:clap:

The traditional division of opinion on Reality has been along the lines of Cartesian — Gnomon

René Descartes was the first modern - or at least, that's how it was taught to me at UniSyd. Cartesian dualism is very different to hylomorphism, which is making a comeback in contemporary metaphysics and even philosophy of biology.

no reductive empirical materialists in the list — Gnomon

Wouldn't be too sure about that. Note this review of Wilczek, which says 'Wilczek, like Rovelli, is a reductionistic materialist. Although Wilczek occasionally tries to hedge his bets, the materialism is unavoidable.'

But sterling effort, nonetheless.

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon

Can we take a modern, science-informed perspective on the topics that Aristotle covered in the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature (Reality as known in the 5th century BC). For example : Substance & Essence. Although he defined "substance" in terms of the essential qualities of a thing, today that term is associated with a quantity of massy Matter, as distinguished from the immaterial Design or Conceptual Pattern of a thing. It's partly that reversal of meaning between then & now that make communication on metaphyical topics so fraught. So, I suggest that we be careful to define terms such as "substance" as scientific (matter) or philosophical (essence), depending on the application.

Metaphysics is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that he refers to sometimes as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics. ___Wikipedia

In the TPF thread labeled What is Metaphysics, yet again, the posts divided neatly into two camps : Physics (sense) versus Non-Physics (nonsense). I tried to avoid that Black vs White polarization by adding a hyphen to the word : Meta-Physics. I was hoping we could discuss the topics that Aristotle covered in his second volume, instead of the first volume -- both under the heading of Nature (phusis). But the ideological divide turned-out to be too stark. So, I next suggested another spelling variation to suggest a distinction between Matter & Mind : Menta-Physics. But that ploy was also rejected, apparently because some Materialists are absolute Monists : all that is real is Physical, because Matter is the "fundamental substance" of nature. And that worldview categorically rejects Cartesian Dualism. Consequently, my attempt to philosophically focus on subjective ideas instead of objective things was blocked at every turn.

But, since my personal worldview includes both the tangible evidence of massy things, and the intangile inferences of massless concepts, I'm still looking for an inoffensive term that might bypass the (physical vs spiritual) prejudice attached to an old technical term of philosophy to describe the aspects of human experience that don't fit under the reductive microsope of Physics. So, instead of "Mental", which is associated with "Soul", I tried to focus on the "Logical-Mathematical" aspects of Nature. Yet again, I was foiled, because Materialists place that topic under the purview of Science, as opposed to Philosophy or Religion. And despite its lack of massy stuff, it's considered an honorary material substance, as in Quantum Fields.

My next attempt at re-labelling the immaterial subject-(non)matter of my interest, I proposed the amorphous category of "Non-Physical". Yet again, I was surprised that someone had beat me to it -- it's already a thing. Unfortunately, it's usually associated with Theology, and Spirituality. So, my attempts to Include Psychology under the heading of Philosophy were blocked at every turn. The Protestant split from Catholic hegemony was paralleled by a rupture between Theoretical Philosophy and Empirical Science. And, for some, never the twain shall meet again.

Therefore centuries after the empirical Enlightenment, the human Mind remains in the shadows of an impoverished ghetto : Psychology. Which has now been gentrified under the label of Neuro-Science. Ironically, even some prominent neuroscientists have admitted that their study of reductive neuron networks is peripheral to their actual interest in the Mind as a whole system *1. Brain-mapping is not the same as understanding the Mind. "The map is not the terrain". So, they propose to study the mind as a Complex Adaptive System *2, using the methods of General Systems Theory. Ironically, that offshoot of modern materialist Science, is essentially the same approach as the Holism that is associated with Eastern religions and Western New Age cults. So, for hard Materialists, even Systems Theory is suspect, as it's more theoretical & metaphorical than empirical & mathematical. But that's because a complex system has emergent Qualities that are not measurable as intrinsic Properties (Quanta).

Since some researchers have concluded that even Neuroscience will never resolve the "Hard Problem" of soft sensibility, where do we go from here? Must we abandon the quest to understand ourselves? Or will we continue on diverging paths of conservative Science and liberal Philosophy? That's not a poll question. :smile:


*1. Can Neuroscience reveal the true nature of consciousness ?
The problem: finding the neural correlate of consciousness isn’t going to solve anything
https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness05/LammeNeuroscience.pdf

*2. Complex adaptive systems thinking (CAST) is a different approach to analysis that takes into account the features and elements of a system, how they work together and how they influence each other. ... Multiple Perspectives: personal beliefs, world views, voices, knowledge and culture that exist in a system.

Wouldn't be too sure about that. — Wayfarer

Yes. Most of the theoretical scientists on my list attempt to avoid losing their materialist credentials, even as they undermine the foundations of Materialism. A few are brave enough to describe their explorations beyond the pale as "philosophical". Yet, even fewer would use the term "metaphysics" to describe their hypothetical postulations. :joke:

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon

No.

Can such ideas be discussed without eye-rolling, name-calling, mud-slinging, ideological labeling, and anathematizing? — Gnomon

Yes, if you keep the insults to yourself.

Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? — Gnomon

100%, and necessary as well, or we're all fucked and in a hurry.

Has modern Philosophy become "politics by other means"?
Clauswitz : "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means." — Gnomon

Yes, which is why it isn't philosophy. The power seekers usurped the tradition long ago. They're the ones trying to convince the your lying eyes don't see them, because they can't even be trusted to see reality.

All question the classical physical model of reality. — Gnomon

Actually, they do not. Not in any sense that violates the mechanics and understandings of the macroscopic reality that quanta amass. The macroscopic, material understandings of matter, time, and energy are all still the framework within which reality is understood and physics is practiced with precise results. Furthermore, mysteries and ignorance surrounding the nature of quanta DOES NOT imply that the material reality within which you live, whose impregnable laws are used on a daily basis to produce cars, radio equipment, space flights, and power, is not what it has arranged itself to be. There is not simply minimal evidence to suggest, but none whatsoever at all anywhere that suggests the existence of a reality that is not of material composition.

It may be as outdated as the solar system model of an atom. — Gnomon

Really? Any proof? Does outdated mean negated? What exactly are we meaning?

But notice, no reductive empirical materialists in the list. These theoretical scientists are more like philosophers. — Gnomon

You're first clue that they're not onto something.

Second, since we acquire information of the world through measurement, and our sense of what is real depends crucially on this information, information is the very essence of reality. — Gnomon

No, it isn't. Measurement is the essence of accurately assessed perception. Reality doesn't care about measurements in an active way, only in a chemically balanced way; regression toward the mean.

That should give us plenty to discuss, I'd say.

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon
No. — Garrett Travers

Well, I suppose we have nothing to discuss then. :smile:

All question the classical physical model of reality. — Gnomon
Actually, they do not. Not in any sense that violates the mechanics and understandings of the macroscopic reality that quanta amass. — Garrett Travers

If you'll check out the books listed, you'll see that they do question classical mechanics. That's why they place Quantum Mechanics in a special category. Because it's not mechanical at all in the old fashioned sense. Each in his own way is trying to reconcile the mysterious aspects of quantum physics with the common-sense of macro physics. But, quantum phenomena don't simply "amass" (add-up to) macro physics.
FWIW, my own intuitive view of the world is still classical. So, I have to take the weirdness of the quantum realm on faith in the priests of physics. Whose pronouncements are constantly changing to adapt to new discoveries. :cool:

Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? — Gnomon
100%, and necessary as well, or we're all fucked and in a hurry. — Garrett Travers

Great! Glad to hear that pushing the boundaries of Science and Philosophy are not heretical to some posters. Too many on the forum express their exegesis of the science -- without quoting book, chapter & verse -- and instantly reject any unfamiliar interpretations. :chin:

But notice, no reductive empirical materialists in the list. These theoretical scientists are more like philosophers. — Gnomon
You're first clue that they're not onto something. — Garrett Travers

Are you saying that these highly credentialed scientists are wrong to question orthodoxy? That they are crying "wolf" when there is no wolf? Have you read any of their books? Admittedly, their cutting-edge ideas are not yet in the officially sanctioned textbooks. But you could say that about any new paradigms in science. :nerd:

Reality doesn't care about measurements — Garrett Travers

Perhaps, I haven't interviewed Reality to get her opinion. But scientists & philosophers do care about measurements. The problem with quantum measurements is that they are open to interpretation. When I suggest that Aristotle understood the power of Potential long before modern science noticed the Power of Absence, I get boos for quoting ignorant dead white men. :wink:

Incomplete Nature :
A central thesis of the book is that absence can still be efficacious.
biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities :
“Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously,”
And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the same as the logic underlying the new interpretation of quantum physics. In the new paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. It is perhaps less of a full-blown interpretation than a new philosophical framework for contemplating those quantum mysteries. At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.
“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an
extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,”
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities

If you'll check out the books listed, you'll see that they do question classical mechanics. — Gnomon

You misunderstand. Yes, they question classical and relativistic mechanics only in relation to how quantum behavior break them, which is exclusive to quantum operations. They do not question classical and relativistic mechanics qua classical and relativistic mechanics. Nor, have they discovered enough about the nature of quantum mechanics to conclude that classical and relativistic mechanics are to be, for some reason, negated, or that reality is not materially composed. No, this is not a true assertion.

That's why they place Quantum Mechanics in a special category. — Gnomon

Exactly my point.

Each in his own way is trying to reconcile the mysterious aspects of quantum physics with the common-sense of macro physics. — Gnomon

Which is awesome, but they're coming to nonsensical conclusions. For example, gravitational waves were literally just detected for the first time a few years ago. That means Einstein predicted the nature of universal phenomena beyond the grave. Quantum philosophical thought is going to have to do better than what is on offer to negate that.

But, quantum phenomena don't simply "amass" (add-up to) macro physics. — Gnomon

True, but this is a point of ignorance, not an argument of a given proposition on the nature of reality.

So, I have to take the weirdness of the quantum realm on faith in the priests of physics — Gnomon

Never do such a thing.

Whose pronouncements are constantly changing to adapt to new discoveries. — Gnomon

Precisely the reason you don't do the above listed action.

Glad to hear that pushing the boundaries of Science and Philosophy are not heretical to some posters. — Gnomon

No, its elemental to our species' continued homeostasis. I simply disregard the idea that confusion on a subject implies the truth of an assertion predicated on that ignorance. It's a bit like Newton and calculus, you see?

Too many on the forum express their exegesis of the science -- without quoting book, chapter & verse -- and instantly reject any unfamiliar interpretations. — Gnomon

There is more mysticism on this website, in the form of its participants, than in any Church I have ever been to.

Are you saying that these highly credentialed scientists are wrong to question orthodoxy? — Gnomon

No, I'm saying their questions do not constitute answers, or arguments. And I am correct about that.

That they are crying "wolf" when there is no wolf? Have you read any of their books? Admittedly, their cutting-edge ideas are not yet in the officially sanctioned textbooks. But you could say that about any new paradigms in science. :nerd: — Gnomon

Quite possibly.
No.
I do say that, and require evidence to change my mind. Meaning prediction, experiment, and falsifiability. Otherwise, it's just religion.

Perhaps, I haven't interviewed Reality to get her opinion. — Gnomon

Oh, I can't read what you mean in this message over the action you implemented to type it.

The problem with quantum measurements is that they are open to interpretation. — Gnomon

Yes, it is called the quantum measurement problem. One problem with trying to measure quanta is the fact that quantume existence is below the very surface of reality, it's the energy and particles that form planets and biological life-forms. It's beneath microscopic. They simply occupy a different section of reality from macroscopic material. It will be some time before we figure this out.

When I suggest that Aristotle understood the power of Potential long before modern science noticed the Power of Absence, I get boos for quoting ignorant dead white men. — Gnomon

No, you get boos because you've just insulted the philosophy they live by, which is subjectivism, irrationalism, and mysticism. The only reality they can justifiably trust, is the one that is verified for them through human to human interaction. Thus, they are dominated by the altruistic subjectivism that has covered the world in shadow. And the next time someone uses the term "White," as a pejorative, tell the racist to fuck off. It'll be good for you.

absence can still be efficacious. — Gnomon

....To...?

At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. — Gnomon

It is, when placed in the context of quantum comparison. Not that it is so limited as to be negated.

By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. — Gnomon

You can't mean that reality is so broad and sophisticated as to be expanded to cover inductively observable phenomena!? I'd have never guessed.

In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” — Gnomon

So, "real" applies to potentialities if they end up actually being real? Profound.

These potential realities do not exist in spacetime — Gnomon

......... Hmm..... I think we're getting somewhere.

This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an
extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” — Gnomon

....... Nope, lost it. I'll help.

Let's cover this nonsense argument:

1. Potentialities are useful metrics if those potentialities emerge as inductively observable phenomena
2. Usefulness of potentialities implies an expansion of the concept of reality
3. That concept should include objects that will never appear as inductively observable phenomena

You see how this is an invalid argument, and makes no sense besides?

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon

Yeah, but first you're going to have to explain precisely – not merely assert or quote what others assert as stand-ins for – what you mean, G, by "reality" and "non-physical".

In recent years, several scientists have questioned our traditional understanding of Reality, both intuitive and academic. Here's just a few, writing in the last 25 years. Theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli : Reality Is Not What It Seems (quantum reality); mathematical physicist Roger Penrose : Road to Reality (quantum ideality) — Gnomon

I have Penrose's book (2004) and have read portions over the last few years. The subtitle is "A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" , and I don't find him in general questioning our traditional understanding of reality, only trying to explain how we have reached such understandings and how math has been indispensable in this process. However, his discussions of quantum effects becomes more speculative.

The book is immense, over 1,000 pages, so it's doubtful very many readers have read it all.

what you mean, G, by "reality" and "non-physical". — 180 Proof

Meaning mutually exclusive terms.

I don't find him in general questioning our traditional understanding of reality, — jgill

No serious physicist questions our understanding of reality. Our understanding of reality literally allowed us to create macroscopic machines that can hurdle the very objects in question at speeds beyond comprehension and shatter them for further study. It is nonsense.

Let me toss another one on the fire :razz: : Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. I'm not advocating, just mentioning.

No serious physicist questions our understanding of reality. — Garrett Travers

:rofl:

No serious physicist questions our understanding of reality. — Garrett Travers

Oh, sorry. I meant physicist. No physicist questions the training in universal mechanics they've received that they employ to successfully build particle accelerators to smash the very quanta in question.

But this is bullshit. The nature of reality is what is under question. It's been changing constantly ever since the scientific revolution. Newton and Galileo completely overthrew medieval physics, and quantum mechanics in turn threw many assumptions about the nature of objective reality as understood in the classical picture into doubt.

One of the best books I've read about that is Quantum: Bohr, Einstein and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality, by Manjit Kumar. Note the title: Bohr and Einstein, the two greatest phycists of their time, or any time, debating the nature of reality. Einstein maintained a strictly realist attitude, he couldn't accept that quantum theory could be complete so long as the uncertainty principle had to be admitted. 'Does the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it?' he asked, in exasperation. Bohr, along with Werner Heisenberg and several others, developed what is called the Copenhagen interpretation, which is *not* a scientific theory, but a reflection on the meaning of quantum physics. I think the best overall exponent of that view was Heisenberg himself, who was a very clear and competent philosopher, apart from being a great physicist. (Have a read of The Debate between Plato and Democritus.)

I'm not going to try and summarise all of that, but it's critical to realise that 'the nature of reality' is exactly what is at stake in all of these. Heck, the last book I read on it is by Adam Becker, and its title is 'What is Real?'

But this is bullshit. The nature of reality is what is under question. It's been changing constantly ever since the scientific revolution. Newton and Galileo completely overthrew medieval physics, and quantum mechanics threw many assumptions about the nature of objective reality into doubt. — Wayfarer

Not any kind of doubt that negates the already established and utilized framework that allow us to create the required tools to investigate those quanta and their mechanical nature. Physicists are not attempting to negate those systems, but discover where they are compatible, because they clearly are because they are observed within the same domain of existence as the rest of material compositional elements of reality. It isn't bullshit.

Einstein maintained a strictly realist attitude, he couldn't accept that quantum theory could be complete so long as the uncertainty principle had to be admitted. — Wayfarer

And he predicted gravitational waves from the grave. Such a prediction is compatible with the confusion induced by the uncertainty principle, it does not negate the material understandings of reality that were employed by Einstein to accurately predict something beyond the comprehensive ability of most physicists of his day.

Does the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it? — Wayfarer

The moon is macroscopic, quanta are below microscopic. This question is equivalent to asking "do humans just mitotically separate?" Or, the famous strawman question about apes posited to Huxley. It's simple vexation in the face of something confusing, which isn't an argument for anything.

Bohr, along with Werner Heisenberg and several others, developed what is called the Copenhagen interpretation, which is *not* a scientific theory, but a reflection on the meaning of quantum physics. — Wayfarer

And? Don't care.

'the nature of reality' is exactly what is at stake in all of these. — Wayfarer

No, it's not under any legitimate threat at all. And never will be. In time, quanta will be inderstood in a manner compatible with already established understandings, just like Newton was for Einstein, and Einstein was for Bohrs. But, keep trying I guess. Science doesn't agree with you, but hey I'm not going to stop you from entertaining interesting pathways of thought induced by confusion.

This question is equivalent to asking "do humans just mitotically separate?" — Garrett Travers

You show no understanding of why Einstein was compelled to ask that rhetorical question

'the nature of reality' is exactly what is at stake in all of these.
— Wayfarer

No, it's not under any legitimate threat at all. — Garrett Travers

In that case, you have nothing interesting to say. You're just here to beat a drum.

You show now understanding of why Einstein was compelled to ask that rhetorical question — Wayfarer

Sure I do, it's called confusion at a perceived incompatibility with known facts. He was wrong.

In that case, you have nothing interesting to say. — Wayfarer

Sure I do, just not to someone who deeply desires something that reality has not placed on offer. You see, it is clear that you desire very deeply for reality to not be real, and I already know it is, because to even question its existence from within its domain of existence, is to accept it as existing to be questioned, plus physics which verifies the truth value of my proposition. But, do your make-believe thing, it won't bother me, friend.

Wittgenstein was wrong. — Garrett Travers

(Einstein) was wrong. — Garrett Travers

Be warned, mortals. Garrett has spoken. :naughty:

Be warned, mortals. Garrett has spoken. :naughty: — Wayfarer

Be warned, rational folk. We have someone here that thinks certain humans were infallible and MUST be taken at their word, even though they can be demonstrably shown to be incorrect. :halo:

They actually were wrong about what they were wrong about, by the by. Both of them ended up denouncing much of their own theoretical frameworks later in life, so....

Or are they pointing to a universal intrinsic, perhaps immaterial, essence of Reality, more fundamental than sub-atomic particles? — Gnomon

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway.

What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway. — Ciceronianus

:100: :fire:

or that reality is not materially composed. No, this is not a true assertion — Garrett Travers

You misunderstood. I did not assert that these scientists were claiming that "reality is not materially composed", Instead, they are beginning to explore some of the emergent holistic (systems) features of the material world, that cannot be understood reductively. Some of them are focusing on the Mental phenomena that are associated with a material substrate, but are not in themselves physical objects, and not composed of particles. Others, are trying to make sense of some Quantum phenomena, such as Entanglement, that seem to arise from collective properties instead of from particular components.

Since the useful concept of Holism was quickly adopted by various believers in body/mind dualism, most scientists now prefer the term Systems Theory. But, it's the same thing by another name. And integrated systems don't yield their secrets to reductive methods of dissection into isolated parts. So, I'm merely trying to remove the stigma from this "New Physics", so we can discuss it's philosophical implications without recriminations. :smile:

The New Physics :
The term new physics refers to a range of fundamental developments and paradigm shifts that occurred in the physical sciences during the last half of the twentieth century.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/new-physics

I do say that, and require evidence to change my mind. Meaningprediction, experiment, and falsifiability. Otherwise, it's just religion. — Garrett Travers

The sciences of Systems are inherently Holistic & philosophical & somewhat subjective, so the classical methods of reductive science don't work for them. And, the "evidence" is mostly circumstantial. The authors of the books noted above are highly trained scientists, but they are forced to use philosophical methods to parse & collate the few reliable facts they are turning up in their studies. Some of them even reluctantly admit that they are dabbling in theoretical philosophy (search for causes), which is often denigrated by empirical scientists (study of effects) -- and ironically by some posters on this Philosophical Forum who use "feckless" argument instead of effective experiment. :nerd:

Science vs Natural Philosophy :
They began to separate in the 19th century, when the term science was coined, and over the course of the 19th century, it replaced “natural philosopher.” The two had begun to branch out earlier than that with the development of the hypothetico-deductive model, which locks science into a particular epistemology,
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/12/when-did-science-and-philosophy-separate-into-different-fields-of-study.html

Let's cover this nonsense argument:
1. Potentialities are useful metrics if those potentialities emerge as inductively observable phenomena
2. Usefulness of potentialities implies an expansion of the concept of reality
3. That concept should include objects that will never appear as inductively observable phenomena — Garrett Travers

You are using philosophical methods to argue against the conclusions of a group of credentialed scientists, including Werner Heisenberg. But, you miss their point. They may not be using the term "Potentia" in the "non-sense" way you allege. They are indeed pushing the boundaries of 19th century science, but don't you think their intelligence deserves a bit more respect.? :wink:

I have Penrose's book (2004) and have read portions over the last few years. The subtitle is "A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" , and I don't find him in general questioning our traditional understanding of reality — jgill

I haven't read the book, but from reviews I get the impression that his Mathematical Reality is essentially the same thing as Virtual Reality. If that is not questioning our traditional understanding of reality (Materialism & Atomism) I don't know what it's all about. :cool:

Mathematical Reality :
Quantum theory has been used in support of materialism, as well, to give us a proposed material theory of consciousness. Sir Roger Penrose, the British mathematician, and theoretical physicist has argued that it is quantum effects that give rise to the sense we have of free will. . . .
Dualism—that there’s more to reality than just matter and energy—has to solve the problem of interaction. How do material objects and ideas work with each other if they are completely different? Materialism has no such problem because there is only one kind of thing, but it has its own challenge—free will.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/what-is-the-material-theory-of-consciousness-and-free-will/

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway. — Ciceronianus

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. Scientist have been trying over the last century to reconcile Relativity and Quantum models of reality. How much longer do we need to wait? Anyway, on this forum of philosophical dilettantes, we don't do empirical, we do conjecture. And Quantum un-reality is a fervid ferment of speculation, even among those who eschew philosophy. :smile:

Emergent Space-Time :
"A growing number of physicists . . . are increasingly converging on a profound idea : space -- and perhaps even time -- is not fundamental, Instead, space and time my be emergent. . . . While quantum physics treats space and time as immutable, general relativity warps them for breakfast."
Scientific American magazine, Feb 2022
Note -- Sci-fi novelists dramatically speculate on the possible implications of such scientific profundities all the time. So, why can't prosaic philosophers dabble in such open questions?

Since the useful concept of Holism was quickly adopted by various believers in body/mind dualism, most scientists now prefer the term Systems Theory. But, it's the same thing by another name. And integrated systems don't yield their secrets to reductive methods of dissection into isolated parts. So, I'm merely trying to remove the stigma from this "New Physics", so we can discuss it's philosophical implications without recriminations. — Gnomon

Oh, I see. I am in 100% accord with this analysis.

The sciences of Systems are inherently Holistic & philosophical & somewhat subjective, so the classical methods of reductive science don't work for them. And, the "evidence" is mostly circumstantial. The authors of the books noted above are highly trained scientists, but they are forced to use philosophical methods to parse & collate the few reliable facts they are turning up in their studies. Some of them even reluctantly admit that they are dabbling in theoretical philosophy (search for causes), which is often denigrated by empirical scientists (study of effects) -- and ironically by some posters on this Philosophical Forum who use "feckless" argument instead of effective experiment. — Gnomon

Do we have an example of systems that are wholly misunderstood in the face of inductive investigation?

They are indeed pushing the boundaries of 19th century science, but don't you think their intelligence deserves a bit more respect.? — Gnomon

No, not until it is clear what they mean by "pushing the boundaries," using propositions that are reliant on those boundaries as a matter of arranging their propositions to begin with. Intelligence is respected when it aligns with the quality of investigatory output, not when it does not. It's like asking me if I respect people's heigth, I don't. I make no conclusions on the premise of immutable characteristics.

The macroscopic, material understandings of matter, time, and energy are all still the framework within which reality is understood and physics is practiced with precise results. Furthermore, mysteries and ignorance surrounding the nature of quanta DOES NOT imply that the material reality within which you live, whose impregnable laws are used on a daily basis to produce cars, radio equipment, space flights, and power, is not what it has arranged itself to be. — Garrett Travers

Well put and I think it's an important point. What we call reality is at human scale. How could it be anything else?

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? — Gnomon

When they don't, philosophers tend to spout the most egregiously fact-free nonsense liberally spackled with woo-of-the-gaps. To wit:

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it. — Marcus Tullius Cicero

In other words, "before" gathering "more facts" (dots), Gnomon, 'connecting (speculating on) the dots (facts)' tends to yield far less intelligible – less soundly inferred – concepts than those conceptions attained after gathering more facts (dots).

Well put and I think it's an important point. What we call reality is at human scale. How could it be anything else? — T Clark

Well, it's proportional to the capacity of human(s) orientational resolution. The scale is beyond comprehension. But, enough data can be exctracted by the human brain to test for broader processes that our brains do not initially generate. And so on in a feedbackloop.

When they don't, philosophers tend to spout the most egregiously fact-free nonsense liberally spackled with woo-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

Fucking brilliantly put, friend. Pure gas. It's time we started bring the torch to the anti-philosophies of the world.

I'll one up you:

When they don't we end with people thinking Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche were real philosophers.

When they don't we end with people thinking Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche were real philosophers. — Garrett Travers

:broken: