Is he saying the probability wave is the particle?

But perhaps I am misinterpreting it. — jgill

As you know, the 'wave-particle duality' is one of the fundamental oddities of quantum mechanics. Bohr said, as I understand it, that you can't see whether it 'really is' a wave or a particle - that whether it appears as wave or particle depends on the way you set up the experiment ('nature exposed to our method of questioning' was another pithy aphorism.)

But the reason I posted it, was in response to the claim that there's nothing mysterious about the whole wave-function collapse business, we just change the object because of interfering with it. That really overlooks the greatest philosophical conundrum of modern physics. Not claiming that I can adjuticate it or have the definitive interpretation, so much as pointing out that (1) nobody can and (2) there isn't one.

1. Thing-in-itself appears to us as an unknowable entity; — AmadeusD

The 'thing in itself' is not anything, by definition. In order for it to be Something, it would have to appear.

ding-an-sich serves as a placeholder in Kant, to remind us that knowledge is limited to what appears to us, and the judgement we make ot it. We can't know what it really is, as it is in itself. But that doesn't make the thing in itself an unknowable something. Seeing it like that misreads or misunderstands why the term was used in the first place.


1. The "thing in itself" is not anything, by definition: the "thing in itself" is not an object of human knowledge or experience. Kant posited that human cognition is limited to what appears to us through our sensory perception and understanding. The "thing in itself" exists beyond the realm of human knowledge and experience.

2. In order for it to be Something, it would have to appear: it must be capable of appearing or being apprehended in some way. Kant argued that our knowledge is rooted in sensory experience and conceptual understanding, so the "thing in itself" cannot be known because it does not appear in this manner.

3. Ding-an-sich serves as a placeholder: Kant used the term "Ding-an-sich" as a placeholder or conceptual tool to emphasize the limits of human knowledge. It reminds us that our knowledge is contingent upon what appears to us and the judgments we can make about those appearances.

4. The thing in itself is not an unknowable something: while the "thing in itself" is unknowable in the sense that we cannot directly access it through human cognition, it should not be regarded as an entirely mysterious or unknowable entity. This view aligns with Kant's intent in using the concept to highlight the boundaries of human knowledge rather than making it completely unknowable.

The problem that Capital R realists have, is that they can't abide the notion that there's something about the proverbial Apple or Chair (='any object') which we don't see or understand. So they feel this burning urge to 'peek behind the curtain' and see what 'it really is'. That innate realism is a kind of barrier to understanding transcendental idealism in my view. The thing they need to learn is a kind of circumspection - rather Socratic in orientation, really.

A lot of people try to wave away the perpexities sorrounding quantum physics. I'm not a physicist, but I've discussed it with physicists, including posting detailed questions on Physics Forum and reading a pretty extensive list of books. And I don't believe anyone who says there is 'no mystery' around it. But I'm not going further along that line, as it's a famous derailer. Suffice to say, I'm one of the many who claim that quantum physics has forever torpedoed any simple form of physicalism. What remains is a general commitment to scientific method as the royal road to truth, a.k.a. 'scientism'.

But the philosophical point about the inherent limitation of objectivity remains.
— Wayfarer

It remains mostly just as a remark of an obvious observation on human perception, but it fails to lock down limitations as actual limitations of knowledge. We cannot see all wavelengths of light, but we know about them, we can simulate them, we use them both in measurements and in technology. Understanding reality doesn't require limitless perception, nor is it needed. — Christoffer

I'm not talking about the limits of knowledge. There is no end of things to discover. I'm talking about the limitations of objectivity as a mode of knowing.

Carl Sagan? He emphasizes the idea that sometimes people construct their beliefs first and then selectively choose or interpret facts to support those beliefs. — Christoffer

I looked it up - facts as being like 'ships in bottles' was from a philosopher called Jimena Canales, mentioned here some time back, link here. The point is, facts are always embedded in a context - theoretical, historical, social, and so on. The point about classical physics was that its calculations and predictions were not dependent on context in the way that higher-level and less straightforward sciences are. They are universally applicable, within a range. Physicalism generally wishes to extrapolate that method to knowledge in general.

The "observer" in quantum physics has to do with any interaction affecting the system. When you measure something you need to interact with the system somehow and that affects the system to define its collapsing outcome. This has been wrongfully interpreted as part of human observation, leading to pseudo-science concepts like our mind influencing the systems. But the act of influence is whatever we put into the system in order to get some answers out. — Christoffer

Not according to Brian Greene:

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. As an example, take a look at a particularly simple probability wave for a particle, the analog of a gently rolling ocean wave, shown in Figure 4.6.

Since the peaks are all uniformly moving to the right, you might guess that this wave describes a particle moving with the velocity of the wave peaks; experiments confirm that supposition. But where is the particle? Since the wave is uniformly spread throughout space, there is no way for us to say that the electron is here or there. When measured, it literally could be found anywhere. So while we know precisely how fast the particle is moving, there is huge uncertainty about its position. And as you see, this conclusion does not depend on our disturbing the particle. We never touched it. Instead, it relies on a basic feature of waves: they can be spreak out. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

It is a fact that when the measurement is taken (or a registration is made) then the previously 'spread-out' nature of the 'particle' suddenly assumes a definite position. That is the (in)famous wave-function collapse the nature of which is still a matter of contention. It was what lead Wheeler to say that 'no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon'. This is the sense in which quantum physics definitely mitigates against physicalism, and why you are compelled to dispute it.

insubstantial pluralism. — JuanZu

That's new to me!

Fossils are a good example. Did they just happen to form, or are they present because they have a material past?

I believe many things about the past -- the before now -- which are about the physical world. So I figure that must be physical, even if not present. (That dodoes existed, for instance) — Moliere

The philosophy I'm interested in recognises the empirical reality of past events, the pre-history of life before man and so on. But the reality that is imputed to them, is still imputed by an observing mind - yours, mine and whomever else considers the matter. The question is, is temporarility itself truly independent of any observing mind? And if the answer is yes, according to what scale or perspective is it so? Time - the measurement of duration - seems to me to depend on scale or perspective, and that is what it provided by the observing mind. None of which is to deny the reality of the fossil record.

I stand corrected.... :yikes:

I guess the guy that told it to me wasn't a mathematician.

There's an old joke. A University Chancellor was going through budget requests with the board of directors.

'The physics department!' he says, throwing his hands up in the air. 'They always want such enormous amounts of money! Big pieces of equipment, special buildings, all kinds of stuff.

"Why can't they be more like the English Department? All they want is books, and stationary, and wastepaper bins.

"Or the math department. They don't even want the bins."

It seems obvious to me that there is no duck or rabbit until a mind observes the drawing and attaches meaning to it. This then leads me to think there is no information in a string of 1's and 0's unless a mind attaches meaning to the string of digits. For anyone who thinks information can exist independent of minds, where am I going wrong? IS there a duck or rabbit even when no one is looking at the picture? How does that work? — RogueAI

Have another look at Mind and the Cosmic Order. It is a book that has quite a lot to say about just this point.

:up:

You mean M. Scott Peck? I did read Road Less Travelled in the 90's, one of my favourites.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the post I responded to. We'll see.

Incidentally, something came out of the reporting on the hearing on Trump's claims for immunity from prosecution. Trump is arguing that, as he wasn't convicted by the Senate after Congress impeached him over the Jan 6th atrocity, then he shouldn't face further consequences. But at the time Senator Mitch McConnell said, of the Senate decision to acquit, in a speech directly after the acquittal vote, McConnell delivered a blistering rebuke of Trump's actions, calling them a "disgraceful dereliction of duty" and stating that he was "practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day" of the Capitol riot. He denounced the "wild falsehoods" Trump fed to his supporters and condemned his role in inciting the attack.

But despite his harsh criticism, McConnell voted to acquit Trump. He based his decision on a legal argument that the Senate lacked the constitutional authority to convict a former president. He contended that impeachment is meant to remove officials from office, not punish them after they have left office. But he added "The former President is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. Didn't get away with anything yet. Yet."

It's kind of a 'heads I win, tails you loose' proposal from Trump.

And I'm still utterly convinced that Trump's candidacy will collapse before the Republican Convention in July in Milwaukee.

If Christoffer responds to this and tries to correct your misconceptions, do you consider it likely that you will be inclined to tell him that his response was too long? — wonderer1

I don't think it was too long. I made that remark in a different context where I felt it appropriate.

the more knowledge one has of the physical laws of reality, the theories and how they play together, the more conceptually vivid it becomes and in such abstract ways that they do not reflect mere perceptually defined concepts. — Christoffer

If, by 'laws of reality' you mean 'natural law' or 'scientific law', are these themselves physical? I think that is questionable. The standard model of particle physics, for instance, comprises an intricate mathematical model, or set of mathematical hypotheses. But are mathematics part of the physical world that physics studies? This as you know is a contested question, so I'm not proposing it has a yes or no answer. Only that it is an open question, and furthermore, that it's not a scientific question.

Furthermore physics itself has thrown the observer-independence of phenomena into question. That, of course, is behind the whole debate about the observer problem in physics, and the many contested interpretations of what quantum physics means. I know that is all a can of worms and am not proposing to debate it, other than to say that both the 'physicality' and 'mind-independence' of the so-called 'fundamental particles of physics' are called into question by it.

facts that relate to what is actually there outside of our perception — Christoffer

I recall a quote from a philosopher of science along the lines of facts being constructed like ships in bottles, carefully made to appear as if the bottle had been built around them.

RIght, there was a long discussion years back about whether Trump falls into Harry Frankfurter's designation of a bullshitter - answer is resounding yes.

It's such a shame this thread still exists, I honestly thought after the jan 6th atrocity and his election wipeouts it would be all consigned to the past. Someone has to come up with the wooden stake. Hopefully soon.

. And pointing out that our perception is the source of how we believe reality to be isn't a revolutionary argument, it is true for those people who doesn't dwell on these things but that doesn't mean it is true for those who do, and it ignores the facts and operations that we use to control reality around us, facts that relate to what is actually there outside of our perception and which can be theorized, understood and controlled without us ever perceptually witnessing them. — Christoffer

there is no need for me to deny that the Universe is real independently of your mind or mine, or of any specific, individual mind. Put another way, it isempirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind. But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object. — Wayfarer

. We extend beyond our limitations and we can also not know what limitations can be overcome with future technology. — Christoffer

If you mean, scientific discoveries are made, then the answer is, of course! But the philosophical point about the inherent limitation of objectivity remains.

Do you really believe this or is it just rhetoric? — baker

If you waste any time listening to Trump's stream-of-consciousness ramblings, you will quickly discern that it contains a multitude of contradictions, deceptions and lies.

The other screaming irony is that Trump stood at the campaign podium two days ago and swore that when elected, he would 'indict Joe Biden for acts committed while he was President' :lol: Of course, it should be no surprise that Trump sees no contradictiction there, as he's incapable of entertaining two ideas at the same time.

whole worlds come into being just by seeing something differently — Banno

Hence the mind-created world.

They're so opposed to idealism, they will seriously consider they might be zombies or "there is something it's like to be a sewer system". — RogueAI

I think it's the unconscious desire (and pardon the irony) to avoid the burden of existence.

But duality separate the physical and mental in a way that feels too religious for my taste — Christoffer

As I've noted, this conditions a lot of what you write. Hence, 'the blind spot'.

Thank you Thales, very much appreciate the feedback :pray:

Settle down folks, much more squabbling and this thread will be locked for cool-off.

The riot I was speaking about... — NOS4A2

The passage I quoted from you began:

That’s to say nothing of Jan 6th protesters.... — NOS4A2

There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse. — AmadeusD

They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection. That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. So it's not 'a good argument', but a value judgement, that I don't believe has merit.

Sure. Who is saying that riots and civil disorder is a good thing? Comparing the BLM protests to the attack on the US Capital aimed at over-turning the election result is classic Trump 'whataboutism'. It's not going to go unchallenged.

Does dissent from The Narrative frighten you? — NOS4A2

No, but outright lies are irksome, and Trump's narrative is constructed almost entirely from them. Take this for example:

That’s to say nothing of Jan 6th protesters. Even though they never assaulted any private property, never looted local businesses, never committed any arson, nor killed anyone (a streak that cannot be found among the rioters of 2020), — NOS4A2

Five people died as a direct consequence of their actions, and more than 150 were injured. The attackers pillaged and desecrated the private offices of congressional staff.

The attack bears no comparision to the 'Black Lives Matter' protests you're referring to, as none of them amounted to an assault on the Capitol. You continue to propagate falsehoods being diseeminated by various Trump-allied media outlets. That is irksome.

Henceforth I intend to fact-check anything you write in this thread.

I think Kastrup is on the mark. Remember, he has PhD's in both computer engineering and philosophy of mind, he knows that of which he speaks.

The computational capability of our brains is qualitatively different, in that it is massively parallel distributed processing with dazzlingly complex processes going on. — wonderer1

Yet characterised by an overall subjective unity of consciousness, for which there is no current account.

While they seek for meaning, I'll seek truth without the expectation of meaning. — Christoffer

'They' being 'philosophers'. Seeking facts, would be the better description, 'truth' is too polyvalent a term.

So far, it's an 'if'. Searching for Fani Willis and Nathan Wade turns up many previous mentions. And note the caveats about the absence of any documentation of the alleged purchase. So, it might be a bad look, but it might also be a desperate effort by Trump's defense to throw whatever mud they think they can get their hands on.

Nevertheless, all grist to the mill, which is certainly churning at top speed.

'Smart' as in 'cunning', and he's undoubtedly that. This piece illustrates the sense in which Trump is personality cult. Grisham speaks from the perspective of someone who has seen through it and left, which she says was 'really hard'.

Trumper Carlson has taken to saying that the strength of the US economy is due to the Feds 'spinning' it, rather than because Biden's economic policies are effective. They will go to any length, these people.

Trying to slip spirituality or Zen into physics is like trying to win Chess by presenting a full house. — Banno

Yeah my bad. I was trying to argue against the assertion of neuro-science as kind of a pre-requisite for insight but it was a digression.

Bringing in reducibility is shifting the goal posts, and I understand that you don't agree with it, but can you give me a reason to think that your disagreement is not simply a matter of biased intuitions on your part? — wonderer1

The point is that physics is based on the quantitative analysis of physical particulars - spin, vector, velocity, and so on. The whole genius of Galileo's method was to strip out all of the antiquated Aristotelian notions of teleology and the like, and to reduce physics to the study of just those kinds of simple properties ('simple' as in not compounded from something else) of physical bodies. Allied with the newly-emerging mathematical sciences, this has been the backbone of the enormous strides made by physics since the 17th C.

But that revolution had a crucial starting point: it involved excluding all mental aspects such as consciousness, meaning, intention, or purpose from the study of the physical world.

We humans are part of this universe, physically composed of the same basic elements as everything else. Because our mental experiences are clearly linked to our existence as physical beings, particularly the functioning of our central nervous systems, it might seem reasonable to assume that such physicalist explanations would ultimately provide an explanation for the mental aspects of reality as well, if they were to be a comprehensive theory.

Nevertheless, this possibility is undercut by the fundamental principles that have characterized the physical sciences from their inception. While the physical sciences can describe organisms like us as elements of the objective spatiotemporal order—our structure and actions in space and time—they are incapable of elucidating the subjective experiences of these organisms or how the world appears from their unique points of view. While it is possible to offer a purely physical account of the neurophysiological processes that generate an experience and the associated physical behavior, such a description, no matter how comprehensive, will fail to capture the way it is perceived by its subject. Without this subjective perspective, it cannot truly be considered a comprehensive account. Hence, despite their remarkable success within their own realm, the physical sciences inevitably leave a significant aspect of nature unexplained (per Nagel).

I maintain that this perspective is so deeply ingrained in modern culture that we adopt it without being aware that we are doing so. That's why I referred before to the article 'the blind spot of science' which elaborates this idea.

Trying to slip spirituality or Zen into physics is like trying to win Chess by presenting a full house. — Banno

The discussion is about physicalism, not physics. Physicalism is a philosophical doctrine.

It is clearly naive however to assume identical content for both of us associated with the digital data. If such verbatim content transfer occurred, I wouldn't be so frustrated about people here not understanding emergence and supervenience. — wonderer1

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. The point is, however, that we speak the same language and can convey ideas through text. That is what I say is not meaningfully reducible to the physical.

Note this thread Is 'Information' Physical where this idea was dragged over the coals discussed at length some time ago. I don't know if you've encountered Apokrisis on this forum but he was a major contributor to that debate.

I'm awfully confident that you physically used a computer input to device to compose your post so that it was physically sent over the intenet to the TPF server. Then when I reopened the thread my Kindle was able to receive the data representing your post, as a result of that data having been physically transmitted from the TPF server to my Kindle. — wonderer1

Of course. In each transition, the physical constituents of the information change and also the underlying media. It's translated between electrical pulses, pixels on the screen, then you might even write it down. But the substance of the information stays the same. So how could that be physical?

Do you have incontrovertible empirical evidence of top-down causation? — wonderer1

I don’t believe the substance of this exchange can be explained in physical terms. If I say something that affects you it might increase your blood pressure. Yet nothing physical would have passed between us, unlike if I had administered a medicine. That’s an example.

From which:

For example, consider the mind-brain relationship. Emergence suggests that mental phenomena, like consciousness, arise from the complexity of neural networks in the brain, but you can't predict consciousness just by examining individual neurons. Supervenience, in this context, emphasizes that mental states depend on the underlying neural states.

However,there is also such a thing as top-down causation which mitigates against purely physicalist explanations of consciousness. This concept becomes evident in phenomena like the placebo effect and other instances of psychosomatic medicine. Then there's also the discovery of neuroplasticity. as highlighted in Norman Doidge's book "The Brain That Changes Itself," demonstrates the remarkable ability of the brain to change in response to various kinds of training and stimuli. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain's capacity to reorganize its structure, functions, and connections in response to experiences, learning, and environmental factors.

Doidge's book explores numerous case studies and examples that illustrate how the brain can adapt and transform itself throughout a person's life. Some key points regarding the implications of neuroplasticity include:

Recovery from Brain Injuries: Neuroplasticity has shown that even after traumatic brain injuries or strokes, the brain can rewire itself to compensate for lost functions. This provides hope for rehabilitation and recovery in individuals who have experienced such injuries.

Learning and Skill Acquisition: Neuroplasticity supports the idea that the brain can continually learn new skills and adapt to changing circumstances. It challenges the notion that learning is limited to specific developmental periods.

Cognitive Rehabilitation: The concept of neuroplasticity has led to the development of various cognitive rehabilitation techniques for conditions such as dyslexia, autism, and other neurological disorders.

Changing Behaviors and Habits: Neuroplasticity implies that individuals can change their behaviors and habits by rewiring neural pathways through conscious effort and practice. This is relevant in fields like psychology and addiction treatment.

Mental Health: The book also explores how neuroplasticity plays a role in mental health and emotional well-being, offering insights into the potential for rewiring negative thought patterns and managing conditions like depression and anxiety.

In summary, the discovery of neuroplasticity, as presented in "The Brain That Changes Itself," underscores the brain's remarkable adaptability and capacity for change throughout a person's life. It challenges traditional views of the brain as a static organ and offers hope for a wide range of applications in rehabilitation, education, and mental health.

So the question I would ask, is when does the ability of volitional activity to mould the structure of the brain and other organs commence, exactly? Might it be possible to consider that volitional action, in the broadest sense, is present in organisms of all kinds, even very simple organisms? Which again mitigates against a purely physicalist explanation.

Thanks also to ChatGPT for some input and formatting.

It's simply that we use different types of explanation in different situations, that we need not, indeed ought not, commit to there being a single monolithic explanation of everything. — Banno

In other words, then, there are no good arguments for physicalism, insofar as it is presumed to be a monistic explanation (i.e. that everything that exists is, or is reducible to, the physical.) Agree that Mary Midgley is an effective critic of that, notwithstanding her school ma'amly prose.

But can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno

Similar to 'supervenience' - a convenient term the meaning of which can be adapted as required to fill the explanatory gap.

As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist". A typical dictionary definition says that "To Exist" means Objective Reality, which seems to exclude Subjective Ideality — Gnomon

I have long felt there ought to be a distinction made between what is real and what exists, the latter being a subset of the former.

Sorry, as this is entirely off-topic, but what... Do you know each other IRL, or have been following each other across the internet since the Nineties? (genuinely curious - seems anomalous here) — AmadeusD

We both were members of the predecessor forum to this one, and possibly the one before that. But you’re right, none of us know each other personally, it is purely a medium for the exchange of ideas.

That's why I continue to ask the question; where's the alternative? What's the alternative theory, position and perspective that's able to follow what's already been proven as well as what has been observed and being observed in scientific research today? — Christoffer

That is a good question and I will come back to it.

I tend towards dismissing your arguments in the same spirit that you trend to dismiss a vast range of philosophical spirituality as ‘religious fantasy’. You strike me as a highly intelligent and articulate atheist with cast-iron convictions. Consider:

I am interested in answers to what reality is and how consciousness functions, but I don't really care in that sense about any meaning to it, because "meaning" is arbitrary, it is a trivial thing in this topic. "Meaning" is something I can create with what I have, it's something I can work on separately. We don't get meaning out of these theories and answers, we only get answers to the questions — Christoffer

Whereas I see philosophy (and in some ways, religion) as being precisely the concern with what Victor Frankl called ‘man’s search for meaning’. But you dismiss it as an infantile search for comfort, as being like thumb-sucking. That’s how it comes across to me.

And the reason I tend towards being dismissive is because I couldn’t say anything inside what you consider valid terms of reference which could hold any sway. What you’re asking for is a scientific explanation of what is outside the purview of scientific explanations. Whereas I feel you’re saying, if something is outside the purview of science, then how could it be worth considering?

In respect of alternative frameworks to scientific materialism which still respect science perhaps this essay might be a starting point https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of-science-is-the-neglect-of-lived-experience