Humans always come back to trying to answer such questions in terms of something they are familiar with (the empirical). So Rich, for example, wants to say the noumena, reality in itself, is a hologram. This is just as incoherent as saying it is a cup, or a molecule, or energy, or mind. — John

Not at all. The macro reveals the micro, but it takes some creative intuition to bridge the gap. It is a continuum without gaps. Everything must spiral together without gaps.

No, there is no ambiguity. That is removed by the mathematics.

This is all nothing more than empirical talk. What is the mind? How does it construct the cup? Any cogent answer you give cannot be anything more than an empirical answer in terms of light, retinas, optic nerves, visual cortices and so on.

Rich, I have no idea what you are talking about. Such talk cannot be anything more than a kind of evocation of the poetic imagination; which is all fine in its place, but it really tells us nothing in any propositional sense.

Your first paragraphs is pretty much my view.

What could it even mean to ask if the noumenal cup, the cup in itself, is in the cupboard, though? — John

I would instead say that the question is without a sense; it is an example of language pushed too far. The "thing-in-itself" can have no use in a language game, except for confusing idealists.

If you don't know what I'm talking about them I guess you can't talk about it. That's OK. It's not a necessity.

Ann and Beth see the same movement, when they take the relativistic equations into account.

The cup and the hologram are likewise the same, given the appropriate transformations.

The hologram theory does not cause the cup to cease to be.

The quantum state exists, however one may wish to visualize it. I visualize it as the wave pattern formed in a hologram. What doesn't exist is the cup until the observer does it's job, in the same way a reconstructive light wave reveals the image in a hologram, e.g. the teacup.

I would instead say that the question is without a sense; it is an example of language pushed too far. — Banno

Yes, I think what I said pretty much agrees with this. I do allow though for the non-propositional advaitic kinds of answers to open up spaces of intuitive or imaginative realization which cannot be explicated in propositional terms. "Of that whereof we cannot (propositionally) speak we must remain silent". ( Brackets mine). So,"silence" then, only in the empirical, not the poetic, or the theological, field.

You are not talking about anything in any propositional sense; so I don't believe you know what you are talking about either. If you did you could explain it all clearly in understandable terms. What you have are merely poetic intimations; which is all fine; but they do not yield anything that could be argued about.

Ok. But we all have to be flexible in life, a key principle that we both learned studying Tai Chi for 30 years.

What doesn't exist is the cup until the observer does it's job, — Rich

I think that dubious. Help me.

If I take the cup and put it into the cupboard, are you saying that when I close the door it ceases to be a cup?

I agree; and I do think that discussion of, for example, aesthetic or theological ideas, can be very stimulating and fruitful. I read Bohm many years ago, and I liked his ideas about the implicate order; they are very original and stimulating. What I don't think is that we can sensibly argue that reality is or is not like this or that, unless we are talking about empirical reality; the shared world of intersubjective experience. This wanting to argue about how things "ultimately" are is a cause of great problems for human beings in senseless clashes of ideologies and religious fundamentalisms.

Silence, then.

After a good little talk, yes!

It is what it is in its quantum state. It is there human mind that recognizes it as a cup. The hologram analogy it's a good one. Turn off the reconstructive light wave and what do you have? Turn it back on and what do you have? This is the line of inquiry I am following.

the shared world of intersubjective experience. — John

I am definitely interested in this area if inquiry and what it all means. Hence the idea of shared memory in holographic form and shared traits in holographic form. Sharing occurs all over the place.

Can you think of any way of testing the holographic model?

If I take the cup and put it into the cupboard, are you saying that when I close the door it ceases to be a cup? — Banno

It's an important point. I don't see why it can't be both a cup and a quantum thingy.

Yes, they can be but not at the same time.

Copenhagen says the stuff has no location. Cups have location.

Why not?

I believe there is research going on concerning the possibilities. I already the model from a different perspective, i.e. are the pieces of the puzzle fitting.

This philosopher follows the topic closely and he does answer contact email. I've been too busy lately with the arts and haven't followed recent research closely.

http://www.stephenerobbins.com

When it is observed it becomes the cup. I don't know what a dog, for example, sees. All I know is what I can observe. When I'm not observing, back to the quantum state.

are you familiar with Aphorism #47 - 48 from Philosophical investigations?

It's about what counts as a simple, as not being composite, elemental. It shows - at least to my satisfaction - that what counts as a simple is decided by us, basically by using language.

So my view is that quantum thingies do not count as being more elemental than, say, cups - except if we so decide, for the purposes of doing physics on the one hand, and doing the washing up on the other.

And when not observed - it is not a cup?

I don't see why we must make that conclusion.

don't see why we must make that conclusion. — Banno

I agree. There are lots of possibilities to consider in different contexts. Hopefully some young, eager beaver philosophers will investigate this model and come up with some new ideas. It is rich with possibilities.

Excellent.

But I'm not sure that this is a physical question, so much as a philosophical one.

My argument is that, contra , it is an abuse of language to say that we cannot know that the cup we just put in the cupboard is still a cup.

and what I say is that you're not actually engaged in philosophy any more. You're just talking about talking.

@John - reply later, I'm sitting in my car posting via iPhone.

you're not actually engaged in philosophy any more. You're just talking about talking. — Wayfarer

I might agree, and add that that's a good thing. Philosophy is tangled words.