I consider myself a physicalist, which is to say everything is either physical, or the consequence of physical events. When you mix that with Process Philosophy, you get a view of the mind where it makes sense to say "the mind isn't physical, but the mind IS the result of physical events - the mind is the consequence of physical processes". — flannel jesus

Based on current evidence you’d be wrong. The mind is physical, it’s the brain.

“You’ve touched the heart of the matter at last:
The teaching’s not meant to deny what is vast
And present before us, but free us to live
Unbound by the concepts we cling to so fast.” — PoeticUniverse

Poem is pretty much nonsense and not true but this part is definitely so.

Based on what we know today there is no being unbound by concepts.

Same this with this moment, what you experience now is based on everything before. This moment isn’t where things start.

Like I said, it’s just wrong.

But then, Quantum Mechanics came along and made a mishmash of step-by-step deterministic mechanisms at the foundations of physical reality. And Quantum Uncertainty made even the existence of subatomic particles appear probabilistically fuzzy & conceptually immaterial*3 — Gnomon

Not exactly. There is a reason the quantum stuff doesn’t really apply to the macro state so it’s not really affecting our day to day.


This is just a misunderstanding of quantum physics.

Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview. — Gnomon

Based on what the physicists told me there are no philosophical implications, just people who don’t understand it saying there are.

A similar categorical difficulty emerges from Quantum Physics, which concluded that physical particles of Matter (quanta) are ultimately waves of Energy (processes). Again, which is more real or useful depends on your perspective*4. — Gnomon

That’s a common misunderstanding on quantum physics and not actually what it says. Particles are real.

"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think" and "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." — Gnomon

Not…really?? Also none of this answers my questions.

So I guess you don’t understand it either.

I admit it does take some stretching of the imagination, but one should expect to do so when learning new things. What part of my description do you take issue with, or is it the whole thing? — punos

More like how stuff would stop existing, it wouldn't. Stretching the imagination doesn't always mean learning new things, it could be delusion too.

So, here is where the process can go off on another tangent, away from a response which would reveal something specific. What would it matter if replies to your question didn't satisfy you? Is it that you just want to talk? See what others think? What motivated this question, other than other questions...
Is it 'turtles all the way down'? — Amity

If you don't know you don't know, I don't see the need for all that.

It's not saying that at all. It's saying that individuals are processes. You are a process. Your mind is a process. Your body is a process, or relation between organs. Your organs are a process, or relation between molecules. Molecules are a relation between atoms, and atoms a relation between protons and electrons, and protons a relation between quarks. It's possible we could go on for infinity as we continue to dig deeper. The point is that when we try to get at actual objects we are actually getting at relations between smaller objects, which are themselves relations. — Harry Hindu

But they're still objects and that's what leads us to giving a damn about anything. If it's just a process then who cares because that would mean nothing exists...

Dunning-Krugers are in full effect. :zip: — 180 Proof

That's the impression I'm getting, no one really knows what this means even the people who subscribe to it. No wonder it never took off.

Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe. — unenlightened

Doesn't seem very smart or insightful TBH. Why bother commenting if that's the response?

This video is not just a philosophical exploration; it is an invitation to reflect on how seeing the world as a series of processes can change your perspective. It encourages you to ponder your contributions to these processes and to consider what verse you will add to the grand symphony of life.

Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/84439/88743

Alfred North Whitehead is a philosophical work that presents a system known as "process philosophy," arguing that reality is fundamentally a process of becoming rather than a collection of static objects, where the core concept is "creativity" as the driving force behind this ongoing process of actual entities coming into existence; it emphasizes the interconnectedness and relational nature of all things within the universe, with each "actual occasion" (moment of experience) drawing from past events and contributing to future ones, essentially viewing the world as a dynamic flow of becoming rather than a fixed state. — Gnomon

PEople often use that in a similar vein to the "no self" in Buddhism, though that idea is way more complicated.

First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun! — Amity

I dunno, why is anything important?

The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital. — The Basics of Process Philosophy - Reason and Meaning

It's sorta the opposite effect really, if they just reduce this stuff to processes then people stop giving a damn about them.

So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static. — Amity

Except from what I gather they are, I posted something about teleonomic matter which seems to say the same. We care about individuals not processes.

Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static. Everything moves, and is made of things that move, that are made of things that move, that are made of things that move. At the very bottom it's just space, or the vibrating void. If a thing were to truly stop moving, then it would simultaneously cease to exist, and it will no longer be a thing. — punos

That seems kind of a stretch.

Why do people think a unique determination is a reasonable expectation? Quine talks about the consequences, not so much causes, of failure to perceive the indeterminacy. But it seems reasonable to blame this failure on the success of language in talking about real, physical relations. Its unreasonable effectiveness, if you will. — bongo fury

Ummm, what?

Might not be relevant from a philosophical POV, but I highly recommend watching the "Death's Game" on Netflix. You will come up with answers to the questions you have mentioned by yourself. Do share your thoughts afterwards, if you decide to watch. — Ayush Jain

I don't think it's on there.

For me the point is that there is no absolute right way to think. Those who think there is an absolute right and wrong are mired in a need for authority. For me it has been important to establish a "personal take", and I don't see that as an easy or fast thing to do. It has taken me many. many years to get clear on how I personally see things, and I don't claim that my way is the only way. — Janus

That's been my experience with Buddhism. Doesn't help they tell you their truth has to be experienced, which makes me doubt that it is truth.

Many folk (and I believe I see this all the time on these forums) are desperately afraid, it seems, of relativism; it is the great bogeyman. When it comes to understanding what it means to be human, I think there are many possible ways to understand that. Relativism can be ruled out only in matter of direct empirical observation, science, mathematics and logic. That's my take, anyway. — Janus

Well I have many suspicions about it not being relative but that's neither here nor there.

Others may think you are wrong, but so what? They are just fallible humans like the rest of us. Getting it right. in my opinion, is not a matter of proving others wrong (although when others put their ideas out there then they are fair game for critique that points out the internal inconsistencies, incoherences or vagaries of their assertions). If someone's ideas are free from such problems, any disagreement will be about first principles, and I don't believe they can be rationally or empirically or any other way confirmed or disconfirmed. — Janus

Well I sorta have a problem just letting things go and I crave validation.

'What is the ultimate nature of reality?', 'What is really real?', 'What is the existence of things in themselves compared to the way they appear to us?' and so on. — Janus

I think that might be thinking way too hard about it. The way I see it science gives us a close picture of that "ultimate nature" otherwise none of this stuff would work like it does. "What is really real" used to give me anxiety until I gave it some thought and found it to be a dull question.

One would think that the people on here are well above average intelligence, but that is not necessarily a positive given that there seems to be a great capacity for cleverness to lead to idiocy, and to denigrate common sense. No wonder probably most people think philosophy is wankery, when for the most part it is.

I see a great gulf on these forums between those who are basically empirically and logically oriented in their thinking and those who are off with the fairies imagining all sorts of ludicrous crap. — Janus

To be fair the only philosophy I took seriously was stuff like ethics or morality, or as you say "how to live" because to me that's the real important stuff. Everyone's off asking "is this real" or "is that real" without stopping to ask what do you do once you have the answer.

I saw that in myself when for a while I chased "being right" above all else. I needed to know what was the truth of reality so that then I could be right and live according to what is right and...well be right. But the problem with that is I had no personal take on anything. I chased whoever I thought had the answer such as people like this:

https://johnbrodixmerrymanjr.medium.com/why-culture-is-not-reality-7cb4f0867a4d

Problem is, everyone thinks they got it and I don't know enough to call them all it. So all I got is a bunch of "rules" in my head from every person who thinks they know and no matter what I do I'm always wrong according to one of them.

Please provide the lines from the paper. Maybe I missed it. — L'éléphant

It's the paragraph at the end above the References.

It did? :chin: — Wayfarer

Yup, we can engage like this because of it along with pretty much most of what we use each day.

If iron flakes travel to a lodestone, that's the automatic action of magnetic force acting upon metal. Do the iron flakes possess a self awareness seeking to benefit itself? At this level, it's easy to surmise no self interest. At the level of autonomic components of living organisms, not so easy to surmise no self interest. — ucarr

His first paper talks about how we wouldn’t label such things as life.

Let's say there's a bio-chemical approach to selfhood. Does this gradient of bio-chemical interface with selfhood bolster the materialist concept of consciousness? — ucarr

Far as I know the materialist concept of consciousness has plenty of evidence behind it while everything else doesn’t.

So what is realism vs anti-realism? Its not as solipsistic as you think. :) One way to really see it is imagine a truck. Well, what is a truck? Its a combination of parts, which is a combination of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. If we were using realism, we would want to know every single detail of that truck down to its atomic level. Anti-realism allows us to take higher level properties such as, "I press the pedal and it go zoom." as a 'truck'. Notice that anti-realism does not mean a labeling system that is at odds with reality. It just means constructing a notion of reality that does not necessarily involve all of the specifics.

Realism: I speak into my phone and it transmits a microwave radiation out to a cell tower which interprets it, sends it out to be captured by another phone which creates a series of electrical impulses into speakers that emulate my voice. — Philosophim

That seems like a mistaken notion of what realism is. Also that is how talking on the phone works since sound is pressure waves that our brains turn into sound. So I’m guessing that means realism is true?

But it does more than that. Yes. there is an external reality, but no, we don’t see it as it is. That surely provides scope for philosophical analysis, doesn’t it? — Wayfarer

Not really no. What I know is that science works and built the world and that there is an external reality. To the extent that we see it as it is is debatable but a moot point to me.

I've found this video very insightful regarding this question. It's exploring basically the same question as you're asking — Wayfarer

My main issue is the existence of external reality, and the video says yes which is the main issue I have

No. The paper doesn't suggest that we can't trust science. Or the scientific method.
If you pay attention to the bottom-up and top-down (theory) influences that the paper explained, you will understand that when the evidence (facts) are strong, our theory or schema does not override this objective information. Only in cases where the supposedly objective information or facts are ambiguous, then we have the problem of theory-ladenness. — L'éléphant

There's a bit at the end of the paper that shows that theories can override our memory and interpretations even if the data is strong.

Of course not. Science works pretty damn well. If you were an astronaut would you distrust the science that got you to the moon and back? The proof is in the pudding. — jgill

But the evidence showing how theories can alter our perception...

Perhaps the most important thing to learn in such discussions is that existential topics (including the question of suicide) are mostly pointless to try to discuss with others, and that this is due to the nature of those topics. — baker

Maybe, but they are also extremely important. To be honest such questions are more important than ontological or metaphysical stuff.

The OP makes the error of implying that death is something that individuals can opt for or against. — LuckyR

Well you can, it's just that death wins in the end.

But perhaps overthinking it leads to insights.

"Overthinking it", in philosophy, is far from a bad thing — Moliere

In my experience it leads to more words but not really saying anything. Furthermore in my experience there are no insights in philosophy, just people with their own theories who can't agree on anything.

I'm saying there is a 70% chance it won't be at a suicide inducing level in the future. — LuckyR

And I'm saying you don't know that.

So this means you are not going to explain how they know particles are in a state of superposition at exactly the moment they are not measuring them, or what? — Gregory

Again it just simply is, I'm not a physicist myself but that's how they are. As someone who is if you want specifics.

I don’t know how general the inscrutability of reference is; whether it goes “all the way down,” so to speak. What if Quine had used “truth” instead of “rabbit,” e.g., as the thing being referenced as “gavagai”? The linguist visiting the tribe could be supposed to follow a simple if-then argument between speakers, using words she already knows, and then a native listener smiles, nods, and says “Gavagai!” Our linguist wants to ask “Do you mean ‛That’s true’?” but since that’s impossible to ask, what should she do next? — J

I think Quine is just massively overthinking it. This is something most people engage in on a daily basis, if we're wrong in our assumptions we can just ask and work it out. If we can't speak the same language all there really is to do is figure it out.

But if his grand insight is that we'll never be able to truly understand someone else's perspective or worldview, that's got nothing to do with language. The reality is we aren't the other person. Even if the language is the same we cannot truly be them without some mind-link device. But that doesn't mean we can't try, I mean it's worked out pretty well so far.

Like I said above, the dude is unknowingly arguing against communication, the thought experiment doesn't help that case.

Though I will say this:

Holism: This is the notion that the meaning of an individual word is tied to its place in the whole language. Thus, to truly understand “Gavagai,” one might need to understand the entire language and culture it comes from.

Isn't true. Maybe for a some words and maybe some languages (though not very many) but on a whole the words aren't really tied to their place in the language. You don't need to know the whole language to understand some words in say Spanish, and definitely not the culture. The only real thing is the vosotros which is in Spain.

I can see why people argued his theory is false.

Ok. I'll leave you to it. — Banno

You're saying he's not when that's what the argument is pointing to, even why that's a common criticism of him. You're not really making a good case for the alternative.

Quine? No, he isn't arguing against communication. More that he's pointing out that communication takes place despite such issues. — Banno

He is arguing against it though. Especially in that thought experiment, I mean...he might as well quite writing philosophy at that point if that's his argument.

What do you make of it? — Banno

Sounds like overthinking it to me, no wonder people accused him of being a relativist or a scientific skeptic. The dude is more or less arguing against communication just because language isn't perfect and neither is translation.

Like...what exactly is the point of bringing that up and to what end? Like...I'm finding it hard to take him seriously because it just sounds dramatic. Yeah there is a chance we might not mean the same thing, but people do this all the time, they just ask what they mean when it's not clear. Apart from that we just trust, especially if we speak the same language. Otherwise what's the point of making and sharing a language if you're just gonna constantly doubt if they mean the same thing?

In all honesty I can see why people call his argument wrong.

You read the reference from the wiki yet? — Moliere

Still reads like he's mistaken IMO. I don't think a sentence can be translated in more than one way, but context does change that.

One phrase would be like "netflix and chill" which most take to me code for sex, unless you are on the spectrum or out of the culture and literally see it as just watching movies (I'll admit I've done this).

If we were not in communication with others, there would be nothing on which to base the idea of being wrong, or, therefore, of being right, either in what we say or in what we think. — Davidson, Indeterminism and Antirealism

I dunno about that one.

For Quine, there is no fact of the mater. Others differ. — Banno

That was sorta my other take on him, but I still don't really think he's right in his conclusions. I'm pretty sure I say a paper proving his theory wrong and himself mistaken.

That's it? No explanation? — Gregory

I mean...you either get QM or not, it's solid math so there ain't much else to say.

So they can rule out God as a hidden variable? — Gregory

And that's where I stop taking you seriously.

Yup, same thing. I don't "know" the store is still standing until I arrive there (which is some time in the future from when I set out from my home), you don't "know" your grief is temporary until it passes at some time in the future. Not difficult to grasp. — LuckyR

Not really, this is more like predicting future events. The store still standing is pretty much likely apart from a bomb going off or something.

But you prove my point, you don't know your grief is temporary so telling someone it is when you don't know isn't an answer just because other's was. It's like for those whom it wasn't they took their lives.

Just so you know, retrospective knowledge (what you call "hindsight"), is in fact knowledge. And as knowledge, is extremely valuable ("valid") to normal people (including yourself). When I hop in my car and drive to the store, do I "know" that the store is still there? No I don't "know" that, but I know it was there yesterday and that I haven't heard that some sort of incident occurred overnight. — LuckyR

Not the same thing.

You’re making a claim that something doesn’t last forever which can only be known in hindsight. Telling someone with suicide that is lying because you can’t predict the future.

Whenever we are met with an influence, interaction, or probabilistic correlation that may seem to go faster than the speed of light we either devolve into rather esoteric notions of 'action-at-a-distance' again or postulate that the fastest possible manner in which something can influence something else (the speed of local causation) isn't actually exhibited by any known signal. Photons are the fastest influence we have access to but there could be physical signals or interactions that violate this in undetectable manners. — substantivalism

Nope, that’s called hidden variable and that was disproven by the experiment

No I think it's any interaction between the classical world and an isolated quanta. But to say apart from this interaction quanta is in multiple states is to say what you forbade yourself to do: tell something about the system without analyzing it. So it's self contradictory the way most physicists speak of this. They are philosophizing. Also, any "isolated" quanta is really always interacting with the whole system, so according to their philosophy everything must be only classical. A lot of what scientists say doesn't make any sense — Gregory

I think it’s more like you don’t understand what’s going on.

I told you what it means, doesn’t matter what you think it means that’s what it is. There is no contradiction

There are several interpretations which disagree with this though, including Bohmian and Many Worlds. — Apustimelogist

That's not what non locality here means and Many Worlds is tenuous at best.

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't — Gregory

It's not really look, measurement in QM just means any interaction even with each other.

think the reason why you choose to remain silent on it and cite sources is because either you'd be shown as a dogmatist who can't think beyond his textbooks or your literally start talking about things that philosophers of science have discussed to death already. — substantivalism

They haven't discussed it to death, in fact they can't settle on anything. You're just making noise because what you offer has no real value to science, not anymore anyway. Maybe when it still had it's birth as natural philosophy but science has grown past that point to where philosophy just gets in the way.

Explain to me why the word analogy doesn't fit? With a cited source? — substantivalism

You don't need cited sources when it comes to philosophy, it's all just arguments.

Again, engage with the science, not this philosophy of science noise where they can't agree on anything.

. . . and your trying so hard to not have a discussion about things that confuse laymen all the time. I see tons of questions by such people all the time asking if the statements made by popular pop-cultural depictions of scientific facts or by actual scientists themselves are 'true' or 'mere language games/metaphor'. — substantivalism

They aren't saying that. And the answer to that question is NO. The sensationalism behind QM isn't true. People just like to co-opt it for their pet theory because we don't fully understand it, therefore magic, therefor....my nonsense is true because quantum.

To draw back to the actual subject, I asked physicists and they all said this non locality doesn't really affect your day to day life and even then we aren't entirely sure how it does this. Quantum physics is hard to put into daily words because we still don't have the entire picture yet. This is bleeding edge science after all.

Kind of a dud answer if all you're gonna say is "it's subjective".

First, I said it's usually temporary, not always temporary. — LuckyR

You can't even say that, again it's hindsight.

Second, while "some people" never get over their girlfriend's breaking up with them, wouldn't a normal person be interested in knowing that historically that number of "some people" is way less than 5%? — LuckyR

We don't know that.

So, if I'm stressed out enough by my girlfriend dumping me to consider suicide, the feeling that I'll be this stressed out for the rest of my life according to you is: "valid", but the advice that the Suicide Prevention Hotline person tells me that I'll likely get over it (and her) is: "hindsight" and therefore : "invalid"? — LuckyR

The suicide prevention hotline has a success rate of barely 50% so their assessment on a problem isn’t exactly valid.

And yeah the advice they give you is hindsight, they can’t see the future. Some people never get over something and they just suffer in torment at feeling like they should be when they don’t.

You just don’t have a counterargument to what is obvious hindsight. You don’t know the future so you can’t say it’s a temporary problem.

Do you believe quantum particles can be in multiple statea at once, and why believe that? — Gregory

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle.

Read a scientific journal on the topic matter. . . a quick search got me this paper on hydrodynamic analogue modeling for gravitational modeling (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511105). Clearly, a hydrodynamical analogy is much more amenable to investigate or wrap your head around than talking about the forest of pure math approaches to quantum gravity along with the unclear, vague, or esoteric language that accompanies it. This is a valid approach — substantivalism

I have read some but to use the word analogy means you don’t understand what is going on and what they’re doing.

You think the math is the pure data and it has to be translated to language and that’s just not what’s going on.

Again you keep trying to make philosophy valid where it isn’t. This is just noise.

This isn't only limited to gravity as here is a huge plethora of quantum analogue models along with well needed discussions as to the place or importance of them. Happy reading! — substantivalism

I know you didn’t really these, you literally quoted the first paragraph. Not only do you not understand what science is doing but you link evidence to the contrary, nice work.

Like I said, it’s noise. Maybe read what you link first before posting. Again, that’s not what’s happening in science.