Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism

[Brian Wachter]

While RQM seems to dismiss mind at large, in his book "Helgoland" Rovelli flirts with idealism:

"If the physical world is woven from the subtle interplay of images in mirrors reflected in other mirrors, without the metaphysical foundation of a material substance, perhaps it becomes easier to recognize ourselves as part of that whole."

What, if any, is the overlap between the two?

[DandelionSoul]

The difference seems to be precisely that -- while Kastrup maintains a relational existence for everything that is grounded by M@L, Rovelli removes M@L itself and only has the relationships left. His metaphysics might be closer to Whitehead, Deleuze, or some variations of Buddhist metaphysics (he himself pulls from Nagarjuna). Kastrup is closer to Schopenhauer or some flavors of Advaita Vedanta or the cosmopsychists like Goff or Mathews.

[Brian Wachter]

Thanks for your answer. What attracts me to Rovelli is his considerable parsimony, though this comes at the cost of explanation; RQM doesn't attempt to answer many questions beyond the ontological primitive. But even as a fan of BK I have to admit this is pretty satisfying. It produced, for instance, a way forward in my discussion with my son, a young physicalist scientist. We agree RQM does a good job of circumventing the "hard problem" without picking up any ontological or epistemic baggage.

[SanteriSatama]

The difference seems to be precisely that -- while Kastrup maintains a relational existence for everything that is grounded by M@L, Rovelli removes M@L itself and only has the relationships left. His metaphysics might be closer to Whitehead, Deleuze, or some variations of Buddhist metaphysics (he himself pulls from Nagarjuna). Kastrup is closer to Schopenhauer or some flavors of Advaita Vedanta or the cosmopsychists like Goff or Mathews.

Is there any internet source available, for a peek into Rovelli's relationalism and especially what he says about Nagarjuna?

I was very disappointed in BK calling master logician Nagarjuna - the Gödel of his time and place - just a "mystic".

[Brian Wachter]

Is there any internet source available, for a peek into Rovelli's relationalism and especially what he says about Nagarjuna?

I was very disappointed in BK calling master logician Nagarjuna - the Gödel of his time and place - just a "mystic".

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on RQM. I don't think it mentions Rovelli's recent comments re: Nagarjuna but it's a formal, detailed description of RQM:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/

But if you do a google search on "Rovelli Nagarjuna" there are several references that pop up.

[SanteriSatama]

Is there any internet source available, for a peek into Rovelli's relationalism and especially what he says about Nagarjuna?

I was very disappointed in BK calling master logician Nagarjuna - the Gödel of his time and place - just a "mystic".

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on RQM. I don't think it mentions Rovelli's recent comments re: Nagarjuna but it's a formal, detailed description of RQM:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/

Thanks. The SEP article I've read, and that's how far my understanding of RQM goes. I was interested if there's some source available on the recent comments.

[Brian Wachter]

Thanks. The SEP article I've read, and that's how far my understanding of RQM goes. I was interested if there's some source available on the recent comments.

I am right now listening to Rovelli talk about Nagarjuna on Youtube:

[Brian Wachter]

Thanks. The SEP article I've read, and that's how far my understanding of RQM goes. I was interested if there's some source available on the recent comments.

Also, I wholeheartedly recommend "Helgoland." For me, Rovelli's recounting of the turmoil and triumph of the formation of quantum mechanics is alone worth the $20 price of admission. But you get way more: you get Rovelli ruminating with characteristic precision and parsimony on the meaning and implications of QM in general and RQM in particular--and you get his take on Nagarjuna.

[SanteriSatama]

Thanks. The SEP article I've read, and that's how far my understanding of RQM goes. I was interested if there's some source available on the recent comments.

I am right now listening to Rovelli talk about Nagarjuna on Youtube:

Thanks!!!

[DandelionSoul]

The difference seems to be precisely that -- while Kastrup maintains a relational existence for everything that is grounded by M@L, Rovelli removes M@L itself and only has the relationships left. His metaphysics might be closer to Whitehead, Deleuze, or some variations of Buddhist metaphysics (he himself pulls from Nagarjuna). Kastrup is closer to Schopenhauer or some flavors of Advaita Vedanta or the cosmopsychists like Goff or Mathews.

Is there any internet source available, for a peek into Rovelli's relationalism and especially what he says about Nagarjuna?

I was very disappointed in BK calling master logician Nagarjuna - the Gödel of his time and place - just a "mystic".

Here's the excerpt from Helgoland:

Nāgārjuna lived in the second century ce. There have been countless commentaries on his text, which has been overlaid with interpretations and exegesis. The interest of such ancient texts lies partly in the stratification of readings that gives them to us enriched by levels of meaning. What really interests us about ancient texts is not what the author initially intended to say: it is how the work can speak to us now, and what it can suggest today.

The central thesis of Nāgārjuna’s book is simply that there is nothing that exists in itself independently from something else. The resonance with quantum mechanics is immediate. Obviously, Nāgārjuna knew nothing, and could not have imagined anything, about quanta—that is not the point. The point is that philosophers offer original ways of rethinking the world, and we can employ them if they turn out to be useful. The perspective offered by Nāgārjuna may perhaps make it a little easier to think about the quantum world.

If nothing exists in itself, everything exists only through dependence on something else, in relation to something else. The technical term used by Nāgārjuna to describe the absence of independent existence is “emptiness” (śūnyatā): things are “empty” in the sense of having no autonomous existence. They exist thanks to, as a function of, with respect to, in the perspective of, something else.

If I look at a cloudy sky—to take a simplistic example—I can see a castle and a dragon. Do a castle and a dragon really exist up there in the sky? Obviously not: the dragon and the castle emerge from the encounter between the shape of the clouds and the sensations and thoughts in my head; in themselves, they are empty entities, they do not exist. So far, so easy. But Nāgārjuna also suggests that the clouds, the sky, sensations, thoughts and my own head are equally things that arise from the encounter with other things: they are empty entities.

And myself, looking at a star, do I exist? No, not even I. So who is observing the star? No one, says Nāgārjuna. To see a star is a component of that set of interactions that I conventionally call my “self.” “What articulates language does not exist. The circle of thoughts does not exist.”119 There is no ultimate or mysterious essence to understand—that is the true essence of our being. “I” is nothing other than the vast and interconnected set of phenomena that constitute it, each one dependent on something else. Centuries of Western speculation on the subject, and on the nature of consciousness, vanish like morning mist.

Like much philosophy and much science, Nāgārjuna distinguishes between two levels: conventional, apparent reality with its illusory and perspectival aspects, and ultimate reality. But in this case the distinction takes us in an unexpected direction: the ultimate reality, the essence, is absence, is vacuity. It does not exist.

If every metaphysics seeks a primary substance, an essence on which everything may depend, the point of departure from which everything follows, Nāgārjuna suggests that the ultimate substance, the point of departure . . . does not exist.

There are timid intuitions in a similar direction in Western philosophy. But Nāgārjuna’s perspective is radical. Conventional, everyday existence is not negated; on the contrary, it is taken into account in all of its complexity, with its levels and facets. It can be studied, explored, analyzed, reduced to more elementary terms. But there is no sense, Nāgārjuna argues, in looking for an ultimate substratum.

The difference from contemporary structural realism, for instance, seems clear: I can imagine Nāgārjuna adding a short chapter to a contemporary edition of his book entitled “All Structures are Empty.” They exist only when you are thinking about organizing something else. In his terms: “They are neither precedent to objects; nor not precedent to objects; neither are they both things; nor, ultimately, neither one nor the other thing.”*

The illusoriness of the world, its samsāra, is a general theme of Buddhism; to recognize this is to reach nirvāna, liberation and beatitude. For Nāgārjuna, samsāra and nirvāna are the same thing: both empty of their own existence. Nonexistent.

So is emptiness the only reality? Is this, after all, the ultimate reality? No, writes Nāgārjuna, in the most vertiginous chapter of his book: every perspective exists only in interdependence with something else, there is never an ultimate reality—and this is the case for his own perspective as well. Even emptiness is devoid of essence: it is conventional. No metaphysics survives. Emptiness is empty.