• Rich
    3.2k
    Humans always come back to trying to answer such questions in terms of something they are familiar with (the empirical). So Rich, for example, wants to say the noumena, reality in itself, is a hologram. This is just as incoherent as saying it is a cup, or a molecule, or energy, or mind.John

    Not at all. The macro reveals the micro, but it takes some creative intuition to bridge the gap. It is a continuum without gaps. Everything must spiral together without gaps.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    No, there is no ambiguity. That is removed by the mathematics.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    This is all nothing more than empirical talk. What is the mind? How does it construct the cup? Any cogent answer you give cannot be anything more than an empirical answer in terms of light, retinas, optic nerves, visual cortices and so on.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    Rich, I have no idea what you are talking about. Such talk cannot be anything more than a kind of evocation of the poetic imagination; which is all fine in its place, but it really tells us nothing in any propositional sense.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Your first paragraphs is pretty much my view.

    What could it even mean to ask if the noumenal cup, the cup in itself, is in the cupboard, though?John

    I would instead say that the question is without a sense; it is an example of language pushed too far. The "thing-in-itself" can have no use in a language game, except for confusing idealists.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    If you don't know what I'm talking about them I guess you can't talk about it. That's OK. It's not a necessity.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Ann and Beth see the same movement, when they take the relativistic equations into account.

    The cup and the hologram are likewise the same, given the appropriate transformations.

    The hologram theory does not cause the cup to cease to be.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The quantum state exists, however one may wish to visualize it. I visualize it as the wave pattern formed in a hologram. What doesn't exist is the cup until the observer does it's job, in the same way a reconstructive light wave reveals the image in a hologram, e.g. the teacup.
  • Janus
    16.2k
    I would instead say that the question is without a sense; it is an example of language pushed too far.Banno

    Yes, I think what I said pretty much agrees with this. I do allow though for the non-propositional advaitic kinds of answers to open up spaces of intuitive or imaginative realization which cannot be explicated in propositional terms. "Of that whereof we cannot (propositionally) speak we must remain silent". ( Brackets mine). So,"silence" then, only in the empirical, not the poetic, or the theological, field.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    You are not talking about anything in any propositional sense; so I don't believe you know what you are talking about either. If you did you could explain it all clearly in understandable terms. What you have are merely poetic intimations; which is all fine; but they do not yield anything that could be argued about.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Ok. But we all have to be flexible in life, a key principle that we both learned studying Tai Chi for 30 years.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    What doesn't exist is the cup until the observer does it's job,Rich

    I think that dubious. Help me.

    If I take the cup and put it into the cupboard, are you saying that when I close the door it ceases to be a cup?
  • Janus
    16.2k


    I agree; and I do think that discussion of, for example, aesthetic or theological ideas, can be very stimulating and fruitful. I read Bohm many years ago, and I liked his ideas about the implicate order; they are very original and stimulating. What I don't think is that we can sensibly argue that reality is or is not like this or that, unless we are talking about empirical reality; the shared world of intersubjective experience. This wanting to argue about how things "ultimately" are is a cause of great problems for human beings in senseless clashes of ideologies and religious fundamentalisms.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Silence, then.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    After a good little talk, yes!
  • Rich
    3.2k
    It is what it is in its quantum state. It is there human mind that recognizes it as a cup. The hologram analogy it's a good one. Turn off the reconstructive light wave and what do you have? Turn it back on and what do you have? This is the line of inquiry I am following.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    the shared world of intersubjective experience.John
    I am definitely interested in this area if inquiry and what it all means. Hence the idea of shared memory in holographic form and shared traits in holographic form. Sharing occurs all over the place.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    Can you think of any way of testing the holographic model?
  • Banno
    24.9k
    If I take the cup and put it into the cupboard, are you saying that when I close the door it ceases to be a cup?Banno

    It's an important point. I don't see why it can't be both a cup and a quantum thingy.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Yes, they can be but not at the same time.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    Copenhagen says the stuff has no location. Cups have location.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Why not?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    I believe there is research going on concerning the possibilities. I already the model from a different perspective, i.e. are the pieces of the puzzle fitting.

    This philosopher follows the topic closely and he does answer contact email. I've been too busy lately with the arts and haven't followed recent research closely.

    http://www.stephenerobbins.com
  • Rich
    3.2k
    When it is observed it becomes the cup. I don't know what a dog, for example, sees. All I know is what I can observe. When I'm not observing, back to the quantum state.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    are you familiar with Aphorism #47 - 48 from Philosophical investigations?

    It's about what counts as a simple, as not being composite, elemental. It shows - at least to my satisfaction - that what counts as a simple is decided by us, basically by using language.

    So my view is that quantum thingies do not count as being more elemental than, say, cups - except if we so decide, for the purposes of doing physics on the one hand, and doing the washing up on the other.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    And when not observed - it is not a cup?

    I don't see why we must make that conclusion.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    don't see why we must make that conclusion.Banno

    I agree. There are lots of possibilities to consider in different contexts. Hopefully some young, eager beaver philosophers will investigate this model and come up with some new ideas. It is rich with possibilities.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Excellent.

    But I'm not sure that this is a physical question, so much as a philosophical one.

    My argument is that, contra , it is an abuse of language to say that we cannot know that the cup we just put in the cupboard is still a cup.
  • Wayfarer
    22.4k
    and what I say is that you're not actually engaged in philosophy any more. You're just talking about talking.

    @John - reply later, I'm sitting in my car posting via iPhone.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    you're not actually engaged in philosophy any more. You're just talking about talking.Wayfarer

    I might agree, and add that that's a good thing. Philosophy is tangled words.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.