Just wondering’, you know, given my philosophical proclivities….what kind of answer can one expect when asking about the status of reason? — Mww
What do you think the analogy means? — Janus
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.
Wheeler is well-known for his idea of the participatory universe, that the universe is somehow brought into being by the act of observation (although his definition of ‘observation’ is rather broad as shown below). There’s a well-written magazine article on him here, from which: — Wayfarer
We cannot speak in these terms without a caution and a question. The caution: "consciousness" has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process. — Wheeler
Yes, and also, don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
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.
If mind (and rationality) is completely sui generis, then I'm not sure why solipsism and radical skepticism about any external world wouldn't be justified. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the mind creates the world, did the Moon exist before minds?
— Count Timothy von Icarus
Definitely not. But neither did it not exist. — Wayfarer
I'll go back to this point:
If the mind creates the world, did the Moon exist before minds?
— Count Timothy von Icarus
Definitely not. But neither did it not exist.
— Wayfarer — Wayfarer
There's no middle ground between existing and not existing. — RogueAI
What does it mean to say that possibilities are realities? Does it just mean that some possibilities are real, as opposed to merely logical? Unless it means something more than that it is certainly not a novel idea. — Janus
Suggest you read the Science News article. They note the idea goes back to Aristotle, but I think it is one of the things that fell out of favour with the abandonment of Aristotelian realism. — Wayfarer
There seems to be a casual assumption that 'everyone knows' what it means for something to exist. After all you can open your eyes and see it. But again philosophy is exploring that question from a critical - not necessarily outright sceptical - perspective. — Wayfarer
You haven't answered the question as to whether you think the claim that possibilities are realities means something beyond what I believe is commonly accepted: namely that there are real possibilities and merely logical possibilities. — Janus
If that idea has not "fallen out of favour" then what exactly is the idea that you think has fallen out of favour? — Janus
By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. — The Buddha
' 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.' (From the article.)
The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous.' — Wayfarer
The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous.' — Wayfarer
I think it harks back to the idea of there being degrees of reality. — Wayfarer
As I said, the answer to the question 'does the particle exist' just is the probability equation. You may brush it off but I'm suggesting, this is just what caused Einstein to ask the question 'doesn't the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it?' — Wayfarer
In the context of the kind of idealism I'm advocating, — Wayfarer
The interesting {but unfortunately unanswerable) question is as to whether there are real possibilities that never become actual or whether all real possibilities are determined to become actual. Of course, it certainly seems that no possibility exists as anything more than a possibility until (and unless?) it becomes actual. — Janus
What prompted Einstein to ask that question is a matter of psychological speculation. He was probably a realist so it would likely have seemed most plausible to him that the moon does continue to exist when we're not looking. — Janus
do you want idealism to be true because you think it would allow for an afterlife? — Janus
The interesting {but unfortunately unanswerable) question is as to whether there are real possibilities that never become actual or whether all real possibilities are determined to become actual. — Janus
Possibility is an empirical notion. — sime
That is true, but the nature of the object who's existence is only possible is not. And that is the point at issue in this context, as the putative object, a component of the atom, is supposed to be amongst the building blocks of material existence. — Wayfarer
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.