I'm a huge fan and have read everything (popularized, not technical) by Rovelli. Pre-ordered. Thanks for the link! :up:

I didn’t get Rovelli’s last book, but am tempted by this one. — Wayfarer

I read "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics." I've also heard Rovelli being interviewed. Interesting guy and it sounds like his work is important. Seven Brief Lessons was very pop-sci, simplistic. I get the feeling he is a Neil deGrasse Tyson kind of guy. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If you read the book, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I get the impression he's a rung above Tyson in terms of credentials and scientific accomplishment. I have read some critical reviews of his last book by Lisa Randall, also an academic physicist. I intend to do some more reading of these kinds of authors, I've just revisited some of Paul Davies' books. I'm thinking of working up an article on 'scientific idealism'.

I get the impression he's a rung above Tyson in terms of credentials and scientific accomplishment. I have read some critical reviews of his last book by Lisa Randall, also an academic physicist. I intend to do some more reading of these kinds of authors, I've just revisited some of Paul Davies' books. I'm thinking of working up an article on 'scientific idealism'. — Wayfarer

The standard by which I judge popular science writers is Stephen J. Gould. He's one of my favorite writers of any kind. He writes wonderfully and he taught me important things about what science is, how science works, and how knowledge works. His books aren't hard to read, but they're substantive. Gee whiz science really sets me off. As evidenced by Seven Brief Lessons, Rovelli is better than that.

I looked up "scientific idealism." It's not a term I'd heard before. I found very little. I did find this article, written in 1921, titled "Scientific Idealism." I have no idea if it is at all relevant to what you are talking about.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/6271.pdf

Yeah, I know! That’s why I think it’s a good title! You know that well-known quote by Arthur Eddington, ‘the stuff of the world is mind-stuff’. There’s a definite idealism that emerges following that in 20th c physics. And it serves as a counterpoint to the more usual ‘scientific materialism’. (That paper is from 1921, I have in mind writers like Paul Davies, Bernard D’Espagnat, and even Wheeler with the ‘participatory universe’. )

Also speaking of science writers, I’ve just discovered Timothy Ferris, am reading a book of his called The Mind’s Sky. He’s a fantastic writer, don’t know why I hadn’t discovered him before.

As evidenced by Seven Brief Lessons, Rovelli is better than that. — T Clark

By far his weakest book, very much written for (bright) adolescents IMO.

I'm thinking of working up an article on 'scientific idealism'. — Wayfarer

I perceive a deep divide between idealism and materialism which was propagated by Hegel. He laid the grounds for unabashed idealism to swallow up western science, while at the very same time the Marxist interpretation produced a strong materialism.

More along these lines. Although I don't know if I have the chops.

Here's something to consider. There is an age old line of thought which holds that the entire sensible universe must be recreated at each moment of passing time. I believe this idea is prominent in Hinduism, but it can be derived from the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition, and is consistent with the Thomistic notion of aeviternal, the type of temporality which angels have, being a sort of medium between God and the physical world. Angels account for the separate substance Forms, required as what maintains the continued existence of the sensible objects, the means of Providence. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-94-010-2800-4%2F1.pdf

When we consider the reality of human choice, free will, we see the need to reject the necessity assigned to the continuity which comprises the substance of our empirical reality. This continuity is what is expressed in Newton's first law, the inertia of mass. It is theorized, based on empirical observation, that the inertia of mass will continue, unabated, without the action of an external force to interrupt. We can see though, that in reality this continuity is not necessary, and therefore requires a cause itself. So if Newton's law is inverted, we see that the temporal continuity of mass requires an internal cause.

Now, our common conceptions of space are woefully inadequate because we do not dimensionalize space in an internal/external format. All space is given equal status in mathematics (the same rules hold, big or small), and there is no way to properly relate an internal force to an external force. As a result, we can see that the "strong interaction" force of quarks for example, is independent of distance. So we might conclude that the force could act equally over an infinitely short, or an infinitely long, distance.

The problem which is very evident, if we account for the need to assume that spatial existence recreates itself at each passing moment in time, is that the established relationship between space and time, which forms the convention, is not at all indicative of reality. If spatial existence is recreated at each moment, then we need to assume something like a Big Bang occurring at each passing moment of time. But it's not one Big Bang, but a separate Big Bang at each point in space, and all these points must be related through some underlying Forms (the angels). And this is completely inconsistent with the continuity of massive existence which empirical observation gives us.

There is an age old line of thought which holds that the entire sensible universe must be recreated at each moment of passing time. I believe this idea is prominent in Hinduism, — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds more like the momentary dhammas of some Buddhist schools - each moment of experience arises and passes away in an instant, although the Buddha is said to be able to perceive their exact duration. Very different to Aristotelian philosophy with its essences and substances.

What I have in mind is more based on the famous quote by Arthur Eddington:

The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds ... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it ... It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness ... Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature ... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference. —  Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 276–81.

But I have a lot of reading to do, if I want to write an article on it.

Sounds more like the momentary dhammas of some Buddhist schools - each moment of experience arises and passes away in an instant, although the Buddha is said to be able to perceive their exact duration. Very different to Aristotelian philosophy with its essences and substances. — Wayfarer

You know I've got the Tao Te Ching on my mind.

Lao Tzu writes about the eternal return of the elements of our reality, what is sometimes called the 10,000 things, to the Tao, the unspeakable unity of existence. To me, that means that the world is recreated each moment. Keeping in mind, of course, that this is metaphysics. It's not true or false. It just summarizes the assumptions underlying our understanding. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is a part of our world. One of the 10,000 things. Statements I make about QM and related phenomena are true or false. The similarity between the two ways of seeing is metaphorical.

I have thought for a long time that what humans call reality is an expression of the specific conditions we find ourselves under - our size, our location, our biological nature, the structure of our brains, the nature of our consciousness. I think we evolved a means of interacting with reality - our brains, nervous system, perceptual equipment, bodies - specifically to allow us to behave so that we will reproduce, as required by natural selection. The system had to be as simple as possible so it would fit in our heads, wouldn't require too much energy, and was stable. That limitation directly affects what and how we can perceive and know. Those limitations have been loosened somewhat using technology, but I think we still follow the mental and behavioral habits of our human ancestors. I wonder if that's the kind of thing the author of the paper you linked is talking about - how do we get beyond those limits. Sounds like pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps to me.

Anyway - I would definitely be interested in seeing what you write.

Thanks, but don't hold your breath! It's a tricky subject and some of the books I'm reading about it are diabollically complex. Although perhaps rather than trying to write a definitive article, I might just keep it high-level with links to further reading. Probably the best for this kind of topic.

I think we evolved a means of interacting with reality - our brains, nervous system, perceptual equipment, bodies - specifically to allow us to behave so that we will reproduce, as required by natural selection. — T Clark

Many people here think that, but I am very critical of this attitude. If you think about it carefully, what it amounts to is the idea that whatever attributes we possess have been defined by the requirements of adaptation to the environment. And the only criteria for success that such a theory recognises is successful procreation.

You know there's a popular, if rather vulgar, saying from evolutionary psychology, which refers to the four Fs - the four basic and most primal drives (motivations or instincts) that animals (including humans) are evolutionarily adapted to have - namely fighting, fleeing, feeding and fucking. You may note that 'abstract reflection on the nature of reality' can't really be accomodated under any of these headings. And I'm afraid philosophy per se doesn't fit into this framework, either. But that leads back to the discussion that humans are different kinds of beings to non-rational animals, which I recall you've previously questioned. Nevertheless that remains my conviction (which was also shared by Alfred Russel Wallace, being one of the main grounds on which he differed from Darwin.)

For what it's worth, I've got a couple of standard references that I often refer to in this context, specifically, Anything but Human, Richard Polt, and It Ain't Necessarily So, Antony Gottlieb, New Yorker magazine. Also a book called Why Us? How Science Re-discovered the Mystery of Ourselves. by James Le Fanu (a British doctor of medicine and science writer; good synopsis here.)

My view is that of course I accept the evolutionary origins of h.sapiens - no commitment on my part to any form of creationism. My claim is that when intelligence evolves to the point of being able to seek reason and meaning and to question the nature of reality - as it did, for example, with the Greek philosophers - then we've escaped the tyranny of the Four F's, so to speak. We've transcended the biological, even if physically we have descended from it, or ascended through it. And this is something that modern mainstream philosophy and culture is really loath to admit, in my view. It's not so much a matter of 'bootstrapping', but that at this point, human intelligence can see beyond it's genetic and biological origins. Which is why, for example, this particular species of hominid has been able to weigh and measure the entire scope of the Cosmos; not an ability you would expect to acquire chasing wildebeest around the savannah, I would have thought ;-)

...whatever attributes we possess have been defined by the requirements of adaptation to the environment. And the only criteria for success that such a theory recognises is successful procreation. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Well, not exactly exactly. It is my understanding that evolutionary biologists now believe that there are mechanisms other than natural selection that also contribute to our genetic makeup. But still, mostly exactly.

You may note that 'abstract reflection on the nature of reality' can't really be accomodated under any of these headings. And I'm afraid philosophy per se doesn't fit into this framework, either. — Wayfarer

Although not everyone agrees with this, I don't think evolution directly influences complex human behavior. Our equipment and capacities evolve, but how we use the equipment can be influenced by lots of things - experience, social interaction, teaching, language acquisition, cultural influences, and thinking. It is also my understanding that the way we use our minds and brains can change brain structure. There is an important principle in evolutionary theory - a capacity or feature evolved for one purpose can be shanghaied for another. Our big brains, which might have evolved for social interaction and language, can be used for less immediately useful behavior. We learn to speak, then we learn to speak to ourselves. Keeping in mind that my understanding of all this is not extensive.

My claim is that when intelligence evolves to the point of being able to seek reason and meaning and to question the nature of reality - as it did, for example, with the Greek philosophers - then we've escaped the tyranny of the Four F's, so to speak. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that human intelligence has been pretty much the same since we evolved about 200,000 years ago. I think what has changed since then is technology and culture. I'm not sure about that.

It's not so much a matter of 'bootstrapping', but that at this point, human intelligence can see beyond it's genetic and biological origins. Which is why, for example, this particular species of hominid has been able to weigh and measure the entire scope of the Cosmos; not an ability you would expect to acquire chasing wildebeest around the savannah, I would have thought ;-) — Wayfarer

Humanity has been able to "see beyond it's genetic and biological origins" and "measure the entire scope of the Cosmos" throughout history and, I assume, before. That's what religion and all those stone circles in the UK are for. Maybe they didn't see as clearly as we do, but again, I think that's culture, history, and technology. Did I mention that I don't know what I'm talking about?