I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr

:roll:

...T. Deacon's thesis seems to be 'nonreductive physicalist scientism'... — 180 Proof
No. The long slog through the statistical bias towards equilibrium, i.e., entropy towards the far-from-equilibrium states required of life is illuminated in detail by the scientific work of Deacon in Incomplete Nature, a game-changer in the mind/body inquiry. — ucarr

Yes, it is a "game changer". But is not interested in changing the traditional Materialistic rules of the game*1. He seems to like it just the way it has been since the 5th century BC : rigid Atoms & inert Void, with no agent of Change, or role for a POV. A sentient perspective introduces disruptive opinionated Subjectivity into orderly factual Objective science.

Reductive Science is good at dissecting Atoms, but is unable to separate Mind from Brain. And it was baffled by the indeterminacy of Quantum Physics. Deacon's innovation is to focus on the Void --- the Absence --- that allows Atoms to change position & function --- to introduce novelty into a robotic mechanism. Without that Constitutive Absence, progressive evolution would be impossible. As the Atomism*2 entry below suggests, the Inventive Void that permits & causes re-arrangement of matter does not feature in 180's physical worldview, in which human experience is Absurd. :nerd:


*1. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter :
Incomplete Nature begins by accepting what other theories try to deny: that, although mental contents do indeed lack these material-energetic properties, they are still entirely products of physical processes and have an unprecedented kind of causal power that is unlike anything that physics and chemistry alone have so far explained. . . . We need a “theory of everything” which does not leave it absurd that we exist.
https://anthropology.berkeley.edu/incomplete-nature-how-mind-emerged-matter

*2. Ancient Atomism :
The interactions of particles too small to observe is a compelling way to account for perceptible changes in the natural world. Even Aristotle—often cast as the arch-enemy of atomism—allowed that there might be a lower limit to the quantity of matter that could instantiate certain properties. But not all atomist theories were based on an appearance/reality distinction: Buddhist philosophers posited phenomenal instants with minimum extension in time as well as space, to mirror the ephemerality of moments of human experience. Void spaces between atoms sometimes, but not always, feature in atomist theories.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/

Deacon sounds like he's espousing what C. Rovelli aptly calls "quantum nonsense"... — 180 Proof
I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr

There's a lot of "quantum non-sense" out there, because --- as Einstein objected --- some of it's key features are literally non-sensical, and contrary to common sense. But, sorry Einstein, "God does play dice" on the floor of reality.

Ironically, Rovelli's Relationalism is compatible with my own Enformationism. Inter-relationships are the essence of Information. Superposition is an unsustainable relationship, which "collapses" upon experimental questioning. :cool:


Carlo Rovelli’s Relationalism :
At first, Rovelli primarily applied his relationalism to quantum mechanics. However, Rovelli has gone on to apply this metaphysical position to just about every… thing.
Although the following piece is partly sympathetic to relationalism, the primary criticism which remains is that Rovelli appears to be simply inverting the (to use Derrida’s words) “violent hierarchy” that has (according to Rovelli) been set up between objects (or things) and relations in both Western philosophy and in modern physics. In other words, Rovelli has now placed relations — rather than objects — at the top of the pile.
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relationalism-as-defended-in-his-book-helgoland-2020-b66caf122159

:sparkle: :eyes: :lol:

I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr

:roll: — 180 Proof

You hold Schrödinger's linear differential equation in contempt?

As the QM counterpart to Newton's 2nd law in classical mechanics, it gives the evolution over time of a wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. — Wikipedia

What's your take on this?

I understand him (Schrödinger) to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr

My quote is unfortunately misleading without the addendum: Schrödinger developed the narrative of the dead & alive cat in order to mock the artless embrace of superposition without acknowledging its collapse under measurement.

This is not a physics forum so I don't see the philosophical relevance of the quote cited; and conflating the Schrödinger equation with the 'Schrödinger's Cat' gedankenexperiment proves my point.

This is not a physics forum so I don't see the philosophical relevance of the quote cited... — 180 Proof

You don't see the philosophical relevance attaching to physical phenomena raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality?

...and conflating the Schrödinger equation with the 'Schrödinger's Cat' gedankenexperiment proves my point. — 180 Proof

You see no connection between the equation and the thought experiment?

What is the thought experiment about Schrödinger's cat?

He imagined a box containing a radioactive atom, a vial of poison and a cat. Governed by quantum rules, the radioactive atom can either decay or not at any given moment. There's no telling when the moment will come, but when it does decay, it breaks the vial, releases the poison and kills the cat.

The Schrödinger Equation -- As the QM counterpart to Newton's 2nd law in classical mechanics, it gives the evolution over time of a wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. — Wikipedia

The isolated physical system in the thought experiment is "the atom," whose decay the Schrödinger Equation predicts quantum mechanically. The equation demonstrates mathematically the uncertainty of the time of the decay, thus causing the cat's death. This being uncertain, the cat holds superposition as both dead and alive until the measurement effect of observation of the cat collapses the superposition.

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics. — Wikipedia

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. — Wikipedia

You, 180 Proof -- a science-savvy commentator -- in seeking to distance TPF from science tells me I'm doing something right in my approach to the association of science and philosophy.

What is the thought experiment about Schrödinger's cat? — ucarr

The paradoxical thought experiment was intended to illustrate the apparent absurdity of Quantum Superposition (wave/particle duality). Which required a paradigm shift in scientific understanding of Classical Determinism, and also implied that the intervention of a conscious mind could have causal effects on the physical world.

Schrödinger's expressed opinion --- that Consciousness, not Matter, is fundamental in the world --- is one of many instances of what calls "Quantum Mysticism". Which is why he wants to "distance TPF" from 20th century Science, in favor of 17th century Classical Physics. :smile:

You don't see the philosophical relevance attaching to physical phenomena raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality? — ucarr

"Physical phenomena" and "the nature of reality" are tangental at best, different categories of being; IMO, it is fallacious to mistake them for one another. As I discern the topic, "physical phenomena" are real (i.e. very strongly correlative) only insofar as they comprise a 'way of talking about reality' (e.g. physicalism) and as such it is reasonable to surmise that "the nature of reality" includes (among whatever else) affordances for a 'way of talking about reality that is defeasible, fallibilistic and highly mathematically precise. In other words, QM is "fundamental" physics, not fundamental ontology (i.e. metaphysics à la Spinoza ... or Q. Meillassoux).

You, 180 Proof -- a science-savvy commentator -- in seeking to distance TPF from science ...

"Not guilty!" like rasta bredren seh. :victory: :mask:

More or less as Spinoza and Freddy or Peirce-Dewey and Witty-Feyerabend do, I'm trying to remind you and other folks (myself included) not to treat philosophy as a science (i.e. not to reduce speculative suppositions (e.g. aporia) to theoretical propositions (e.g. predictions)). Almost all equation-free "quantum" talk is nonsense, that is, too imprecise to be make sense to thinking discursively and living pragmatically – doing philosophy – above the planck-scale.