Is it the case that all disagreements come down to Metaphysical beliefs (and faith in those beliefs)? Is it possible to come to any agreement on any issue, when the root issue is Metaphysics? — anonymous66

I am not an expert on the work of Ken Wilber--I have only read "A Brief History of Everything". And I am aware that somebody who reads this is likely to respond with something like, "Ken Wilber is a New Age quack!". But the way that I understand it, Wilber has spent much of his life trying to integrate all of the intellectual traditions from every corner of the Earth from every period of history and prehistory.

Maybe he is nothing more than a quack. Or maybe he is a philosopher in every best sense of the word who simply has no home in academia or mainstream intellectual circles. Or maybe he is something in between. Or maybe no matter who or what he is, his work is a failure.

Or maybe he is onto something.

Either way, his work that I have read is enjoyable, fascinating, a valuable tour of intellectual history, and packed with fresh, original (to me, anyway) insights.

Maybe I am mischaracterizing his work--again, I am nowhere near being an expert. But I would characterize it, based on my initial impression, as saying, "Rather than trying to ferret out and evaluate everything, let's integrate everything into a coherent whole". It might be worth stepping outside of the philosophical canon and giving Integral Theory some attention, if you haven't already.

So is his statement not true? Does quantum-mechanics not contradict the notion of an objective physical world that exists independently of us?

I don't claim to be able to answer that, but I just re-emphasize that that author was someone with impressive credentials in quantum-mechanics. I should find the book, name the author, and quote the passage, but it was a long time ago. Obviously a quote without the name of the author, or his exact words isn't very compelling. — Rich

Based upon my so studies, physics only offers the equations, which are purely symbolic and have no meaning onto themselves. Any interpretations must necessarily be subjective and yes, physicists as most scientists have no problem providing subjective, metaphysical interpretations and labeling them as factual science. Scientists not only do this some of the time, they do it all the time but only a few will admit to it.

One egregious example is Einstein who took a scientific symbol of time (a physical movement) and without any hesitation elevated it to an ontological status. As a result we have a mess in science such as time travel, twins aging at different rates, etc., and the extremely strange situation of General Relativity contracting Special Relativity (Special claiming all reference frames being equal and General claiming they they are all different by virtue of acceleration). Scientific time is used to measure synchronicity. It has nothing to do with the psychological time that we experience in life.

As for the question of an objective world, things get tricky because words and metaphors are inadequate. I personally embrace the holographic analogy which would claim:

1) There is something real out there (using Bohm's version of the Schrodinger's equations) but it is entangled with the observation or consciousness.

2) What is real is are holographic wave forms that exist out there outside of the mind (not in the brain).

3) The brain creates a reconstruction beam that illuminates the hologram hence the subjective view of the real and the corresponding entanglement between the observed and the observer.

Much of the above is a composite of Bohm's Implicate Order and Pribram's view of holographic consciousness. I want to emphasize that this is a very small minority view of quantum and contradicts what most scientists espouse, but here is a link that provides some basis for this metaphysical point of view. Ultimately, you will have to come up with your own metaphysical view.

http://holographicarchetypes.weebly.com/holographic-paradigm.html

Yes, scientists often over-apply science.

Your statement about physics is reasonable enough. But it doesn't answer the question of whether that author was right when he said that quantum-mechanics lays to rest the notion of an objective, independently-existent physical world.

His statement surprised me, because I didn't think that physics said anything about metaphysics. But there are ways in which quantum-mechanics differs from previous physics too. Anyway, it doesn't sound so unreasonable to say that science can say something about its own limitations.

Bottom-line: Neither you nor I are qualified in quantum-mechanics enough to evaluate the accuracy of that guy's statement. Was it just another instance of science being over-applied? Or was he right? It's his subject, not ours, and so we both don't know whether he was right.

But I will say that his rejection of an objective, independently-existing world is in agreement with my metaphysics, and that suggests to me that just maybe his statement was valid. But neither of us know about that for sure, one way or the other.

Of course you realize that you're in the minority if you reject Special Relativity. There's some consensus that General Relativity needs work. But wholesale rejection of it would be a minority position.

I'm not sure what you mean about time being a physical movement, and Einstein elevating it to an ontology. Time and space are properties of the hypothetical possibility-world, the setting of our life-experience possibility-stories. I thought that Einstein was only talking about the physics, with Relativity, and that he wasn't making metaphysical claims with it.

Einstein often used religious language, but Physicalists insist that he was only doing so as a figure of
speech. I don't know about that, one way or the other.

The metaphysics that you advocate has lots of assumptions and brute-facts.

As I've been saying, I don't believe that any metaphysics can be proved, but assumptions and brute-facts do not count in a metaphysics's favor.

Ultimately, you will have to come up with your own metaphysical view.

I have, and i call it "Skepticism". I've described in in the discussion-thread, "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics." It's an Idealism. I admit that Michael Faraday, Frank Tippler, and Max Tegmark discussed its main basis before I did.

Michael Ossipoff

His statement surprised me, because I didn't think that physics said anything about metaphysics. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree, it doesn't and never does. Quantum physics is an equation. You plug some numbers in and you get some results. Equations don't interpret themselves-they never do. They are simply a device for measurement and approximate predictions.

The moment scientists or philosophers decide to provide some interpretation of the ontological meaning of equations, they have entered into the world of metaphysics which is absolutely fine as long as it is presented as such. Unfortunately, scientists have this tendency of mixing up metaphysical musings with symbolic equations that in themselves have zero ontological meaning.

Since scientists disagree on wats to interpret the quantum equations and principles, I am extremely comfortable with my belief that this particular scientist is simply espousing his own interpretations as one of scientific fact. Naughty, naughty.

But I will say that his rejection of an objective, independently-existing world is in agreement with my metaphysics, and that suggests to me that just maybe his statement was valid. But neither of us know about that for sure, one way or the other.

I would agree that quantum experiments seem to indicate that the observer and the observed are entangled. This is not to say that there isn't something real out there. It is just that the mind is subjectively interpreting it.

Of course you realize that you're in the minority if you reject Special Relativity. There's some consensus that General Relativity needs work. But wholesale rejection of it would be a minority position.

I don't reject Relatively. Special relativity is simply a transformation method between frames of reference. No big deal. What I challenge is that time, as used for measurements (some physical displacement) has any ontological relevance to time as we experience it in life, which is psychological in nature, heterogenous, and indivisible. This was Bergson's objection. Strangely, Einstein either didn't get it or pretended he didn't get it, but then again he also rejected quantum physics.

What's more, General Relativity which establishes a differences in frames of references (accelerating over vs non-accelerating one) is in direct contradiction to Special Relativity. This particular problem creates all kinds of paradoxes which underscore the high probability that something is awry. Bohm wrote in one of his essays that where there are paradoxes, something further needs to be understood. I believe at the heart of the issue is the chasm between scientific time and real time.

I I thought that Einstein was only talking about the physics, with Relativity, and that he wasn't making metaphysical claims with it.

Einstein often used religious language, but Physicalists insist that he was only doing so as a figure of
speech. I don't know about that, one way or the other.

The metaphysics that you advocate has lots of assumptions and brute-facts.

When Einstein began talking about the space-time continuum being real he entered into the realm of metaphysics. As a result of the paradoxes this manner of thinking created, a whole slew of sci-fi worlds were created including the ever popular Dr. Who. It's not that what Einstein proclaimed had in any manner explained the life we experience, but it was so much fun the audience embraced it.

Metaphysics is speculation based upon observations and intuition. One can search for facts but there aren't any and if one insists on facts, then one becomes immobile. However, if metaphysical speculation is not one's cup of tea, there is always something else to do such as learning to play an instrument. I don't think any of my friends or acquaintances spend much time with metaphysics outside of their religion though as one ages certain questions about life do seem to become more relevant. I, on the other had, use my philosophy in a practical manner every day of my life, which is why I look for metaphysics that is very strongly grounded in my every day experience of life.