Ok I think I understood your view. Thanks for the clarification.

And also thanks for the insights about Tai Chi and for sharing your experience!

Yeah I agree... If you accept that "ultimate reality" is the "Mind", then the "real" time is the "percieved/experienced" time. There is no distinction between the two. In this framework "life" and the flow of experiences (i.e. the "flow of time") are the same (except the fact that maybe the "Mind" is a "center of awareness", but I do not really know much about Tai Chi, so it is only a guess...). It seems interesting.

Do you know if there are some online resources about it? May you please give some links - if there are any?



Interesting! Regarding the first part I think I agree. I see it as follows: we "map" reality according to certain assumptions. The "validity" of the map, however depends on the map itself, its properties. So a-priori even the smallest "observable" scale depends on the particular "way" we "map" reality (however being a theoretical physics student I believe that it is the "best" map, until contrary evidence). This however raises as you say the question: how we a-priori distinguish the two "realities", i.e. the sensible and the "intelligible" ? Actually if by sensible we include also what can be "observed" by the instruments (i.e. the definition of "observable" in physics) of the lab Heisenberg and other Copenaghists would say that there is no difference. Others, like the Bohmians disagree.

As an example, imagine if we make a complete description of what is occurring right now, then use logic and theories, to deduce what must have been occurring five, ten, or twenty years ago. We cannot say that these past occurrences are actually observable. We do this with geology, various morphologies, to project way back in time, and with cosmology we go right back to the big bang. We know that we do not actually observe the big bang, it is a product of the theories. But for some reason, when we take theories in the other direction, to look at shorter and shorter periods of time, instead of longer and longer periods, we tend to fall for the illusion that we are actually observing these short periods of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mmm, interesting view (I hope to have understand what you mean...). Ok, it seems a strict empiricism. In this case, however all our scientific pictures do not refer to observation but to a "construct" of it (apart of course theories that predict only perceivable results by our senses).

Let me ask a question. Suppose you have an atomic clock. Why do you think that they do not "observe" such small durations (femtoseconds for instance)?

In my mind "unobservable phenomena" is a self-contradictory statement. If we observe physical activity, and apply logic, to conclude that it is necessary to assume that there is something unobservable going on to account for this activity, then we cannot refer to this as phenomena because that implies something perceivable by the senses. If we allow that "phenomena" refers to things apprehended by the mind, as well as by the senses, then we would need to adopt some other principles to distinguish between what has real material existence, and what is a product of the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, I see. What about "happenings"? :) Well I speculated a lot about the issue wether it is even possible to think that something can exist, but it is impossible to percieve in any possible way. My "hypothesis" is that the answer is "yes", but we cannot know anything about such "things". We can only "guess" or "speculate", without any hope to really know. Therefore even the existence of "matter" is a convenient "guess": we cannot prove its existence in any way. Outside direct experience and inference about direct experience we cannot have any "certain", so to speak, knowledge. We can however IMO make some reasonable "guesses". For example I have not find any "proof" against solipsism, however it is not clearly true. But the fact that it is extremely difficult - if impossible - to reject shows something interesting: outside the "direct experience" we cannot have certain knowledge. So in a sense we estabilish the existence of a reality "behind the phenomena" as a reasonable "leap of faith", so to speak. Do you agree? Therefore the only principle that I can (at least for now) propose is the "causal" argument: the "external reality" is somehow the cause of our experience (to avoid solipsism). However we can only make reasonable assumptions and inferences about it (and even for its existence). Note that since the Copenaghen interpretation became the "standard" one, physics now is seen as dealing with what is "observable" by physical instruments (and therefore claims about what "there is behind it" are seen as either speculations or fictions).

If the goal is to understand, then we cannot say that this is "unnecessary". Since the goal of scientists is often to predict, rather than to understand, then so long as the mathematical equations are set so as to adequately predict, understanding is "unnecessary". But as we found out with the discovery of the heliocentricity of the solar system, real understanding opens up vast new opportunities which cannot be accessed by mere mathematical predictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed! In my opinion the fact that there are many interpretation of QM means that we have yet to understand it. But it seems that many physicists do not agree, sadly.

The flow of the river is not explained by the water. The water is one element, there is also gravity, and the form of the solid ground. So if change is related to time, like flow is related to the water in the river, we still have the background existence (the riverbed), and the cause of change (gravity) to identify. The cause of change, is more properly associated with time, than change itself, just like gravity is more properly associated with the flow than the water itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. I think I understood... So in your view time is the cause of change. But why do you think it is necessay to posit it in the first place? In other words why the "causal chain of happenings" is not sufficient to understand reality, but need a "cause to exist"? :)
Personally I cannot see how such an "additional" cause might be required.


P.S. For those interested in interpretation of QM, I have found a nice criticism of MWI (many-worlds):
https://rekastner.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/decoherence-fail.pdf
Here there are no formulas and the argument is quite clear IMO: in order to explain the "split" we already have to know how the worlds must split (this problem is called "preferred basis problem" in literature). The problem is that according MWI in its most rigorous formulation only the universal wavefunction is real and a-priori by it we cannot know how the universe split. Therefore it becomes either a "many-many worlds interpetration" where there are many-many ways in which worlds split or "a no-world interpetration", where literally nothing happens.

For who is interested I give the link to two threads of "physicsforums":
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-nothing-happen-in-mwi.822848/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/many-worlds-proved-inconsistent.767809/

and the link to the pre-print of the paper where the criticism is found:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447

Another idea: if "time" flows indipendently, then is it not correct to say that in fact that time passes is itself a "change"? In fact if we try to "imagine" it, we think that it passes, i.e. there is some activity.

Mmm interesting... I try to give you a rapid answer (hope it makes some sense X-) ):

Yeah to give some "support" to your view, maybe the Planck time is a limit for our "ability" to measure duration, i.e. it is the smallest observable duration. But again, even if it is so short to be unobservable, maybe we can still imagine that the same can be said for physical changes. I mean we can imagine some phenomena might have a duration which is inacessible to our measurements.

The reasoning is somewhat similar to the idea behind the "hidden variables". According to these theories we do not observe "reality as it is" but we can still understand quantum phenomena as the "result" of unobservable phenomena (i.e. the movement of the particles etc). In the same way even when we will (possibly) arrive to a quantum theory of gravity, IMO we can still think that there is a "subquantum" world.

By the way the problem of your hypothesis (at a scientific level) is that such a time would be a sort of "unnecessry" since it is a sort of "stage" where phenomena happen. So it is not to say that it is wrong, but for a scientific POV it is "unnecessary".

Regarding a metaphysical level, I think that time IS the "flow of change". This does not mean that it is "reducible" to the "events" themeselves. It simply means that as there is no flow in a river without water, there is no "time passing" without change. However the "flow" does not of course coincide without water.

IMO if time is not the "flow of change" then it "exists" as a sort of indipendent "process". But if that is the case, how can exist such a process?

Scientifically speaking, however, I do not think that a "time apart of change" can be really useful. But science is NOT metaphysics and therefore if we do not adhere to scientism it is not a problem ;)

Well, thank you! Our approach seems quite similar. Curiosly, I have a deep interest in platonism, too (I am very inclined to beleieve that there are "eternal truths" - and I do not think that this is in contrast with Buddhism since truths are not necessarily "substantial", however I saw that many Buddhists would disagree as it happens*).

To clarify what I meant by "experiential", let me quote an excerpt of the Dhammapada (from: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=093):
"His path [i.e. that of a liberated individual] ,like that of birds in the air, cannot be traced."
This suggests to me a total freedom from all designations. Regardless of the acceptance of the "doctrine" of a particular school, this "image" is one of an absolute freedom. This - united to the fact that the there is a strong emphasis on the "here and now" - is what attracts me to Buddhism. While I think that the "metaphysics" is also interesting, I think that this "experiential" part is even more important (I admit that this a somewhat "perennialist" approach, but IMO it is the experiential part that is important regardless the fact that the "doctrine" is actually true or not). This experiential, in fact, part suggests me an absolute "boundlessness" (and actually my nick reflects my interest on the concepts of "infinite, boundless, ineffable" etc X-) ) .

Meditation therefore for me it is meant to "see" really important aspects of our existence that in "normal" life we neglect. And I also think that in ancient times where lives were less "constructed", so to speak, meditation (and other techniques) were possibly more effective. And the "boundlessness" which I referred before. At the same time this "openness to the higher", so to speak, must be accompained by a reduction of the "ego". If there is not this "reduction" the danger is a sort of "vainglory" (which is a quite important issue according to a very large number of traditions).

P.S. (maybe too much OT)
In many Buddhists for example I encountered a sort of "fear of the eternal". But IMO while, of course, transience is of a fundamental importance in Buddhism, nowadays it seems to much "emphasized". I read, for example, opinions (even among very respectable and serious teachers and/or monks) suggesting that "Nibbana/Nirvana" is nothingness, an "absolute void". I find such interpetrations somewhat "off" (albeit sometimes very logical and rigorous), I cannot articulate the feeling but it seems that I am "certain" that they are "wrong" (maybe it is only "clinging" X-) ). Personally while maybe nowadays it is a common interpretation, it appears that in ancient times, in fact, it was not. For example it seems that the ancient Theravadins held that Nibbana was "permanent, eternal..." as you can see here https://suttacentral.net/en/kv1.6 (however considering it "something" is maybe inappropriate. But considering it "nothing" is even worse..., possibly "no-thingness" in contrast to "nothingness" ). Anyway, I also see that even before the beginning of the Common Era there was a wide range of views about many tenets. This, oddly, quite conforts me and actually motivates my "skepticism/questioning".

Thank you. You might be interested in reading https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html and Smolin's thoughts (he wrote a book called "Time Reborn").

Yes I think that time is not like the spatial dimension. However I have some difficulty accepting that time passes without "any change". But I find it a respectable view. I will think about it in the following days.

Thanks for the link about Wittgenstein (I knew about his "spiritual side" which IMO is often unrightly disregarder - however it is true that he sometime compared to both buddhist and daoist philosophers).
Regarding Watts I only read that book and I found it well written. I like in particular his "free" quest, outside any particular organisation (in this experientially I feel very similar to him).

Actually to be more precise Buddhism attracts me on the pratical side rather than the "doctrinal" (which from a buddhist point of view might sound "weird" since "right view" is the first step) due to both skepticism and to some "views" that I have that might be regarded as "eternalistic" in a buddhist community. Also I have a hard time to accept a particular doctrine since I still percieve that there is an immense treasure of wisdom in other traditions. Doctrinal problems aside, on the experiential level I am finding Buddhism the most "accessible" since it refers to the actual immediate experience (to practice it one simply can start from his immediate experience without taking "tenets" on faith). On the other hand however other "doctrines" fascinate me a lot (and above all the unexpected similarities between them!). So I consider myself still a (very confused) questioning "agnostic".

Regarding the obstacles, thank you also for this link! It confirms my idea that spiritual life is full of paradoxes.

By the way I learned to accept my limitations in the practice. At first I expected only immediate results. After some time I came to realize that the practice is gradual and it must be done, as you say, to the "sake of doing it". It required some time (and also some suggestions from a "online" friend). But IMO if one cannot come to terms with himself the practice becomes impossible. So actually meditation, if anything, even stripped of its "spiritual" connotations should IMHO be performed to the simple sake to come to terms with oneself, to have a better outlook on life etc. But there is too much "hurry" in the modern society as others have mentioned: deadlines, bureocracy*, part-time jobs, obsessiveness with productivity, "publish or perish" attitude in the academia etc. From the Tao Te Ching (Lau translation, https://terebess.hu/english/tao/lau.html):

20

The multitude are joyous
As if partaking of the offering
Or going up to a terrace in spring.
I alone am inactive and reveal no signs,
And wax without having reached the limit.
Like a baby that has not yet learned to smile,
Listless as though with no home to go back to.
The multitude all have more than enough.
I alone seem to be in want.
My mind is that of a fool - how blank!
Vulgar people are clear.
I alone am drowsy.
Vulgar people are alert.
I alone am muddled.
Calm like the sea;
Like a high wind that never ceases.
The multitude all have a purpose.
I alone am foolish and uncouth.
I alone am different from others
And value being fed by the mother.

Yeah with all this "hurry" even meditating for reduce anxiety can lead to a certain amount of isolation, sadly.




*the Italian one seems to be quite infamous (I am Italian BTW)

thank you for sharing your experience! Excellent post (Y)

Personally I studied a bit of eastern philosophy almost four years ago. I read the "Tao Te Ching" simultaneously with some insights of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and for whatever reason I found a strong similarity between them (I remember that for many days I had a sort of "intellectual excitement" that suggested that there was surely a connection between the two works). Then I began my quest to discover eastern philosophies motivated also by the fact that eminent physicists like Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr, Bohm, Heisenberg etc were attracted too. So I started to digging in the net and at first I conflated Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism thinking that "they were the same" (actually reading "The Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance" did not help with this error). Then I began to appreciate their difference and I began to be more attracted by Buddhism, especially Theravada. Anyway until last summer it was merely an intellectual interest, nothing more. However when I understood that my intellectual questioning (especially about the "Unconditioned/Nibbana" and the doctrine of "rebirth") was meaningless without the actual experience, I decided (actually after a suggestion of a friend) to start meditation (at the same time I also read the "Way of Zen" of Alan Watts). Now I am trying to maintain a constant practice of both vipassana and samatha. I found the effects of medition immediate but a mixture of intellectual skepticism, doubt, laziness, anxiety, horrible time management etc is interfering with my "actual progress". Still this living experience is actually confirming the benefits of spiritual practices. Anyway while I am still higly skeptical of many "supernatural" claims made by religions and ancient philosophies I have to admit that in reality in many ways they store a lot of pratical and intellectual wisdom, sadly unrecognized in contemporary society.

Also I found that - to my knowledge - most (if not all) forms of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism all agree about the importance of trying to be not self concerned (and at the same time however you become aware of the "higher perspective" (e.g. in Buddhism the realization that all conditioned things are impermanent leads one to detach and to be less concerned...) -another paradox).

"Spiritual" practice make possible to actually, so to speak, experience the "wise words" of the sages. An intellectual understanding can of course give a "glimpse" on them, but the practice in fact permits to actually "see" them.

Excellent ;)

Regarding the marketing... yeah sometimes I have the same impression!

You are welcome! And thanks you for the links about Bohm and Verlinde!

Interesting. Thank you.

Yeah, I agree that the term "surrender" might be misleading. In fact what I have in mind is only a "surrender" of a particular type of will. But not of the "will itself". So IMO our perspectives are very similar on this. On the level of the will itself there is only a "calming", a "stilling" etc, not a real surrender. But normally our actions are somewhat conditioned by the "will to power". In order to achieve the calmness this "will to power" should at least in part "disappear".

I think it is only a matter of perspectives. If I realize that I cannot "rule over everything" I will in some sense surrender and give up my expectations. Possibly then I can work for calming my mind etc. After that as you say the will is spontaneous.

Actually this perspective reminds me a lot of Chan/Zen Buddhism (other than of course Daoism) where spontaneity, free action is seen as a liberated action. In both traditions the goal seems to be a state with no more plans, chains etc only spontaneity, freedom - the same spontaneity found in the flow of a river (except of course that we are aware and the river is not :) ).

Maybe on Zen @Wayfarer can confirm (or reject) what I have said.

So what about rephrasing the issue in these terms: It is a "surrender" of a particular type of will, namely the "will to power". But when we consider the "will" in fact the process is not really a surrender but only a calming, stilling etc.

Interesting... you might like also the idea behind Digital Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics (the rather questionable assumption is the computability of everything. But maybe the centrality of information in these (speculative) theories might be of your interest )

Regarding your concept of Mind... Do you think that "Mind" is the ultimate reality?

@Metaphysician Undercover
I am rather curious to know your understanding of the concept of "time". What do you mean by time as the "0th" dimension?

Probably the word "surrender" here can create problems.

What I meant was not really very so different to what you said now. The will cannot cease (while alive, of course). However as you say it can be quieted, calmed. And even calming the will is something that seems to go against our "intuition": we think that the "victor" is one who manages to "impose" on reality his/her will. Instead what I meant is that paradoxically it is the one who calms, quiets etc his will.

I do not know very well Daoist meditation (except for what I read about "zuowang" - sitting and forgetting) when for example you say:

It is all just quiet. My approach is Tai Chi which allows me to gradually sink into the state. One complete routine is usually about 27 min. At the end I feel the energy in my body as water flowing inside of me and moving me without will (Zhi). Something else is moving me.

it strongly suggests me the idea of "surrender". The will is completely calmed, there is no need to "control" everything etc. But if I am not misinterpreting what you say, you actually are "going along with the flow", at least for a while. In this sense I think that we can agree that the word "surrender" can apply.

What is more controversial is the possibility of a total let go/surrender. Regarding such a possibility I am more skeptical. But what I can say is that that a moderate "surrender" IMO is exactly the "calming" effect that you describe.

IMO in fact we are inclined to think, even unconsciously, that we can control everything. This leads us to express our "will to power" in order to "dominate". When however we begin to realize that such a control is impossible and our attempts in doing so are counterproductive we begin at least to question the validity of our expectations, desires, attempts to control etc. From the perspective of our instinct to dominate, the calming is really a surrender, I think.

As I said the real "denial" is actually continue to negate our inability to control things;)

Agreed.

As I said in my post I think for most authentic spiritual practices the idea is that one has to "surrender", to "let go", to "trust" etc. Paradoxically that "surrender" is correlated to (the highest) "victory" according to many religious traditions. The idea is that the "ego" shrinks to zero, so to speak, while the mind "joins" the infinite (in whatever form). The self-mastery has nothing to do with an egoistic drive. The self-mastery increases as "egoism" decreases.

This in fact contrary to our intuition. In fact we would expect that one who is "in control" is one who rules everything, or even imposes his will against others. But those who try to "impose" their will actually are those who actually lose (and are those who suffer the most).

Sadly it is very difficult to surrender :(

Hi all,

there are several approaches in meditation, of course. The most common are the "calming" ones where the person attempts to be mindful to a certain object of meditation, like for example the breath. These techniques are very useful to deal with anxiety attacks, stress etc. IMO there is no "denial" here: simply one tries to maintain self-control by trying to remain focused on some objects. For example this type of meditation is called "samatha" in Buddhism. These calming techniques are accessible to all, regardless their philosophy, religion etc

However there are of course other types of meditation. In Christianity there is the "contemplative prayer"*, for example (in fact the "eastern" meditative approaches should be called IMO "contemplation"...). In Buddhism as @Wayfarer mentioned there is the "insight meditation" (vipassana, zazen..) where one "observes" the arising and ceasing of bodily/mental feelings to realize their transient, unsatisfactory** and "not-self" nature. In the Chuang-Tzu (Daoism) there are mentioned various approaches. For example the "zuowang" (ch. 6) where one "sits and forgets" to become one with the Dao. In all these cases the idea is that one manages to acquire, so to speak, a different perspective on existence, rather than become calm and focused. But IMO it is necessary to emphasize the differences between the traditions. For example the "zuowang" appears similar to "zazen", "vipassana" etc but whereas in Daoism one tries to "unite" with the cosmic proccess, in Buddhism one tries to stop the "I-making" and "my-making", i.e. he tries to be free from identification and possession (and therefore in Buddhist eyes the Daoist approach is still characterized by a subtle tendency of "I-making", "my-making".).Therefore in Buddhism saying that one has the goal to become "joined" the "whole universe" is mistaken: in fact while "monists" seek to trascend duality to become "one", in Zen one searches to become "not-two" and "not-one", i.e. beyond all possibile conceptualization. Christianity is of course very dissimilar: one here searches to build a better relationship with a Divine Person, who is distinct from oneself (this is why the "total absorption in the Divine" is regarder "heretical" or at least "heterodox" in Christianity). To a skeptic maybe Buddhist "insight meditation", zazen etc are more appealing since are simply based on the observation of the experience. By the way even these "specific" types are seen to bring a better relation with life, i.e. they also have a sort of "calming" effect. This list IMO is very limited, however. ***

Despite the enormous differences between the various techniques however I should not call meditation as a type of "denial". Actually in order to meditate one must face his own problems, try to find the best technique that "fits" with himself, one must have a LOT of patience (since while some results are sometimes immediate the progress might take even years). IMO "denial" might manifest in an unwillingness to adimit that "something is wrong" and trying to "live as nothing is wrong". This at least should be clear with the "calming approaches" (and in them I include approaches of modern psychology like CBT, autogenic training...), but the same can be said for the "specific" techniques that are unique to each religion.

Finally I wanted to add that despite the enormous differences the "calming result" in most approaches (to my knowledge) arises from the "letting go". We let go our tendency of "controlling" (excessively) our lives. For example a Christian might try to have a more solid "faith" with God (in the same sense to the "faith" that we have with a friend, i.e. it is a "trusting" rather a "dogmatic faith"). A Daoist seeks to "go along with the flow of the ten thousand things". A Buddhist of course seeks to "let go completely of his tendency to grasp" etc it seems that an authentic meditation practice involves a radical effort to "let go", "trusting", "surrender" etc.However this "surrender" allows one to live better, i.e. to paradoxically "win".

*Of course for devotional practicies (i.e. those involving the worship of one or more "higher beings") arguably all types of prayer are a form of "meditation" and in fact they are expected to bring the same "better relationship" as the "contemplative prayer".
** to be more precise the momentary experiences are regarded "unsatisfactory" because of our attachment. However the contemplation on their impermanent nature should render us "dispassionate" (neither attached nor averse) to all of them.
***For example we might include all types of devotional practices, mantras etc

Edit: I forgot to mention also the post of @gurugeorge, who treats almost exactly the things I have said in a slightly different way.

Yeah, I agree entropic gravity is a very interesting approach (even if I do not really understand it very well). In some sense it reminds the ideas of the later Bohm, IMO.

Regarding the article about Bohm, thank you. I was familiar with the attempts to build a Bohmian version of QFT. However I did not know that there were so many attempts in doing so! As I said the Bohm approach is certainly very interesting even if I now prefer other interpretations. However as Feynman said theoretical physicists should know the greatest possible number of "formulations" of a given theory, in this case QM, QFT etc

Yea, I agree. Bohm was a very interesting scientist (and philosopher). I find him very insightful. But actually many of the "founders" of QM and relativity were in fact very nice philosophers and scientists (and also there was much less "aversion" between philosophers and science until circa the '80s).

Thank you for the mention of his "holographic view". I will check as soon as possible. ;)

For all,

Regarding the issue about "Bohm as a materialist"... Well the original work (i.e. the article of 1952) describes a "world" made of "point-like" particles which move in a deterministic fashion. It sounds pretty materialistic to me (however it is also true that the position of each particle in the universe depends on all other particles - the "influence" does not really decrease with the distance etc so while being "materialistic" it is of a curious kind!). I also agree that it is not the most mathematically elegant theory, but IMO it is very interesting. However some time later Bohm created an interesting philosophical system about "the implicate order" and "the explicate order". See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order . The later Bohm IMO cannot be "called" materialist, at least not in the "common" sense of the world (for those who are a bit familiar with Hindu philosophy, the "implicate" order seems quite similar to the notion of Brahman of some Vedanta Schools (Advaita and Vishishtadvaita for example)).



Yeah, I do not like the "new atheist" movement. I find their arguments very shallow and motivated by a sort of "a-priori" rejection of religion and metaphyisics. While of course for certain types of "religions/metaphysics" (i am thinking about the "anti-science" movements) they are right in their criticisms, I do not think that they raise serious objections to any religion. They seem, as you note, stubbornly convinced that religion and metaphysics cannot do anything good for the human being. They are dogmatic in their own positions. And sadly, I know many people who are "in agreement" with them. They are just too skeptical... But I want to emphasize the fact that this general aversion and skepticism is also due to the fact that too many religious people are skeptical about science (or even averse to it). And of course those "false gurus" are the worst!

Regarding Bohr and Heisenberg I agree (actually Bohr IMO was a really good philosopher). Thank you for the various link ;)

Other interesting info:

Another variant of PWT is the "t'Hoof theory" where however superdeterminism is accepted (and therefore it is local!).

Also see these links:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-refutation-of-bohmian-mechanics.490095/ (where many "objections" to Bohmian PWT are refuted... there are a lot of similar threads in "physicsforums")
http://www.bohmian-mechanics.net/whatisbm_links.html
also these Wiki articles are fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics


To me it is a very interesting "perspective" on QM, even if however I am more drawn to something along the lines of Rovelli and (especially) Bohr (of which I like his emphasis on the epistemological, rather than the ontological...). However to be honest all interpretations seem to me incomplete. However this does not of course undermine their value! It only reveals IMO that there is "something deep" beyond QM (and QFT), so to speak.

Actually I am a student of physics at the university and I have to say that I agree with you! To be honest I am quite dissatisfied by the "strict pragmatic approach" that many physicists use, especially after the '80s (however the problem is very old. For example Einstein famously was concerned with the hostility against what he called "epistemology", i.e. philosophy of science amongst some physicists of his time*). According to them physics deals with finding the best way to make "predictive calculations". In my opinion instead physics gives us information about "reality" and when you see it in this way, it is impossible to "separate" it from philosophy (epistemology and metaphysics). For example while the mathematical formalism of QM is well estabilished, there are a lot of interpretative problems. For example those who support the "pilot-wave theory" (let me call it "PWT") are very adamant in criticizing their colleagues because they feel that the lack of realism is meaningless. At the same time however some "Copenaghists" criticize the PWT for its explicit non-locality (this is the most serious problem of PWT, but not the only one) and other more techical stuff. A very interesting "school of thought" derives directly from the founder, Bohr. According to Bohr the "quantum world" is unknowable. Therefore concepts like "position", "velocity" do not apply to the "quantum world" because they were introduced for the classical "realm". This in a way resolves the "non-locality" problem, since even in quantum entanglement you cannot "see" the "supposed" faster than light interaction simply because the "signaling" process is a "classical concept" and it does not apply to quantum world**.

The Copenhagists on the other hand are criticized because they create a dichotomy between the quantum and the classical "realms", that sounds quite arbitrary (Bohr response to this issue, the so-called "correspondence principle" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/) to someone is not really satisfying) So there is also the "relational approach" proposed for example by the Italian physicist Rovelli. Briefly according to Rovelli QM must be able to describe all non-relativistic physics (and relativistic QM also the relativistic, but i prefer to not consider now relativity, since the relativistic version of QM, QFT, among other things is a field theory and there is even more confusion). The idea is that each "observer" "sees" his own "reality". Therefore in the "Schroedinger cat experiment" while, say, the cat observes its state as "alive" (fortunately for the cat, I love cats X-) ) while for the evil experimenter the cat the cat is "neither alive not dead" until he performs the observation. I do not know the precise details but according to Rovelli the non-locality is a non-issue in his interpretation. Then there is the MWI which is mathematically the simplest one but has problems with justifing the "Born Rule" (i.e. the "probabilistic rule for predictions") and also has a technical problem, the preferred basis problem (i.e. it does not really explain why we "observe" a classical world). So as you can see once you step in "philosophy" (personally I would call it "physics" but I am a "weirdo", it seems 8-) ) the views are many. It is IMO a shame that in the university classes it is seldom (if ever) mentioned.

*https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1910s see the quote relative to EInstein's speech at the obituary of Planck.
**Since I noted (from other threads) that you have at least a very strong interest in buddhism, I find it somewhat reminiscent to the (mainly Mahayana) buddhist position about the fact that for "conditioned phenomena" neither "existence" nor "non-existence" apply. However do not take too seriously the analogy, take it just for "fun".



Regarding materialism, I also agree. But IMO in fact there are a lot of scientists that are actually "open". The problem however is that there is an awful number of (often "self-described") "gurus", "spiritual teachers" etc that insist that science either "proves" nonsense or that science is useless***. This behaviour causes a lot of skepticism among scientists. Also science is very empirical and therefore when one makes a lot of claims about "reality" which is not "in line" with the accepted theories (even after being corrected more than once...), scientists are (rightly IMO) adamant in dismissing him/her. The problem is that somewhat unconsciously this "aversion" sometimes is also "extended" to honest "inquirers", simply because sometimes the language is different. There is too much "suspiciousness" which is partly justified by the real presence of "crackpots" but I agree it is excessive (for example I find Krauss argument against the existence of God quite "shallow", since he does not really understand that "nothing" cannot be compared to either the "vacuum state" in physics or "the phyisical laws").

Regarding Bohm, we have to remember that his work had different phases and the latter part was not always "in line" with the early. The original article of Bohmian mechanics (the 1952 article I mean) does cite the "quantum potential" but it is a non-local deterministic theory. Later however he tried to introduce in physics his (interesting) concepts of "implicate and explicate order" in his scientific work. However usually physicists refer to the "early stages" of his work. And also now many "bohmians" do not accept the ontological status of the wavefunction and reject the "quantum potential" altogether (they do accept the strong non-locality of the theory, though, and consider the "wavefunction" simply as a sort of "physical law"... it is called the "nomological variant of Bohmian mechanics"). Also "Nelson mechanics" is causal, but non-deterministic, pilot-wave theory to my knowledge. If I do recall correctly it is partly based on the Pilot-Wave theory of Bohm (1952)| .

*** Edit: minor correction in this phrase.

A shorter (and possibly clearer answer).

The wavefunction according to the "standard/pratical interpretation" is merely a tool for the calculations. However the wavefunction itself does NOT give you the probability distribution. So it is not an observable and not therefore a physical "thing". To a physicist what we observe is what is real.

And what about the unobservable? Here to the pratical physicist you are already in philosophy (and some physicists actually have a sort of "aversion" to philosophy).

In the case of the experiment therefore: the "real" is the interference pattern (which of course is observed). If you perform a single-particle experiment, of course, you do not observe the interference pattern (and therefore you infer that the "quantum particle" behaves as a particle). However if you do a "large number" of single-particle experiments you will find that the "total" interference pattern follows a wave-like law. And therefore you conclude that the "quantum particle" behaves like a wave. The wave-like nature however is apparent only when you have a statistically significant number of single-particle experiment (or if you perform a single experiment with many particles).

Consider the case of a single experiment with a single particle. Are the other "possibilities" in some sense "real"?

1) If you accept the Copenaghen interpretation: no. They are not real. What is real is the observed. The quantum system, when unobserved is either "unknowable" or unreal. So do the other possibilities exist? Possibly some phyicists would say that "it does not apply". The question itself is meaningless. We can only say meaningful things about what we observe (similar to positivism). Or maybe "it does not apply" for other suggests that the "unobserved quantum particle" is indeed a "reality" but we cannot describe it in any ways.

2) If you accept the Many-Worlds yes. But you cannot observe them since the "other" paths actualize in "other worlds". In this interpretation actually the only fundamental "reality" is the universal wavefunction, which "never collapses". The fact that we observe only one occurence is due to the fact that we cannot observe "the universe".

3) If you accept the Bohmian mechanics actually the particle follows a precise path. The other paths are so to speak "empty". The other possibilities are "real" if you accept the wavefunction as a "thing" or "unreal" if you do not accept the wavefunction as real. Also in this case the only "true" wavefunction is the universal one which "guides" all the particles in the universe. However in practice since of course we cannot observe the whole universe we have to use "conditional wavefunctions" to describe the dynamics. Are the conditional wavefunctions real? No, they are only a tool.

There are also other interpretations. However they are all in agreement with the "observed reality". The contention is about how to interpret what we cannot observe. And in a sense speaking about what we cannot observe is "meta-physics". And in fact many physicists do not engage in philosophical discussions because of this, To them speaking about the "unobservable" is futile or "beyond our range". Therefore when someone begins to "philosophize" sometemise they grow angry!

However the real problem is not philosophy. The problem is that sometimes people try to use QM to "prove" that nonsense like "law of attraction" & similar are "true". For this reasons many physicists have a strong aversion to philosophy and tend to react "badly" IMO to honest philosophical discussions.

Hi @Wayfarer,

I try to answer in a non-relativistic point of view.

Short answer: the particle does not interfere with itself. In QM the interference pattern is predicted by the form of the wavefunction which can be inferred by previous observations or by theoretical assumptions.

But I then introduced the argument that this shows that the 'wave equation' is independent of time (and therefore space, as I had understood these two to be related as 'space-time' in relativistic physics). I said, in particular, that 'what is causing the interference pattern is outside, or not a function of, space-time'.

In my opinion here you are right. The wave equation is in fact independent of time in QM in form. However the wavefunction is of course a function of the positions (which in QM are (hermitian) operators, i.e. observables) and time (in QM it is a parameter and not an operator).However in non-relativistic QM the "squared modulus" of the wavefunction is proportional to the density probability to find a particle in a position at a given time.

However strictly speaking the cause of the interference pattern is not "outside".In this case, in fact, the wavefunction is a sum of two terms: there is a term that describes the path through the first slit and another relative to the other path. However the wavefunction itself is not an observable. What you can observe is the probability distribution. Forgive me if I use a simplified formula:
Let F be the wavefunction, f1 the part relative to the first path and f2 the path relative to the second.
F = f1 + f2. The wavefunction however is complex. So the probability density distribution is:
FF* = f1f1* + f2f2* + (f1f2* + f2f1*)
The first two terms (f1f1* and f2f2*) are always positive. The sum of the other two (the interference) however can be negative (hence the minima)! What you observe is that the particles follow that probability distribution (which of course is related to the interference pattern: the maxima of the interference pattern are the points where FF* has a maximum and the minima where FF* has a minimum). The interference therefore is given by the wavefunction itself: if our system is not time-invariant of course the probability distribution can change during time. The interesting feature of QM however is that you do not observe F (and so f1 and f2) itself but FF*. So it does not intefer with itself, simply the interference pattern depends on the (a-priori unknown) expression of the wavefunction.

The interaction is between the particle and the experimental apparatus. However the wavefunction has all the information about this interaction.

Remember that in a single experiment what happens is that we observe only one "path". To observe all possible path and therefore to verify that there is a "probabilistic" law we have to do a lot of measuerements. Consider a simplified version ot the experiment. Suppose that the particle can be observed only in two points of space, P1 and P2. Prior to the experiment you cannot know where the particle will be observed. You perform the experiment and you find the particle at P1. You perform a LOT of experiments and you find that with a probability p1 you find the particle at P1. QM says that when you perform another observation you will find the particle at the position P1 with a probailty p1.


Of course you can also predict the form of the wavefunction theoretically (i.e. from theoretical assumptions) - and in fact it is what is almost always done in physics. In fact you can include in the wavefunction all the information about physical interaction (i.e. for example the influence of a electro-magnetic field).


Regarding the ontology there is a lot of views.
Some adherents to the Copenaghen interpretation think that the real is what is observed, therefore until observed we cannot say that the particle "exists". (the wavefunction is not real and until observed the particle does not "exist" - Recall Einstein objections)
Others adherents instead think that it is an epistemological issue. They think that we can only make meaningful statements on the observed. Therefore prior the observation the "ontic status" of the quantum system is unknowable. In both cases the wavefunction is a "predictive tool".
Then there is the MWI (many-worlds). They think instead that the only existing thing is the universal wavefunction which never "collpases". All possibilities are actualized (therefore the particle goes to both slits!). The fact that we observe only a determinate path is due to a sort of an illusion.
The original Bohmian-mechanics treated both the particles and (universal) wavefunction as real. The wavefunction guides all the particles of the universe. Again we observe the probability distribution because of our "ignorance" (we do not observe the whole evolution of the universe).
The "new" Bohmian mechanics instead treats the wavefunction as a "law". The only reality is given by the particles.
There is also the Relational Approach, Statistical interpretation and others.



I suggest this link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

I hope to have been of help :-#

Hello everyone,

I am an Italian physics student with a strong interest in philosophy. In particular I am fascinated by epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and "spirituality".
I like also to write about philosophy (I also have some readers among my friends X-) ).

As a hobby, I also like fantasy (for a while I considered to write a novel but I realized that it is an impossible task for me), sci-fi ecc