Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.
Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.
At every moment, in Wheeler's view, the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed. — Does the Universe Exist if we're not Looking?
At its root, the new idea (Taking Heisenberg's Potentia Seriously) 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,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.
Considering potential things to be real is not exactly a new idea, as it was a central aspect of the philosophy of Aristotle, 24 centuries ago. An acorn has the potential to become a tree; a tree has the potential to become a wooden table. Even applying this idea to quantum physics isn’t new. Werner Heisenberg, the quantum pioneer famous for his uncertainty principle, considered his quantum math to describe potential outcomes of measurements of which one would become the actual result. The quantum concept of a “probability wave,” describing the likelihood of different possible outcomes of a measurement, was a quantitative version of Aristotle’s potential, Heisenberg wrote in his well-known 1958 book Physics and Philosophy. “It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.” — Quantum Mysteries Dissolve if Possibilities are Realities
reality comprises a real 'realm of possibility', from which particular ('determinate') outcomes are precipitated. — Wayfarer
More generally, I like to argue for the view that whatever we believe to exist (even things existing unobserved) exists in a determinate manner - meaning that if we encounter a previously-unseen celestial object, we will know what kind of thing it is. But that still leaves room for the assertion that the kind of reality the world has outside of the mind of the observer is indeterminate. That means that it is not non-existent, but it's also not strictly speaking existent. At best it has a kind of presumptive existence — Wayfarer
Aren’t you just mixing up epistemology with ontology? — apokrisis
Once upon a time there was a wave function, which was said to completely describe the state of a physical system out in the world. The shape of the wave function encodes the probabilities for the outcomes of any measurements an observer might perform on it, but the wave function belonged to nature itself, an objective description of an objective reality.
Then Fuchs came along. Along with the researchers Carlton Caves and Rüdiger Schack, he interpreted the wave function’s probabilities as Bayesian probabilities — that is, as subjective degrees of belief about the system. Bayesian probabilities could be thought of as gambling attitudes for placing bets on measurement outcomes, attitudes that are updated as new data come to light. In other words, Fuchs argued, the wave function does not describe the world — it describes the observer. “Quantum mechanics,” he says, “is a law of thought.” — A Private View of Quantum Reality
They don’t need an epistemology - some encoded blueprint or instruction set. — apokrisis
The Heisenberg article explicitly states '“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’.” — Wayfarer
Mathematical physics has necessitated the development of both new forms of mathematics, and the coining of new words ('spin', 'color', 'charm') to describe new discoveries. — Wayfarer
It certainly has an impact on how we think about the nature of reality - so many of the books on physics have sub-titles that refer to that (‘Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality’, for instance.) — Wayfarer
the hallmark of anything that exists is that it is determinate.... — Wayfarer
there is an ontological distinction..... — Wayfarer
whether it is meaningful to speak of what exists in the absence of an observing mind. — Wayfarer
What I object to is the idea that 'that teacup isn't real'. It is real because thst teacup is the sort of thing we use the word 'real' to describe and that's the only measure there is of what a word means. — Isaac
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
Correct use of language is determined by the community using the word, not by some subset. — Isaac
whether it is meaningful to speak of what exists in the absence of an observing mind.
— Wayfarer
Put a check mark in the not-even-a-chance column for me. Although, if I’m being metaphysically honest, I’d substitute rational intelligence for mind.
Oh....I like your Pinter stuff. — Mww
we exist as classical beings within, or at the level of, nature constituted by classical constaints; what difference does Wheeler's speculation make to our lives – striving for 'the good life' – philosophically or practically? — 180 Proof
we exist as classical beings within, or at the level of, nature constituted by classical constaints; what difference does Wheeler's speculation make to our lives – striving for 'the good life' – philosophically or practically?
— 180 Proof — Tom Storm
Consider the widely-accepted paradigm, that life and mind are thrown up as a byproduct of essentially meaningless physical processes, or as emergent properties of those processes. — Wayfarer
Appeal to popularity, again. C'mon, stop with the caricatures. :roll:Consider the widely-accepted paradigm ... — Wayfarer
No, sir! Compatibilism is the most reasonable idea that's consistent with both scientific in/determinism and human experience.Concommitant with that view is determinism, ...
Anything can be "interpreted" in any way you fancy, Wayfarer, but, in natural science, the more consistent an interpretation is with the prevailing experimental evidence, the more credible – reasonable – that interpretation is. Wheeler was as guilty as Bohr & co of committing the mind-projection fallacy insofar as he overdetermined that "observation is consciousness" rather than as a classical physical system-1 interacting with – measuring – a quantum physical system-2 (e.g. wavicle). "The observer" is only ever "conscious" of classical physical system-1 (experimental apparatus) when s/he reads the measurement data. Full stop. The best available evidence is more consistent with the idea that 'the human mind ("consciousness") is a classical, not a quantum, system' than otherwise; and, IMO, it's more reasonable for us to interpret what that means rather than, fairytale-like, speculating in excess / denial of what we do/can not know.Wheeler's ideas can be interpreted as [ ... ] It is a philosophical idea that was also suggested by the discoveries of quantum physics ...
Anthropomorphic fallacy. :eyes:Maybe a more apt metaphor is that the universe discovers itself ...
All this might be illusory, or it might be connected to unknowable transcendence - but I don't think it makes any functional difference as I go about my business — Tom Storm
↪Joshs I agree. It seems to me that idealism or not - people's embedded values tend to persist above and beyond their ontological assumptions. — Tom Storm
I like to argue for the view that whatever we believe to exist (even things existing unobserved) exists in a determinate manner - meaning that if we encounter a previously-unseen celestial object, we will know what kind of thing it is. — Wayfarer
guess what I meant was that embedded values and ontological assumptions are two ways of talking about the same thing. Most of the world’s ethical dilemmas and history of violence results not from a disconnect between embedded values and ontological assumptions, but from their connectedness. It is not hypocrites but sincere zealots we need fear most. — Joshs
Is the mind-projection fallacy similar to the 'blind spot' so often evoked by Wayfarer? — Tom Storm
Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately.
— Julian Huxley
I'm not familiar with Wayf's "blind spot" notion. — 180 Proof
To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness.
Psychologist George Kelly said what matters is not whether the universe exists, but what we can make of it. — Joshs
What we take to be a galaxy in a picture could turn out to be a new system or phenomena previously unknown in astronomy. So in these cases, we would not know what thing it is, outside of the very general comment of "being something seen by the James Webb telescope." — Manuel
Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately. — Julian Huxley
Nagel’s starting point is not simply that he finds materialism partial or unconvincing, but that he himself has a metaphysical view or vision of reality that just cannot be accommodated within materialism. This vision is that the appearance of conscious beings in the universe is somehow what it is all for; that ‘Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself’. Nagel’s surrounding argument is something of a sketch, but is entirely compatible with a Buddhist vision of reality as naturalism, including the possibility of insight into reality (under the topic of reason or cognition) and the possibility of apprehension of objective good (under the topic of value). His naturalism does this while fully conceding the explanatory power of physics, Darwinian evolution and neuroscience. Most Buddhists are what one might describe as intuitive non-materialists, but they have no way to integrate their intuition into the predominantly materialistic scientific world view. I see the value of Nagel’s philosophy in Mind and Cosmos as sketching an imaginative vision of reality that integrates the scientific world view into a larger one that includes reason, value and purpose, and simultaneously casts philosophical doubt on the completeness of the predominant materialism of the age. — The Universe is Waking Up
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.