Jaimungal meets Rovelli

[Mark Tetzner]

I a not sure if Rovelli has thought about matters a lot?
It starts getting subject-related at approximately 3:00

[Starbuck]

At around 1:40m he talks about reality being made up of events or moments. Later he writes off a consciousness based ontology - using the buddhist idea of ephemeral moments rather than a unitary subjectivity.

My question: how long is an event? at what point does one event end and another begin?

[Eugene I.]

At around 1:40m he talks about reality being made up of events or moments. Later he writes off a consciousness based ontology - using the buddhist idea of ephemeral moments rather than a unitary subjectivity.

Well, that's a Theravadian idea (interpretation). In Mahayana the unitary subjectivity (Buddha's nature) is not an event but a continuous, or rather timeless, reality.

[Soul_of_Shu]

At around 1:40m he talks about reality being made up of events or moments. Later he writes off a consciousness based ontology - using the buddhist idea of ephemeral moments rather than a unitary subjectivity.

My question: how long is an event? at what point does one event end and another begin?

I've not watched this yet, and I suppose I should give it a chance based on the apparent fascination of others here, and BK's plug for CR's 'Relational QM Model' as being one that is worth investigating for being compatible with a consciousness based ontology, but other than that possible concession, I'm finding it hard to muster sufficient appeal to invest in it. Can someone make a good succinct case for the fascination with Rovelli, as if he's some latent closet idealist, oh-so-close to coming out, if not so wary of being associated with 'spirituality', as opposed to being just another deeply entrenched, locked-in, mind-in-here/world-out-there dualist?

[Starbuck]

At around 1:40m he talks about reality being made up of events or moments. Later he writes off a consciousness based ontology - using the buddhist idea of ephemeral moments rather than a unitary subjectivity.

Well, that's a Theravadian idea (interpretation). In Mahayana the unitary subjectivity (Buddha's nature) is not an event but a continuous, or rather timeless, reality.

Indeed. The Theravadans were weary of the claiming of any self whatsoever - even a unitary one. The focus is on enlightenment rather than any ontological claim. Rovelli seems very agnostic about ontology so it suits his worldview, and allows space for a subtle materialism.

[Eugene I.]

Indeed. The Theravadans were weary of the claiming of any self whatsoever - even a unitary one. The focus is on enlightenment rather than any ontological claim. Rovelli seems very agnostic about ontology so it suits his worldview, and allows space for a subtle materialism.

Well, the relational interpretation is metaphysically agnostic but it's compatible with and allows for almost any ontology, idealism included. So it's a fair game.

[Ben Iscatus]

Indeed. The Theravadans were weary of the claiming of any self whatsoever - even a unitary one. The focus is on enlightenment rather than any ontological claim. Rovelli seems very agnostic about ontology so it suits his worldview, and allows space for a subtle materialism.

Well, the relational interpretation is metaphysically agnostic but it's compatible with and allows for almost any ontology, idealism included. So it's a fair game.

Both excellent points!

[Starbuck]

Indeed. The Theravadans were weary of the claiming of any self whatsoever - even a unitary one. The focus is on enlightenment rather than any ontological claim. Rovelli seems very agnostic about ontology so it suits his worldview, and allows space for a subtle materialism.

Well, the relational interpretation is metaphysically agnostic but it's compatible with and allows for almost any ontology, idealism included. So it's a fair game.

Its not a fair game as the odds are tilted to materialism as the default setting, but I get your wider point!