But this is unacceptable because we really need to respect the fact that the human being is doing something when it is producing sensations, and unless we can adequately account for what it is doing, and separate the procedure, from the observation, our observations will be inaccurate.

There is an age-old argument for the immaterial soul, the tinted glass analogy. It's simple, and self-evident that unless you determine that the glass you are looking through is tinted, then all your observations will be tainted. So the argument is, that if we want to understand all of material existence, then we must give the soul a purely immaterial perspective. This is why dualism is unavoidable if our goal is to understand all of material existence. It is required to accept dualism in principle, to get there, to assume the immaterial perspective, and if it is wrong, i.e. the immaterial perspective is impossible, then we will just never get there. But we will not know until we try. Therefore we need to assume the immaterial perspective if our goal is to understand all of material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that even sensing is an act. And in fact in classical mechanics the idea is that the "interaction" due to the measurement is negligible, whereas in QM the issue is of course problematic. I am not sure however how this argument helps to show that there is an immaterial soul. In fact even the emergentist would not say that "the mind" is a material "object" but rather an immaterial one (the closest analogy that an emergentist would give is that of a "phase" of matter, like say solidity. But even this analogy for the emergentist is very poor...). I possibly misunderstood your argument but if the "tint" is the immaterial aspect of reality, then you are saying that if we want to understand the glass (matter) we should verify if there is or not the "tint" (and therefore we need the concept of "tint" in the first place). But as I said before this reasoning can be used only against strict reductionists ("eliminativists") who argue that there is no absolutely anyhting that is not material.

The basic assumption which is required then, is that we need to find the immaterial perspective. That is why I suggested time as the 0th dimension. We take the division between past and future, which forms the passing of time, as the immaterial perspective of the soul. This boundary has been assumed, in the past, to have no temporal extension, therefore it provided for the location of the soul, because no material existence is possible at this point in time, which has no temporal extension. To exist is to have temporal extension.

Now, we find with modern physics, that this immaterial perspective may be illusory. Perhaps, the "change" from future to past is not absolutely instantaneous. Perhaps some types of objects move from future to past before other types of objects. If this is the case, then we need to determine the soul's immaterial perspective. So we need to refine our position, find out exactly what it means to move from future to past, to restore our hope of understanding all material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually "physical space" and "physical time" should not be confused with "experienced time" and "experienced space". If we accept that "consciousness" is something real (i.e. we reject reductionism), then the two should not be confused. For the mind time is the "flow" and "space" is given by sensations, proprioperception etc. The problem is when we conflate the two creating conceptual confusion. Saying that according to physics our "space" and "time" are illusory is IMO meaningless since in the first place the concepts were different. At best we can say that "experienced space" is a "mental construct" that is used to represent the external objects whereas "experienced time" is instead correlated to physical time. But conflating the two creates only confusion: our "time" is not an illusion... instead, so to speak, it is the pre-condtion of our experience. Our experiences "appear" in the percieved time. If there were no consciousness time would be merely physical, i.e. the causal nexus between events. But since there IS congnition our "time" is not reducible to the time of clocks, it is a different, albeit correlated thing.

BUT it is also true that the causal nexus itself appears dynamic (if we are not advocating the "Block Universe") and therefore we have to say that "material" past and future events are non-existent. But while for material objects we can think that time IS change (the causal chain...), for us time has also a cognitive aspect which is a precondtion of experience. But I think that maybe even the psychological/experienced time is "quantized" even if it appears to not be the case. But possibly we will never know it. Anyway calling our "perception" of time an illusion simply because, say, there is a temporal dilation effect between our head and our feet whereas for us it appears "the same", is a product of either a mistaken reductionism (our consciousness IS our brain) or a conceptual confusion (the percieved time MUST have the same properties of the "clock/physical time"). Nobody actually estabilished that it is so. So who say so IMO is only speculating and not using "scientific evidence" in the correct way.

Here's the problem I apprehend with the differential in time scales. For the sake of argument, let's assume the soul's immaterial perspective, at the point of division between future and past. Let's assume that when an object goes past this point it becomes observable to the soul. Going into the past is what constitutes observability. For a spatial analogy, consider a plane. Objects are crossing the plane and you see them only when they emerge on one side. This is what constitutes the object's existence from the perspective of the soul, its being in the past, across that line of division. Now let's assume some very large objects, and some very small objects. Suppose that a very large object, due to its size, takes a little longer to get into the past than a very small object which crosses the plane instantaneously. We can make a time scale by watching large objects go into the past, and, we can make a time scale by watching very small objects go into the past. But since the amount of time that it takes for a large object to go into the past has been assumed to be different from the amount of time that it takes for a small object to go into the past, then we need to determine this difference in order to properly relate these time scales. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah ok, a very creative thought 8-) Well... If you followed my reasoning about the difference between the two "types" of time, then I think you can rightly imagine that something similar actually happens. Our percieved time flows in a way that in principle is different than the "clock time". In our analogy, we might even think that instead of a plane there is a sort of "membrane" that has a small, but non infinitesimal, thickness. In this case the "crossing" might depend a lot also by the "orientation" of the objects. Or maybe the thickness might change during life and therefore the mechanism of "crossing" varies. What I want to say is that our "experienced time" might be very different from both our intuition and the "clock time" when analyzed carefully. But if we do not conflate the two "times" I think that we can accept this "weirdness". And if you believe in an immaterial soul, this should be more acceptable to you than an emergentist IMO. In fact the time of our immaterial soul in principle might be very different from the material/physical "clock time" when analysed in the details simply because we are talking about two different "substances". IMO even if physicists actually observe such small durations your reasoning can be still applied to our "experienced time". By the way your spatial analogy might apply also to "physical time" but I have reservation in accepting it because it is too complex. I prefer to keep the two times separate, since one involves a cognitive aspect (and cognition is immaterial).

With dualism we can extend this way of looking at things to include the entire human body. Not only does the soul create concepts which are the constructed map, the way of looking at the world, but the soul has created the entire human body first, as its way of looking at the world, its map. The map, the body, is the medium through which we are looking at the world. We need to account for all the elements of the medium, giving the soul the purely immaterial perspective, in order to avoid the tinted glass problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mmm, to me matter is not created by mind/soul but mind/soul is not reducible to matter (regarding the pre-existence of the soul or the after-life I am agnostic by the way... simply because I have difficulty to think that it is possible to have a self-awareness without a body). But while I agree that the mind creates concepts and also participates actively in creating the "direct experience", I would not said that it creates the body. It certainly creates however a "map" of the body itself. Yet there is in fact a sense in which what you say is true: we never experience "matter" itself. Therefore our experiences about both our body and the external world are in fact a product of the mind. And as for our direct experience is concerned the "material world" reduced to the "map" we create about it. As I said "outside" the experience we can only make reasonable guesses. So yeah the immaterial part of ourselves is in fact what "is central to us" and certainly uses the body as its "medium" with reality. But I would not say that it creates the body. (The difference IMO is that you speak of creation in an ontological sense, while i think it is true at the epistemic...)

Hope to have not misunderstood your post! (also my exposition maybe was not very clear this time :( )



In a sense I agree. But what I meant is that we never "experience" or "observe" with lab instruments the splitting in MWI and therefore it is impossible to "visualize". This however is not a problem for MWI since we already know that this "uniqueness" is due to our ignorance. Maybe "illusion" gives the wrong impression. I would probably used "distorsion". According to MWI our perspective is distorted in a way that we cannot see "reality-as-it-is" but only a sort of "reflected image" of it. This idea is not very different from Bohm's idea that we experience the "explicate order" instead of the "implicate".

They are perfectly compatible. At least they are compatible in the absence of time travels. But since time paradoxes are IMO nonsense (it is not possible to change the past and so on), they are compatible.

The relative simultaneity at best say that descriptions of some phenomena of two different reference frames are different. But in "the big picture", i.e., tha mathematical framework of the theory they is no contradiction (in the same way that the measurement of velocity of a car measured in its rest frame and measured by a speed camera are not contradictory).

I think this is exactly the point I was making. I wouldn't say that being observed by instruments is being observed, in any unqualified sense. That is because the instruments gather information, and the information must be interpreted according to theories. So there is an extra layer of interpretation there which is dependent on the validity of the theories employed. Take your map analogy. Suppose we have instruments, satellites for example, which are observing the earth, gathering information. Then, with the use of theories, the instruments produce a map of what a human being would see on the earth. You might say that the satellites allow us to observe the earth, but the observations are only as accurate as the theories which are used to interpret the information. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok I see. In principle you are right. We cannot have a "direct experience" of what the instruments in the labs register, i.e. we have an additional interpretative level. Or rather two... Let me explain what I mean.

What we experience is that the instruments "do some stuff" (pardon the imprecise language) and we interpret it an "observation". However it is an assumption, albeit a "very reasonable" one. We do not oberve what the satellite are observing but only how the satellite is "behaving". This is VERY similar to Heisenberg/Bohr reasoning, minus the fact that even they assumed that the observation is an interaction between the experiment apparatus and the "thing" observed by it. To me this is also the reason why science cannot "prove" itself. We need philosophy of science, i.e. we need to explain what we are observing when we analyse the experimental apparatus. But in the strictest sense this is not science, anymore. It is philosophy of science. But even if we accept that there is still a layer of interpretation, i.e. we need to use some assumptions in order to interpret the "results" of the observations. In the case of the satellites it is simple (in fact we can see the Earth...). But with an atomic microscope we cannot be so sure: we have not a direct experience of the atoms, for example (in fact this was, more or less, the objection of Mach against the atomic theory). We need a theory that can account for how the observation, i.e. the interaction of the instrument with the "thing" observed, happens. Here I think you are right, our theories actually condition how we interpret even how we interpret observations themselves. And in fact Bohr, for example, was agnostic about "the nature of the quantum world" - except the fact that the "cause" of the observation is a sort of interation of the "quatum stuff" and the experimental apparatus. In a similar way we can say that in fact we cannot really know "what the quantum world is" by performing experiments. After all it was Bohr who said:
"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." and "We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. " https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr (however I suggest you to read https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/ and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/)

Yes, I think that all observations are ultimately reducible to constructs, and the accuracy of the construct is dependent on the theories employed. So even if you sit at your window, and describe what you are seeing outside, your description is limited by your language capacity. Your language represents the theories you employ in describing the situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I think I can agree. Direct experience is after all in some sense both "pre-conceptual" and "beyond concepts" (Very "zen" X-) ). We use our constructs as a map (this is not to say that they are "false" or a "misconception"...). For example a "chair" is concept we "impose" on our experience. But our experience does not tell us that there is a "chair". Yet conventionally/practically it is very useful to use those concepts. As I also said about the "world outside our experience" we can be agnostic and make some "reasonable guesses". (That's why I am very interested in many "eastern" philosophies which are interested in the "direct/non-conceptual" experience!).

I think that the standard caesium clock measures a time period much longer than a femtosecond. Regardless, I think that the clock doesn't "observe" the time duration, for the reasons discussed above. The clock gathers information which is interpreted according to theory and this produces an "observation".. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ooops sorry, you are right. Atomic clocks arrive at "picoseconds", those who arrive near the "femtoseconds" seem to be "mode-locked" lasers.

According to what we have said, yes. But still I think that our present theories are so successful that we can say that it "observes" such a small temporal duration! But in principle you are righ, I think. And in fact this objection is even more justified for smaller scales

I look at "the cause of our experience" in a different way. I think of the biological systems of the human organism as the cause of our experience. Our bodies take information from our environment, interpreting it, and constructing something which is presented to the conscious mind, which interprets this, and constructs something again. So the causation is really within, in the act of constructing. — Metaphysician Undercover

But... our "biology" is conditioned by the external environment, as you say. So causation itself IMO is also "outised" us. The problem is how we interpret it. This in fact can be said to be "within". All our experience "arises" from the "contact" of our consciousness our biological systems and "something external" (unless one is a solipsist we have to admit that "the external world" co-causes our experience... but maybe a solipsist does not even accept the existence of the body). For example when we touch something, that "something" produces signals that are interpreted by our brain and our consciousness (brain and consciousness are not identical for the emergentist - let alone dualists or other theories). So causation cannot be said to be wholly "within", but at the same time our "description" of it IS "within".

It is necessary because the nature of free will, creativity, and all that "construction" which occurs within us, that I just described, which indicates that we need to assume something more than the "causal chain of happenings" to understand reality. As a free willing being, I see possibilities in the future. I can influence the future with my decisions, such that I can start a causal chain of happenings intended to bring about what I want. This ability to start a causal chain of happenings, at any moment of the present, needs to be understood. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, so in our view time is in fact "within us"? I think I can agree: the "time" we "experience" is NOT the time "measured" by clocks. Are you saying this?



I agree that it is extravagant, but this argument is that it is even either more extravagant than Bell thought (i.e. there are "Many-Many" worlds) or describes a "universe" where literally nothing happens. In any case in MWI the "reality" is the wavefunction.

Of course even somehow we can "avoid" the objection raised by the article it is very "extravagant". We are in a sort of illusion, thinking that our world is "the reality". But even all "the stories" together cannot be said that are reality. The reality according to them IS the universal wavefunction which is eternally in a superposition state (the cat is always both alive and dead BUT we are inside the universe so we observe either alive or death). Interestingly both Bohm and Bell held that in PWT the wavefunction is as real as MWI, but according to them our "story" is "real" because there are also particles. This raised an objection to PWT itself (mainly by MWI-advocates) since if we hold that the universal wavefunction is real, then it never collapses and therefore there are, in fact, other stories but they are "empty" of particles. MWI-supporters see PWT as an unnecessary complication whereas PWT supporters raise the objection above and the (fatal IMO) objection that it CANNOT reproduce, without additional axioms, the Born Rule (the probabilistic predictions of QM). MWI-supporters (e.g. Tegmark, De-Witt, Deutsch...) hold that both are "resolved" or "not very important", but I never found a convincing "defense". Also some PWT no more treat the wavefunction as real, but as "nomological", i.e. a sort of physical law, because of the problem raised about the "empty stories".

Regarding your question about split... Well, no. But remember that according to MWI our world is not real as we normally think. To a well-written FAQ about MWI see http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html.

Personally I find too much "extravagant". I am more in line with Bohr and in a lesser grade Rovelli (but interestingly I am fascinated by also Bohm). MWI also would be very elegant (mathematically) but thetwo objections above IMO rule it out.

By the way Everett's original interpretation was a bit different, it was called "relative state interpretation", the MWI it seems is its most famous type. But I do not rember very well these things.

See also this for a "mental" interpretation of MWI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation (this might of your interest!)

Thank you for sharing the sutra, very interesting and clear! So both the Mahayana and like the classical Theravada refute in a very expliciti way this type of "nihilism" (apparently however in different ways). Sadly it seems that reductionism influenced many Buddhist out there.

My view is that Nirvāṇa and the unconditioned is never an object of perception however the mind constantly tries to find or identify it as an object. Ceasing from that false effort is ‘the way of negation’. Actually it’s somewhat similar to the mystical approach ‘cloud of un-knowing’, except that it is not focussed on deity. — Wayfarer

Yeah that is also my interpretration. In fact the language is "apophatic" in order to not "cling" to a false concept of Nirvana. Regarding the "cloud" I agree the approach is similar.

But nihilism is nevertheless a pitfall for Buddhists. It comes from interpreting śūnyatā as merely nothingness or non-existence. In actual fact, śūnyatā refers to ‘conditioned existence’ i.e. all objects of perception, sensation, thought, etc are compound, subject to decay, and so on. — Wayfarer

Agreed! the "voidness" simply points to the lack of "fixity" * of the conditioned. It is a "no-thingness" rather than a "mere nothingness". It allows change and therefore also life. After all if we were "fixed" we could not have any chance of make progress.

*I prefer the term "fixity" rather than "permanence" since Buddhism refutes "annihilationism", i.e. the view that at death the "self" is destroyed (and therefore it refutes the view that "something" can remain "fixed/stable" for a while and at a certain point being destroyed).

Thank you very much for the insights! (Y) :)

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