What does physicalist science tell us about reality?

[Jim Cross]

Sorry if this question seems stupid, but doesn't this also apply to Rovelli model ? Isn't it also abstract and interpretative ?

Absolutely

Math models of physics are all abstract by definition, but they may be non-interpretative. For example, we can just apply Schrodinger equation to approximate or extrapolate (predict into the future) the observable patterns of phenomena without any interpretation whatsoever. But all the QM interpretations, (Rovelli's included) are speculations (added to the math models) to hypothetically explain how the reality is actually structured "behind" the scenes of the observable phenomena (even though such interpretation may not pose any ontological claims).

If i understand this right, anything other than "shut up and calculate" would be an additional interpretation.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with interpretation. The problem is the reification of the interpretation.

[Eugene I]

I don't think you can really hide behind "language" issues. Language reflects abstract categories.

How do you know what the new born child is "experiencing"? However, even if the child has no sense of self, there is still a relationship involved. There is something that is experiencing and something being experienced. The child is not the sky. And the sky isn't the child. The blue is an attribute of sky-experiencer relationship.

The notion of "direct experience" is an illusion.

"something that is experiencing and something being experienced" in an illusion. I thought you are a fan of Rovelli and Nagarjuna, but "something that is experiencing and something being experienced" is what they both would obviously deny any reality based on their relational approach. In their relational paradigm there are only relations but no "somethings" that relate to each other. "Correlations without correlata" is the mantra of the relational interpretation of QM and of the reality.

Anyway, is is amazing how we get totally lost in the jungles of our interpretations of what is given.
But the reality cannot consist only of interpretations. Interpretations can not be aware of themselves, can not experience themselves. Interpretations need something to interpret. There is something "given" that the mind is interpreting. What is it?

[Jim Cross]

I don't think you can really hide behind "language" issues. Language reflects abstract categories.

How do you know what the new born child is "experiencing"? However, even if the child has no sense of self, there is still a relationship involved. There is something that is experiencing and something being experienced. The child is not the sky. And the sky isn't the child. The blue is an attribute of sky-experiencer relationship.

The notion of "direct experience" is an illusion.

"something that is experiencing and something being experienced" in an illusion. I thought you are a fan of Rovelli and Nagarjuna, but "something that is experiencing and something being experienced" is what they both would obviously deny any reality based on their relational approach. In their relational paradigm there are only relations but no "somethings" that relate to each other. "Correlations without correlata" is the mantra of the relational interpretation of QM and of the reality.

Anyway, is is amazing how we get totally lost in the jungles of our interpretations of what is given.
But the reality cannot consist only of interpretations. Interpretations can not be aware of themselves, can not experience themselves. Interpretations need something to interpret. There is something "given" that the mind is interpreting. What is it?

The illusion that there must be something underneath it all is strong.

"something that is experiencing and something being experienced" is what they both would obviously deny any reality based on their relational approach.

Actually no. They would have a conditional, relational reality but not an intrinsic one.

[Hedge90]

I don't think you can really hide behind "language" issues. Language reflects abstract categories.

How do you know what the new born child is "experiencing"? However, even if the child has no sense of self, there is still a relationship involved. There is something that is experiencing and something being experienced. The child is not the sky. And the sky isn't the child. The blue is an attribute of sky-experiencer relationship.

The notion of "direct experience" is an illusion.

"something that is experiencing and something being experienced" in an illusion. I thought you are a fan of Rovelli and Nagarjuna, but "something that is experiencing and something being experienced" is what they both would obviously deny any reality based on their relational approach. In their relational paradigm there are only relations but no "somethings" that relate to each other. "Correlations without correlata" is the mantra of the relational interpretation of QM and of the reality.

Anyway, is is amazing how we get totally lost in the jungles of our interpretations of what is given.
But the reality cannot consist only of interpretations. Interpretations can not be aware of themselves, can not experience themselves. Interpretations need something to interpret. There is something "given" that the mind is interpreting. What is it?

The illusion that there must be something underneath it all is strong.

"something that is experiencing and something being experienced" is what they both would obviously deny any reality based on their relational approach.

Actually no. They would have a conditional, relational reality but not an intrinsic one.

This is mostly in line with U.G. Krishnamurti's view, but I think traditionally Buddhism is also teaching something like that. Buddhists don't think there's "something underneath it all", they precisely aim to realise that in the end there isn't. And in a sense I agree, because I don't think there's some kind of ontological purpose to reality. But couldn't a purpose EMERGE, precisely due to the relational meanings and interpretations that arise within it?

[Steve Petermann]

This is mostly in line with U.G. Krishnamurti's view, but I think traditionally Buddhism is also teaching something like that. Buddhists don't think there's "something underneath it all", they precisely aim to realise that in the end there isn't. And in a sense I agree, because I don't think there's some kind of ontological purpose to reality. But couldn't a purpose EMERGE, precisely due to the relational meanings and interpretations that arise within it?

This is the way I think about this question of meaning emerging from a purposeless ontology (or what I call a non-intentional model of how reality is constituted). It centers on the idea of causation and causal chains. If reality is fundamentally constituted non-intentionally then does it even make sense to talk about meaning, morality, free-will, and other existential issues? I don't think so. If reality is constituted non-intentionally then every step in the causal chain would also be non-intentional (unless there is magic or supernaturalism). We get an autonomic cosmos, just doing what it does. Now, some might say that meaning emerges when things get complicated enough. But if every step in the causal chain is non-intentional, it doesn't matter how complex something is. A thermostat "makes decisions" or a 0/1 bit in a computer "makes a decision". You can make a highly complex computer with billions of bits but does that mean somewhere along the line it becomes intentional? With this non-intentional model, that would require redefining away our common understanding of agency. So, the human brain, how ever complex it may be still has a causal chain. If each step is non-intentional what would meaning even mean? Does a thermostat have meaning or a computer? If reality is constituted non-intentionally then one would also need to ascribe meaning to a thermostat or any other causal chain no matter how complicated.

If we are to affirm our intuitions that we have intentionality, free-will, that there is truly meaning and value, I think we have to give up on this notion of reality being constituted by laws and chance. If every event comes about because of necessity or chance, there is no hope for affirming those intuitions. Meaning and morality would just become autonomic biases like a gate in a transistor or the bimetal bias in an old-time thermostat.

So, I propose that instead of laws and chance constituting reality, every event is intentional in the Mind of God (a divine idealism). This includes both the regularities and novelties we see. With a divine idealism, all those intuitions can be affirmed but need to be examined and unpacked in a systematic way.

Here's an essay where I talk about this in relationship to quantum mechanics: The Theological Implications of Quantum Mechanics

[Hedge90]

This is mostly in line with U.G. Krishnamurti's view, but I think traditionally Buddhism is also teaching something like that. Buddhists don't think there's "something underneath it all", they precisely aim to realise that in the end there isn't. And in a sense I agree, because I don't think there's some kind of ontological purpose to reality. But couldn't a purpose EMERGE, precisely due to the relational meanings and interpretations that arise within it?

This is the way I think about this question of meaning emerging from a purposeless ontology (or what I call a non-intentional model of how reality is constituted). It centers on the idea of causation and causal chains. If reality is fundamentally constituted non-intentionally then does it even make sense to talk about meaning, morality, free-will, and other existential issues? I don't think so. If reality is constituted non-intentionally then every step in the causal chain would also be non-intentional (unless there is magic or supernaturalism). We get an autonomic cosmos, just doing what it does. Now, some might say that meaning emerges when things get complicated enough. But if every step in the causal chain is non-intentional, it doesn't matter how complex something is. A thermostat "makes decisions" or a 0/1 bit in a computer "makes a decision". You can make a highly complex computer with billions of bits but does that mean somewhere along the line it becomes intentional? With this non-intentional model, that would require redefining away our common understanding of agency. So, the human brain, how ever complex it may be still has a causal chain. If each step is non-intentional what would meaning even mean? Does a thermostat have meaning or a computer? If reality is constituted non-intentionally then one would also need to ascribe meaning to a thermostat or any other causal chain no matter how complicated.

If we are to affirm our intuitions that we have intentionality, free-will, that there is truly meaning and value, I think we have to give up on this notion of reality being constituted by laws and chance. If every event comes about because of necessity or chance, there is no hope for affirming those intuitions. Meaning and morality would just become autonomic biases like a gate in a transistor or the bimetal bias in an old-time thermostat.

So, I propose that instead of laws and chance constituting reality, every event is intentional in the Mind of God (a divine idealism). This includes both the regularities and novelties we see. With a divine idealism, all those intuitions can be affirmed but need to be examined and unpacked in a systematic way.

Here's an essay where I talk about this in relationship to quantum mechanics: The Theological Implications of Quantum Mechanics

While I'm on the side of free will, I don't think it is necessary for meaning, in a phenomenological sense. I'm not equating meaning with purpose, mind you. Meaning is something that can only be felt, and if it is felt, then by definition it exists, regardless of whether you were an intentional agent in the causal chain that resulted in the feeling of that meaning. A mundane example would be a movie you watch. You know that you have no effect on what happens, it's going to unfold the same regardless of anything you do, yet you are still captivated by the story, and gain a sense of meaning by participating in it by identifying or empathising with the characters.
So say everything in reality is pre-determined. If this deterministic existence unfolds in a manner that leads to conscious agents deriving meaning from it, then it's just deterministically unfolding meaning, but meaning all the same. Say, existence deterministically strives towards, and in the end reaches, a perfect state of harmony, where the maximum amount of beauty / joy is experienced by the conscious agent(s) who are along for the ride. This would still have a meaning: that existence is beautiful / joyful. No free will needed.

[Soul_of_Shu]

While I'm on the side of free will, I don't think it is necessary for meaning, in a phenomenological sense. I'm not equating meaning with purpose, mind you. Meaning is something that can only be felt, and if it is felt, then by definition it exists, regardless of whether you were an intentional agent in the causal chain that resulted in the feeling of that meaning. A mundane example would be a movie you watch. You know that you have no effect on what happens, it's going to unfold the same regardless of anything you do, yet you are still captivated by the story, and gain a sense of meaning by participating in it by identifying or empathising with the characters.
So say everything in reality is pre-determined. If this deterministic existence unfolds in a manner that leads to conscious agents deriving meaning from it, then it's just deterministically unfolding meaning, but meaning all the same. Say, existence deterministically strives towards, and in the end reaches, a perfect state of harmony, where the maximum amount of beauty / joy is experienced by the conscious agent(s) who are along for the ride. This would still have a meaning: that existence is beautiful / joyful. No free will needed.

Of course, if it is none other than M@L that is simultaneously both conceiving the 'movie', and, in alter-mode, in an immersive, interactive, feedback-looping way, perceiving the movie, then it would seem that the probable outcomes are constantly in flux, with the only guiding principle perhaps being evermore, ever-evolving, fugue-like novelty of Art-for-Art's sake with no preconceived finished version in Mind.

[AshvinP]

So, I propose that instead of laws and chance constituting reality, every event is intentional in the Mind of God (a divine idealism). This includes both the regularities and novelties we see. With a divine idealism, all those intuitions can be affirmed but need to be examined and unpacked in a systematic way.

Steve,

Can you elaborate on this "systematic way" of unpacking the Divine idealist structure which gives rise to the phenomenal appearances? Is it simply mapping QM concepts onto an "intentional" theology, or is there a way to attain higher resolution on how exactly the Divine intention is manifested in the world?

[Steve Petermann]

Ashvin,

Can you elaborate on this "systematic way" of unpacking the Divine idealist structure which gives rise to the phenomenal appearances?

No, I can't. I don't get into phenomenology in my theology. Subjective experience is a mystery to me, just like it is for many people. First, I've never thought that coming up with some explication regarding subjective experience was essential for a lived theology. Still don't.

Obviously, there is something important about subjective experience or it wouldn't be part of the Divine Mind. It does give creatures a sense of self and I do think that is important. Beyond that, I just don't know. Does that lack of knowledge hinder me or others from trying to live a useful, good life? I don't think so.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Can you elaborate on this "systematic way" of unpacking the Divine idealist structure which gives rise to the phenomenal appearances?

No, I can't. I don't get into phenomenology in my theology. Subjective experience is a mystery to me, just like it is for many people. First, I've never thought that coming up with some explication regarding subjective experience was essential for a lived theology. Still don't.

Obviously, there is something important about subjective experience or it wouldn't be part of the Divine Mind. It does give creatures a sense of self and I do think that is important. Beyond that, I just don't know. Does that lack of knowledge hinder me or others from trying to live a useful, good life? I don't think so.

Have you looked into depth psychology such as that of Jung? Clearly there is structure to our perceptive-cognitive activity (two poles of Thinking experience which are never found separate from each other). You also conclude this by applying QM to Divine ideation. So what is to prevent us from expanding on that knowledge of the inner structure? Does "subjective" experience also have to remain a mystery? Note also that consistent idealism does not divide "subjective" from "objective" knowledge.

As for ethics, I was not trying to make any point about that, but now that you mentioned it, I do see a deep connection between this sort of inner Self-knowledge and ethical behavior. A person who is doing good deeds without knowledge of why they are good or how they are good is acting out of compulsion, whether by "instinctual nature", "Divine command", religious dogma, the State, etc. Although I would say this is true at all times, even basic interactions with others, it is really illustrated at the extremes of social conditions.

There is a book called Ordinary Men, which recounts the step by step transformation of average German policemen, who were not indoctrinated as youth, into brutal Nazi war criminals during German occupation of Poland in WW2. (also depicted in the movie The Pianist). Those types of situations are when our moral strength is really put to the test. The person who was merely following external dictates and pressures earlier will keep doing the same thing when the pressures flow in the opposite direction. The only way around that is by aligning one's innermost desires with what is virtuous, and I cannot see any way that happens without the deepest Self-knowledge.