen Marie Chen translation of Verse 10:

In being enlightened and comprehending all,
Can you do it without knowledge?

This is one of several passages that say something similar - knowledge leads to artificiality - a false sense of self. I've had arguments about this before. Lao Tzu can't possibly mean that knowledge is bad, but I think he means just that. A release from knowledge and surrender to experience is what self-awareness is for me.

Again, holism is the oneness of the many, and the multiplicity that forges its oneness. Parts and wholes are that which are both differentiated and integrated. So it is not an opposition but a synergy in the systems view. — apokrisis

I agree.

Sounds like you think he achieved something nevertheless. But DuPont. How easy would it be to create genuine community values in an industrial corporation? — apokrisis

You're right about big industrial corporations. It was always a struggle for him. I wasn't denigrating his way of doing things, it's just not my way.

Do you mind if I ask you what you mean? I am not clear how your father saw people from your account other than he tired to provide a positive work space based on an eclectic approach. — Tom Storm

I think he saw people in a way similar to my interpretation of the kinds of process @apokrisis described. He was an engineer and he saw labor management processes as an engineering problem. He used to make lists and draw flow diagrams of how worker/management interactions should work. He tried to apply what he had gotten from his sources in what seemed to me to be a rigid, mechanical way.

Sorry, Apokrisis, now you can set me straight for any misrepresentation.

On the other hand, my interactions with other people are almost entirely intuitive based on my personal reactions to the situations and my perceptions of how others are thinking and feeling. I'm not a wonderful manager. It's very possible his style worked better in practice than mine did. I don't know.

Now it is a learnt skill and I can do it without much thought and effort. — apokrisis

I agree it is a learned skill. It's taken me more than 50 years to get even as far as I have.

I disagree. If you have integrated your various forms of experience under the one running sense of self, then that has to be a learnt rationalisation now practiced to the degree it is a fluid habit. — apokrisis

And I disagree. I don't think the experience of everything all at once is artificial or a rationalization. My intellect is not separate from my body, my emotions, my perceptions, all my experiences. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense for us to have dueling awarenesses here. There's no reason to expect that different people would think of it or experience of it in the same way.

And that is why I tout positive psychology. Generally it is a tool to articulate your own unconscious thinking - externalise it in a way that can be rationally critiqued and then reframed in a fashion that feels more pragmatically true to the life you must actually live. — apokrisis

I wasn't familiar with positive psychology, so I looked it up. It made me think of my father. He was an engineer working for Dupont his entire career, starting out as a supervisor on shift work, getting into management, and ultimately working on labor relations. The last years of his career he spent trying to get unions and management to work together. That involved committees of union workers sharing ideas with management and other I guess you would call them "stakeholder engagement" practices. He was definitely a pragmatist and he took principles and practices from all over the place - management theory, eastern philosophies, human potential practices like encounter groups. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew about and used positive psychology. I think he really did see what he was doing as technological - as human engineering I guess you'd say.

I hope the way I described it doesn't sound condescending. He was trying to do what all good managers do - balance the needs of the company with the needs of the people who worked with him and for him. He wanted to make peoples lives better at the same time making them more productive. He always said that workers got his ideas right away and were enthusiastic about them but management resisted every way they could.

But that way, his way, doesn't work for me. That's not how I see people.

Self awareness is a cause of much mental ill health in modern society as people find it isolating and socially crippling. Drink and drugs are needed to blot it out. — apokrisis

This makes me think of something my older brother told me. Welbutrin is an antidepressant that is also sometimes used to help people quit smoking. It was prescribed for him because he had tried to quit many times without success. He told me he stopped taking it because he became much more aware of how badly he had treated some people in his life. It became an overwhelming experience which interfered with his life.

The truth that the Tao captures is that we should aim for flow. What people enjoy is being in a state of “unconscious” habit and skill - engrossed in some useful activity...

...Self awareness is socially constructed technology to get members of a society to filter their actions through a communal lens. It is the way we police our impulses and feelings. It is where we negotiate a social agenda from behind social mask. — apokrisis

I don't see self-awareness as a technology at all. Perhaps you could call the practices that lead to awareness, e.g. meditation, technologies, but I think that's a stretch. For me, the Tao and self-awareness are states where we are released from the communal lens and our social mask. The search for self-awareness is a search for surrender of our wills. I think to achieve that fully is impossible. It certainly is for me. In the meantime, the effort is enjoyable. The effort not to expend effort.

That's a very well put and useful paragraph TC — Tom Storm

Thank you.

But being moved in a physical or emotional sense is not the same as being moved in an intellectual and rational sense. It is not about being “a community of inquirers” in the pragmatic sense I specified. — apokrisis

For me, self-awareness is not an intellectual or rational exercise, at least it's not only that. It feels like most of my interaction with the world is intellectual, so that's where a lot of my awareness focuses. You can see that in a lot of my posts. I tend to be very aware of what I know and how I know it, how I process ideas. That's the engineer in me. It's both a temperamental inclination and a result of many years of effort. But those aren't the only kinds of awareness. Over the years I've become much more aware of my emotional and physical experiences. The way my body feels. Intuition about how other people feel. I'm probably weakest in my perceptual awareness. I tend to overlook a lot. I'm not very observant of the outside world.

But breaking it up like that is artificial. There's really only one awareness, at least for me. It all fits together and it's not rational at all at bottom. It's just a sense of the world and how it fits together and how I fit into it.

I'm glad people like poetry and I wish I did. But I don't. You're probably right about the jazz comparison. Do you consider Tao Te Ching a work of poetic imagination? — Tom Storm

I'll go out on a limb, because I haven't thought this through. Yes, I guess I think poetry aims at the same target Lao Tzu does. That's how it feels to me.

The links seem to say different. — Darkneos

What makes your sources any more authoritative than all the other thousands of voices out there, including mine. As I said, it's not a physics question, it's a metaphysics one. The failure to recognize the difference between everyday or scientific reality and metaphysics is the biggest failure of most posters on the forum.

I've had my say. If you're not convinced, or even interested, I can't think of anything else that might make you think twice.