there is no ultimate essence

[Telmo Menezes]

I haven't read "Physics for the Feeble-Minded" (yet?), but something caught my attention in the review below:

https://theamericanscholar.org/physics-for-the-feeble-minded/

"Rovelli’s short answer to this and other bizarre takes on quantum weirdness: Nonsense! His real purpose is to posit his own theory of “relations.” He suggests that most, if not all, of quantum theory’s perplexities can be resolved by understanding that there is no ultimate essence, no Kantian Ding an sich, no existence in and of itself attributable to a particle. What we know, since we too are part of nature, is only how something manifests itself to us. It is only in relation to something else that anything can be known—and a thing can manifest itself differently to different things."

Maybe Rovelli is ready for Marchal :)

Cheers

Telmo

[Tomas Pales]

Those relations are between nothings?

 

[Telmo Menezes]

Between relations.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81d0214a-9006-406e-ba20-0996c4153cc2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

That's almost literally Mermin's slogan for the view, which he also advocates, "Relations without relata."  But are relations abstracted away from relata really any different from numbers abstracted from things counted? 

Brent

[Telmo Menezes]

I can also imagine an ontology where relata are also relations and, furthermore, "strange loop" relations across levels are allowed.

Telmo

[Tomas Pales]

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:32:38 PM UTC+2 telmo wrote:

Am Di, 24. Aug 2021, um 20:54, schrieb Tomas Pales:

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 1:00:34 PM UTC+2 telmo wrote:

Those relations are between nothings?

 

Between relations.

That's fine but infinite regress of relations won't work, it will just make all relations undefined, a word without meaning.

[Tomas Pales]

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:34:07 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

That's almost literally Mermin's slogan for the view, which he also advocates, "Relations without relata."  But are relations abstracted away from relata really any different from numbers abstracted from things counted?

Of course we can abstract relations from relata and numbers from things, just as we can abstract the Cheshire cat's grin from the cat. It doesn't mean that the grin can exist without the cat.

 

[Brent Meeker]

If you ask the same question about numbers it seems that maybe they can exist because there are a lot of different pairs and without one of them the number 2 can count another pair.  But can 2 exist if there are no pairs to count, or no counters to identify pairs?

Brent

[Tomas Pales]

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 1:46:50 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

If you ask the same question about numbers it seems that maybe they can exist because there are a lot of different pairs and without one of them the number 2 can count another pair.  But can 2 exist if there are no pairs to count, or no counters to identify pairs?

Number 2 is a relational property of all pairs. I don't think that a property can exist without that which it is a property of. It is the meaning/nature of property to be a property of something. All pairs exist eternally, just like number 2 and everything else. 

[Brent Meeker]

All the pairs I know of, my shoes, my gloves, my dogs,... do NOT exist eternally.  And they are only conceived of as pairs because I and other people nominate such.

Brent

[Tomas Pales]

They exist eternally at a particular spacetime location. Any two things form a pair, why would anyone need to "nominate" them as a pair.

[Brent Meeker]

In other words eternally at a particular time.  Is there any reason I should take that seriously?

Any two things form a pair, why would anyone need to "nominate" them as a pair.

Being two things, or even one thing, is a conceptualization about the world.

Brent

[Tomas Pales]

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:51:32 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

In other words eternally at a particular time.  Is there any reason I should take that seriously?

And how would you like to take it? According to theory of relativity time is a kind of space.

 

Any two things form a pair, why would anyone need to "nominate" them as a pair.

Being two things, or even one thing, is a conceptualization about the world.

All things are there. Just because you pick one or two of them doesn't mean they are your conceptualization.

 

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/30/2021 12:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:51:32 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

In other words eternally at a particular time.  Is there any reason I should take that seriously?

And how would you like to take it? According to theory of relativity time is a kind of space.

So my house here is exists everywhere?

 

Any two things form a pair, why would anyone need to "nominate" them as a pair.

Being two things, or even one thing, is a conceptualization about the world.

All things are there. Just because you pick one or two of them doesn't mean they are your conceptualization.

Are they.  Here's two photons.  If I interchange them I have the same state.  Here's two golf balls.  If I interchange them I have different state.  Here's a member of the tennis team and a member of the band.  I can't interchange them...because they are the same person.  It's seems to me that my conceptualization makes a lot of difference in how things map onto the natural numbers.

Brent

[spudb...@aol.com]

For brevity's sake there is an ultimate essence I'd day based on the articles I have read, there is a basic essence to physics of the cosmos and that appears to be quantum field theory, not particles, fields, or the field. 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/

QFT seems to satisfy the essence of this contention. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a4af469-b17a-4631-bf76-3647ffdc5265n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Tomas Pales]

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 1:51:01 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

On 8/30/2021 12:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:51:32 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

In other words eternally at a particular time.  Is there any reason I should take that seriously?

And how would you like to take it? According to theory of relativity time is a kind of space.

So my house here is exists everywhere?

No, by "eternally" I didn't mean everywhere in the time dimension but without passage of time. There is no passage of time just as there is no passage of space.

 

Are they.  Here's two photons.  If I interchange them I have the same state.  Here's two golf balls.  If I interchange them I have different state.  Here's a member of the tennis team and a member of the band.  I can't interchange them...because they are the same person.  It's seems to me that my conceptualization makes a lot of difference in how things map onto the natural numbers.

Just because two objects are the same doesn't mean they are one object. They are differentiated from each other by their position in reality (by their relations to other objects).

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/31/2021 4:44 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 1:51:01 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

On 8/30/2021 12:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:51:32 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

In other words eternally at a particular time.  Is there any reason I should take that seriously?

And how would you like to take it? According to theory of relativity time is a kind of space.

So my house here is exists everywhere?

No, by "eternally" I didn't mean everywhere in the time dimension but without passage of time. There is no passage of time just as there is no passage of space.

So eternally means momentarily.  Hmmm?

 

Are they.  Here's two photons.  If I interchange them I have the same state.  Here's two golf balls.  If I interchange them I have different state.  Here's a member of the tennis team and a member of the band.  I can't interchange them...because they are the same person.  It's seems to me that my conceptualization makes a lot of difference in how things map onto the natural numbers.

Just because two objects are the same doesn't mean they are one object. They are differentiated from each other by their position in reality (by their relations to other objects).

Even one object is a conceputalization.  Thomas Pales now is a different object from Thomas Pales a moment ago.  And as a physicists I may regard him as 1e30 different atoms.

Brent

[Tomas Pales]

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 6:58:42 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

So eternally means momentarily.  Hmmm?

Everything exists in the same timeless moment, if you like.

 

Even one object is a conceputalization.  Thomas Pales now is a different object from Thomas Pales a moment ago.  And as a physicists I may regard him as 1e30 different atoms.

My body at time t is a different object than my body at time t-1. And there is also another object that is a collection of those two objects. You can call those objects whatever you like but they are all there.

[Brent Meeker]

So you agree with me that the number things is matter of how you like to nominate bits of the world.

Brent

[Tomas Pales]

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 11:41:20 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

So you agree with me that the number things is matter of how you like to nominate bits of the world.

No, but you can focus on those things that are useful or interesting to you.