The question would be, if these experiences actually tell you something deep about the world or something deep about the mind, which is a part of the world, sure, but not the world itself, in a way. — Manuel

Buddhists make a distinction between realisation and experience. It's rather hard to articulate, but there's an article on it here (might be paywalled.) My understanding is that realisation is nearer in meaning to insight; realisations can trigger experiences, and experiences can trigger realisations, but they're not quite the same.

I also think you're right in saying there can be false epiphanies. You can have profound experiences that don't end up meaning much. There's that famous anecdote Russell tells of his associate who was convinced he saw the meaning of it all whilst under the influence of nitrous oxide. During one session he was able to write something down about what he was seeing. Later on he looked at it and it said 'the smell of petroleum pervades throughout', or something of the kind.

the notion of objectivity as "an awareness devoid of a point of view (hence, devoid of selfhood)" for me sort’a converges with the Neo-Platonic notion of “the One” or the Buddhist notion of “Nirvana”. — javra

'Detachment' would be a better description than objectivity, I think.

It's interesting. I mean, if anyone take some gas or drug that makes them feel like they're having a deep experience, does that make it any less significant? Not attributing this to you, by the way,

Sure, you may write non-sense - it also happens when people have deep dreams, that is, writing something silly. But I wonder if someone having a "genuine" would not write something similar at the moment of the experience.

But even if it did happen like this, I think this points to a distinction between the moment of experience and the way we reflect on it when feeling "normal", two different "worlds" as it were.

'Detachment' would be a better description than objectivity, I think. — Wayfarer

I’m certain that “detachment” makes perfect sense in the context of the Eastern languages where it is thus used. In Buddhism, to my best understanding, detachment intensifies compassion, for example. In English, at least, “detachment” connotes states such as that of apathy to the extent that it is interpreted as antithetical to compassion. Maybe more poignantly, in English, love - from interpersonal to universal - is nearly the opposite of being detached, for it implies attachment to other as that loved.

I get that objectivity has its issues: basically pivoting around objects being physical things - objectivity thereby implying physicality. But there is also the notion of objectivity being equivalent to impartiality, to a lack of bias. With some effort, one can then find that physical things are perfectly impartial, detached from any semblance of ego and its many properties, if one will: Perfectly selfless. Making that sensibly cohere to the notion of impartiality being a good to be pursued for all ego-endowed entities would take quite the shpeal. I know. All the same, I so far find objectivity – in it’s sense of impartiality - to be a suitable term within Western, at least English speaking, context. Think of the notion of blind love: a convenient way of metaphorically addressing an love impartial to - or, one could also say, detached from - outward appearances. Importantly, this while yet being partial / attached to the ideal good of being selfless, at least in relation to that loved.

Plus there’s the common western notion of perfect objectivity being an awareness devoid of a point of view (i.e., an ego or self) – this as is parodied in the statement “view from nowhere”.

Not saying “no”, but expressing why I so far find using the term “objectivity” preferable.

-------

Will soon be on my way to a New Year’s Eve event.

Happy New Year’s!!! May the new year bring about better things.

:up:

I believe what you are describing is more epistemology, the study of knowledge, then it is metaphysics. — Philosophim

Depending on the source you look at, epistemology is often included in metaphysics.

I didn't expect much from your explication, not because of any judgement about you but because, like @Reformed Nihilist, I am very skeptical of grand visions of philosophy. I think you did a good job laying out your vision and I think it is worth talking about. I'm surprised RN or someone else hasn't responded yet.

My first objection is that you have mixed your physics and metaphysics. They don't belong together. That's kind of a knee-jerk reaction. I'll reread your post and see if I have more to say.

A long look at the history of philosophy shows a commonly recurring theme. It shows the attempt to create/discover some fundamental bedrock of certainty upon which we can build a foundation for all knowledge and wisdom — Reformed Nihilist

Taking an even longer look shows that the attempts are in vain. The fundamental bedrocks philosophers have come up with sofar, be it Popper's falsificationism, Kuhn's paradigms, normal science and revolutions, Lakatos' research programs, or more recent experimental approaches (van Fraassen, Hacking, Rorty, Radder), or philosophical ToEs), are rather a hindrance to scientific practice. Adhering to them as a scientist takes away the irrational grounds on which knowledge is based. Mostly, philosophers of science are frustrated scientists, though they offer nice reading and show signs of intelligence once in a while. They all offer small parts of a picture which just can't be seen in its entirety. Any philosopher claiming to have found a bedrock, has found a small part of the entire rock only. No philosopher, or any other mortal soul, will ever be able to see the whole rock.

Building a foundation for all knowledge and wisdom is even more megalomaniac and supercilious. Ratio fascists, and their relentless efforts to capture thought and action in well described schemes, stand a few steps too far from reality.

No philosopher, or any other mortal soul, will ever be able to see the whole rock. — Raymond

Anton Zeilinger claims to have found that the bedrock of reality is randomness, to 3-sigma or more. Do you think the bedrock has to be more than just something simple?

I think you did a good job laying out your vision and I think it is worth talking about. I'm surprised RN or someone else hasn't responded yet. — T Clark

Maybe he's stuck at an airport or on a long vacation.

My first objection is that you have mixed your physics and metaphysics. They don't belong together. That's kind of a knee-jerk reaction. I'll reread your post and see if I have more to say. — T Clark

It's more of a purposeful mix of philosophical logic and science since they seem to agree. What's missing or needs clarification?

We all have our teeny weeny pebble bedrock. For one it are quantum fields of massless 6-dimensional preons interacting by massless gauge fields on a curved 7-dimensional substrate containing a central wormhole as the singularity of creation, for others the bedrock is love, or the gods, others look for salvation in the constellations of the stars or precious stones, still others have randomness to 3-sigma or the observer and the universal wavefunction on many worlds in mind,
and still still other see consciousness as the bedrock. Can randomness be a bedrock? The philosopher who knows how to combine them all has yet to be born.

The philosopher who knows how to combine them all has yet to be born. — Raymond

We can eliminate the complexities and even the composites as being Fundamental, for they would have parts that would have to be even more Fundamental.

[

We can eliminate the complexities and even the composites as being Fundamental, for they would have parts that would have to be even more Fundamental. — PoeticUniverse

The basic fundamentals, the fundamentals from which all is made, cannot be eliminated. as these are fundamental.

The basic fundamentals, the fundamentals from which all is made, cannot be eliminated. as these are fundamental. — Raymond

True, and so to find the basic we look toward the simplest state.

True, and so to find the basic we look toward the simplest state. — PoeticUniverse

That is probably the state of the massless particles in quarks and leptons. There are only two kinds of them, the minimum needed to construct all of matter from. Again, dualism in the bedrock.

That is probably the state of the massless particles in quarks and leptons. There are only two kinds of them, the minimum needed to construct all of matter from. Again, dualism in the bedrock. — Raymond

The quarks and leptons are elementary in the particle realm, yes, but they are not First/Fundamental overall because all the elementaries of a type in the Standard Model are identical, meaning that they are woven by the same type of weave, plus, while they can be rather persistent, they can be annihilated; so, they are secondary. Further, we see that they occur only at specific stable rungs of quanta and so their weave is seen to be all the more as having to be manufactured, and from the same type of cloth. We further see that in the 2-slit experiment the elementaries have a wave nature, and waves fit the Fundamental Arts, as being continuous and having no parts.

In 3D, a wave is a field, and a field simply means that there is a value at every spacetime point. Think of a temperature field or a water field; however, in the classical fields mentioned the lumps of crests/troughs will slosh away and the lumps of hot/cold areas will intermix, but the quantum elementary lumps can continue on their own since they are stable when they don't crash and their field is everywhere. The would-be particles that don't reach the quantum level come and go all the time quite quickly, they being known as virtual particles.

The bedrock is in sight. That's good for now since my lady says it's time for bed.

I think there are two truly elementaries. The absolute minimum. From these massless units, all quarks and leptons, and their excitations, the families, can be constructed.

The bedrock is in sight. That's good for now since my lady says it's time for bed. — PoeticUniverse

Go easy on her... And in any case, Gnight! Think I do the same!

:wink:

Well, when you put it that way, imagination does have merit; nevertheless, I feel it's more trouble than it's worth. — Agent Smith

There's nothing wrong with imagination, or imagining, provided we recognize it as such and nothing more. The same can be said about pretense, or pretending, which I think are closely related. Mere imagining or pretending may soothe, may amuse, may gratify, may even suggest. Taken as more than what they are, though, they may confuse, bemuse, misdirect and may even become exercises in futility.

There's nothing wrong with imagination, or imagining, provided we recognize it as such and nothing more. The same can be said about pretense, or pretending, which I think are closely related. Mere imagining or pretending may soothe, may amuse, may gratify, may even suggest. Taken as more than what they are, though, they may confuse, bemuse, misdirect and may even become exercises in futility. — Ciceronianus

I'm the soul of futility, Sisyphus' avatar.

I'm the soul of futility, Sisyphus' avatar. — Agent Smith

I know someone who pretended he had no hands, then ended up acknowledging he had them after all. That's a level of futility even Sisyphus couldn't rival. Sisyphus never purported to doubt the existence of the boulder he rolled up the hill, only to establish it was, indeed, a boulder.

I think there are two truly elementaries. — Raymond

The up and down quark and the electron seem to be the most useful. There are also forces.

So, in short for now, the elementaries are directly the quantum excitations of their respective quantum fields and they can move along their fields like a kink in a rope can move along a rope. Thus, the elementaries are the fields' quanta.

Why is there no Stillness in the quantum fields? Logically, naught would have happened, and physically the uncertainty principle causes quantum fluctuations. So, 'Stillness' is impossible. Parmenides thought that his One didn't have to do anything but he was wrong in that area.

Why not Nothing, as a lack of anything? Well, Something is and 'Nothing' is not. The Fundamental(s) Existent(s) are mandatory, having no option not to be, having no alternative. A partless continuous Fundamental cannot be be made, for there are no parts to make it of, nor can it go away, for it cannot be broken into parts. Thus, 'Beginning' and 'End' for a Fundamental are impossible. Parmenides got this right, saying that his One is "ungenerated and deathless" and even that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

P.S.

So, the elementaries are constituted of quantum fields, and not of any new and distinct substance, which would be not only be impossible but would make them Fundamental by themselves. One cannot get something (new) from from Something Fundamental and one cannot get Something Fundamental from 'Nothing'. A Fundamental is Necessity. 'God' is not required.

Onward next time.

The up and down quark and the electron seem to be the most useful. There are also forces. — PoeticUniverse

Seem to be, indeed. But they are not. They principle of maximal economy applies to nature. You can construct all with two, the absolute minimum. Nature is dual. There are force fields indeed. The stillness can't exist. Nothing could be freed from the void.

Dunno bout God. Somehow they seem necessary.

You can construct all with two, — Raymond

Well, protons and neutrons consist of electrons and up and down quarks that trade off with gluons sort of.

So, then, to continue, it makes logical sense that the elementaries have to be arrangements of their quantum fields as their excitations since that's all the fields have to work with. This theory is tested by modeling the field points as harmonic oscillators that tug at the other points, making for the field waverings as the sum of these oscillations, from which, in short, the quantum aspect comes about from the wave nature. The infinities get renormalized away.

The model works, especially for Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), which is the jewel of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), for it has accuracy up to 11 decimal points and lets us produces devices that work. When an electron goes down by a quantum the electron field interacts with the photon field to produce a photon, making light. So it is that some of the the quantum fields can interact.

There are 25 quantum field types, all atop one another, making for one overall quantum field. The Higgs field is interesting in that its energy is higher than that of the other fields. The term 'zero point energy' is used for the average of a field's energy but it isn't zero.

So now we have the astounding insight that the quantum fields exhaust reality as being all that there is! Astounding progress!

There are 25 quantum field types, all atop one another, making for one overall quantum field. — PoeticUniverse

It's more reasonable there 20 massless basic fields, which gather mass by interaction. This insight will get clear when higher energy experiments are done. Muon g2 is a warmer up.

What oscillates if you say that the field is a collection of oscillators?

It's more reasonable there 20 massless basic fields — Raymond

The number 25 matches the number of entries now in the Standard Model.

What oscillates if you say that the field is a collection of oscillators? — Raymond

The whole field fluctuates from the continuous field points oscillating; the points are not separate from one another; there can't be any spacers of the impossible 'Nothingness' anywhere.

Now, is there anything non physical or spooky going on in the fields? No, because the elementary particles and forces are physical, and since they are the field quanta outright, the quantum fields are purely physical.

So it follows that the universe is wholly physical!

I'm not sure I understand. Why isn't the number 20? Shouldn't there be just two massless base matter fields, one electromagnetic field, sixteen color fields and one gravity field? This could explain the families of quarks and leptons, like quarks once did for hadrons and mesons.

The whole field fluctuates from the continuous field points oscillating; the points are not separate from one another; there can't be any spacers of the impossible 'Nothingness' anywhere — PoeticUniverse

Are the continuous field points fluctuating? How can poits be continuous? What is a field point? A point in space? W

Is there an oscillator attached to all points in space? A quantum oscillator? Is this oscillator attached to the particle? Is a particle the oscillation? So if the oscillator is in its ground state, there is no particle, and there is only the zero point oscillation, and when the oscillator is excited particle is created? But what then excites the oscillator? Other oscillations?

Is there an oscillator attached to all points in space? — Raymond

From Wiki:

Given the equivalence of mass and energy expressed by Albert Einstein's E = mc2, any point in space that contains energy can be thought of as having mass to create particles. Virtual particles spontaneously flash into existence at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations caused by the uncertainty principle. Modern physics has developed quantum field theory (QFT) to understand the fundamental interactions between matter and forces, it treats every single point of space as a quantum harmonic oscillator. According to QFT the universe is made up of matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g. photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] Recent experiments advocate the idea that particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the underlying quantum vacuum, and that all properties of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions of the zero-point field.[10]

Many physical effects attributed to zero-point energy have been experimentally verified, such as spontaneous emission, Casimir force, Lamb shift, magnetic moment of the electron and Delbrück scattering.[12][13] These effects are usually called "radiative corrections".[14] In more complex nonlinear theories (e.g. QCD) zero-point energy can give rise to a variety of complex phenomena such as multiple stable states, symmetry breaking, chaos and emergence. Many physicists believe that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature"[8] and that studying it is critical in the search for the theory of everything. Active areas of research include the effects of virtual particles,[15] quantum entanglement,[16] the difference (if any) between inertial and gravitational mass,[17] variation in the speed of light,[18] a reason for the observed value of the cosmological constant[19] and the nature of dark energy.[20][21]

As I understand it, at every point in spacetime operator valued distributions are assigned and these operators excite states in a Fock space of particle states. All these states have frequencies and wavelengths and can indeed be seen in the light of oscillators, or rotating complex vectors. But are there really operators present that excite a particle state? Is not a particle state, and it's demise, propagation, or creation what comes first? Are it really creation, destruction, or propagating operators, that govern?

Many physicists believe that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature"[8] and that studying it is critical in the search for the theory of everything. Active areas of research include the effects of virtual particles,[15] quantum entanglement,[16] the difference (if any) between inertial and gravitational mass,[17] variation in the speed of light,[18] a reason for the observed value of the cosmological constant[19] and the nature of dark energy.[20][21] — PoeticUniverse

Virtual particles are a weird ingredient of empty space. One might even argue that it's the source of dark energy. For sure it has a different effect on empty space as normal, real matter does. The negative energy contributions give negative curvature. It is said that the vacuum fluctuations have a very high energy, while in fact it should be negative.

As I understand it, at every point in spacetime operator valued distributions are assigned and these operators excite states in a Fock space of particle states. All these states have frequencies and wavelengths and can indeed be seen in the light of oscillators, or rotating complex vectors. But are there really operators present that excite a particle state? Is not a particle state, and it's demise, propagation, or creation what comes first? Are it really creation, destruction, or propagating operators, that govern? — Raymond

I think that the approach of having creation and destruction operators is just another way to model the quantum fields. The fields oscillate on their own; it's not like that there are little springy oscillators attached to field points.