Is reality relative?

Started by Probius, July 14, 2021, 08:14:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Probius

I've attached the link to an article about science, but it's really philosophy since it is about a new interpretation of a scientific theory. This new interpretation is currently a minority opinion among scientists, but this may be due to it being so new. Carlo Rovelli has a new way of interpreting quantum theory. His ideas are really out there. Basically, he says that objects do not have an independent existence, but rather exist only in so far as they interact with other objects. Rovelli calls this relational existence.

https://theconversation.com/is-reality-a-game-of-quantum-mirrors-a-new-theory-suggests-it-might-be-162936
You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection." - The Buddha

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung

james03

Atheists grasping now that materialism has collapsed.

Because the alternate is God, Who is the Author of reality.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

cgraye

#2
I have not read Rovelli's book on this, but from the articles and reviews I have been able to find on it, this is just another possible way of interpreting quantum mechanics.  Quantum mechanics tells us something about reality, but interpretations of quantum mechanics do not necessarily tell us anything about reality.  They tell us what possible things are compatible with the way we express quantum mechanics, but that may only tell us something about the way we express quantum mechanics, not about the reality expressed by quantum mechanics.

In any case, reality is not relative.  Certain things in reality are relative, including things that our everyday experiences would lead us to believe are absolute.  In quantum theories, things are strange, because they do not correspond to anything in our everyday experiences.  But it is not clear what the objects of quantum theory correspond to in reality, if anything.  All we have are some mathematical abstractions that are good at making predictions about reality.  Their success in those predictions tells us that they are capturing something about reality, but not exactly what.

Even stepping outside the world of quantum strangeness, things are relative.  For example, the length of an object depends on the state of motion of the observer.  And that's not an optical illusion, but a real difference.  And we can't say that any one observer's measurement is any more true than any other's.  However, that doesn't mean that there isn't one observer's measurement that is actually true, just that we have no way of knowing which one.  But even if that is not true, and there really is no observer whose measurement is actaully true, there is still something about that object that is true and absolute for all observers.  It's just something a little more complicated than its length.

The same thing is true in quantum theory - even if certain things in our everyday experience turn out to be things that depend on the observer as well as the object being observed, there is still something about that object that is real and not relative to something else, even if it is not so simple to understand.

Part of the confusion here might be failure to make distinctions between different kinds of reality.  Potentialities are a kind of reality, but obviously a different kind of reality than actualities.  But our descriptions of physical theories don't put things in exactly those terms.  So without that kind of metaphysical tool, we sometimes fumble around trying to explain what we are seeing, and it comes out in strange-sounding explanations like this.

andy


Probius

Quote from: cgraye on July 15, 2021, 06:51:55 PM
I have not read Rovelli's book on this, but from the articles and reviews I have been able to find on it, this is just another possible way of interpreting quantum mechanics.  Quantum mechanics tells us something about reality, but interpretations of quantum mechanics do not necessarily tell us anything about reality.  They tell us what possible things are compatible with the way we express quantum mechanics, but that may only tell us something about the way we express quantum mechanics, not about the reality expressed by quantum mechanics.

In any case, reality is not relative.  Certain things in reality are relative, including things that our everyday experiences would lead us to believe are absolute.  In quantum theories, things are strange, because they do not correspond to anything in our everyday experiences.  But it is not clear what the objects of quantum theory correspond to in reality, if anything.  All we have are some mathematical abstractions that are good at making predictions about reality.  Their success in those predictions tells us that they are capturing something about reality, but not exactly what.

Even stepping outside the world of quantum strangeness, things are relative.  For example, the length of an object depends on the state of motion of the observer.  And that's not an optical illusion, but a real difference.  And we can't say that any one observer's measurement is any more true than any other's.  However, that doesn't mean that there isn't one observer's measurement that is actually true, just that we have no way of knowing which one.  But even if that is not true, and there really is no observer whose measurement is actaully true, there is still something about that object that is true and absolute for all observers.  It's just something a little more complicated than its length.

The same thing is true in quantum theory - even if certain things in our everyday experience turn out to be things that depend on the observer as well as the object being observed, there is still something about that object that is real and not relative to something else, even if it is not so simple to understand.

Part of the confusion here might be failure to make distinctions between different kinds of reality.  Potentialities are a kind of reality, but obviously a different kind of reality than actualities.  But our descriptions of physical theories don't put things in exactly those terms.  So without that kind of metaphysical tool, we sometimes fumble around trying to explain what we are seeing, and it comes out in strange-sounding explanations like this.

I appreciate your well thought out response. I agree that Rovelli's ideas are just an interpretation of quantum mechanics and there are many other interpretations as well. Rovelli's ideas are not mainstream at this point and are even a minority opinion among scientists who are working on quantum mechanics.

I was struck by the idea, though. This man's ideas just grabbed me. I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up. One way I have seen it expressed is, "Therefore, all things are empty, empty of intrinsic reality and intrinsic value; all existence is relational. Whatever the ultimate reality of things, it is inexpressible and inconceivable; therefore empty. All things arise through the co-working of many causes and conditions."
You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection." - The Buddha

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Probius

#6
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?

Yes, this would mean that I am empty of any sort of intrinsic value or existence. I, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things. This would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion. It's a bit of an unsettling thought, to be honest.

I decided to talk about this here because I find the idea intriguing yet unsettling. I wanted to hear from some folks who are grounded and hear what y'all think.
You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection." - The Buddha

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?

Yes, this would mean that I am empty of any sort of intrinsic value or existence. I, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things. This would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion. It's a bit of an unsettling thought, to be honest.

You cannot say that the self is an illusion and at the same time claim that you exist.

If the self is an illusion, you don't exist. Neither do I. And our conversation right now is a bizarre phenomenon.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Probius

#8
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?

Yes, this would mean that I am empty of any sort of intrinsic value or existence. I, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things. This would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion. It's a bit of an unsettling thought, to be honest.

You cannot say that the self is an illusion and at the same time claim that you exist.

If the self is an illusion, you don't exist. Neither do I. And our conversation right now is a bizarre phenomenon.

The self which is spoken of here is the psychological self. It does not mean that you do not exist. The statement "the self is an illusion" is referring to the way we think of ourselves or our sense of self.

I should also point out that the word "illusion" does not mean "doesn't exist."
You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection." - The Buddha

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?

Yes, this would mean that I am empty of any sort of intrinsic value or existence. I, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things. This would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion. It's a bit of an unsettling thought, to be honest.

You cannot say that the self is an illusion and at the same time claim that you exist.

If the self is an illusion, you don't exist. Neither do I. And our conversation right now is a bizarre phenomenon.

The self which is spoken of here is the psychological self. It does not mean that you do not exist. The statement "the self is an illusion" is referring to the way we think of ourselves or our sense of self.

I should also point out that the word "illusion" does not mean "doesn't exist."

So if the psychological self, which is what objectively enables this conversation to occur, is an illusion, how would you define such illusion?
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

james03

QuoteThis would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion.

An illusion to whom?  To something that exists.  Off to infinity.

QuoteI, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things.
Only?  Where does "only" come from?  Yes you have relationship to others.  Somewhat related, there was a good discussion a long time about the senses and the fact that sight alone can not be used to comprehend extension.  The child must feel the extension and then relate this with the perception of sight in order to eventually use sight to gage extension.  So yes, relationship has a big part in reality, and in fact, this makes up a lot of the laws of nature, relationship.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Probius

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 18, 2021, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?

Yes, this would mean that I am empty of any sort of intrinsic value or existence. I, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things. This would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion. It's a bit of an unsettling thought, to be honest.

You cannot say that the self is an illusion and at the same time claim that you exist.

If the self is an illusion, you don't exist. Neither do I. And our conversation right now is a bizarre phenomenon.

The self which is spoken of here is the psychological self. It does not mean that you do not exist. The statement "the self is an illusion" is referring to the way we think of ourselves or our sense of self.

I should also point out that the word "illusion" does not mean "doesn't exist."

So if the psychological self, which is what objectively enables this conversation to occur, is an illusion, how would you define such illusion?

The psychological self is not necessary for this conversation to occur. The self is just who you believe yourself to be. If you were to ask me who I am, I may tell you "I am Probius" but this is just a name. It's not who I am. I could tell you that I am a mental health therapist, but that is just what I do. It's also not who I am. I could tell you that I am a son, a brother, and an uncle. Those are just roles, they are not who I am. I could say I am an American, Alabamian, white person, male, etc. None of these things are who I am. If you pull away all of these things, what am I? This "self" that we believe has always existed and was there to be discovered is really just an invention. We create any sense of self.

If something is an illusion, it just means that we see it as one thing when it is really something else. We see the self as existing on its own, when it was really constructed by you. You created your own sense of self. It's not real. The video below explains illusions.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xcvWSeZPbw[/yt]

Rovelli, however, goes much deeper than just the self as an illusion. Rovelli is dealing in metaphysics instead of psychology. Rovelli's radical idea is that nothing exists on its own. This would mean that there is no essence underlying secondary characteristics. It actually reminds me of Herclitus. He says that there is no being and only becoming.
You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection." - The Buddha

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung

Probius

Quote from: james03 on July 18, 2021, 03:11:49 PM
QuoteThis would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion.

An illusion to whom?  To something that exists.  Off to infinity.

This exists because it interacts with that and that exists because it interacts with this. Everything which exists is always interacting with other things. What would it mean for something to exist without interacting with anything else?

QuoteI, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things.
Only?  Where does "only" come from?  Yes you have relationship to others.  Somewhat related, there was a good discussion a long time about the senses and the fact that sight alone can not be used to comprehend extension.  The child must feel the extension and then relate this with the perception of sight in order to eventually use sight to gage extension.  So yes, relationship has a big part in reality, and in fact, this makes up a lot of the laws of nature, relationship.

The "only" comes in because it is the relations that keep things in existence. If there were no relations, there would be nothing in existence.
You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection." - The Buddha

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung

james03

There is no basis to believe this.  In fact, you are arguing against the Law of Identify.  A is A.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Justin Martyr

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 17, 2021, 08:19:36 PM
Quote from: Probius on July 17, 2021, 07:42:58 PM
I have been studying Buddhism lately and the idea of interdependent co-arising is interesting to me. Rovelli's ideas support this tenet of Buddhism. This tenet goes against the ideas of Aristotle since it would mean that there is no essence under secondary characteristics. Everything is empty and is only composed of the components that make them up.

Does this mean that the person I'm reading right now, i.e. you, is in essence an empty shell or a mere amalgam of cells?

If that is so, what does it make of your thoughts?

Yes, this would mean that I am empty of any sort of intrinsic value or existence. I, of course, do exist, but I exist only in relation to other things. This would mean that we are all empty inside and that the self is an illusion. It's a bit of an unsettling thought, to be honest.

You cannot say that the self is an illusion and at the same time claim that you exist.

If the self is an illusion, you don't exist. Neither do I. And our conversation right now is a bizarre phenomenon.

Very succinctly put.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.