Recent content by evi7538

My personal preference with respect to the concept of existence is phenomenological empiricism: we can only ascribe the modality of "existence" or "reality" to the phenomena of our direct conscious experience (sensations, thoughts, feelings etc) because we know for a fact that they indeed...

Thank you, RUTA, this is a very interesting paper, your attempt to bring together the radical empiricism of W. James with the adynamical 4D blockworld approach to physics is very appealing and makes a lot of sense. Apparently I did not understand your treatment of adynamical global constraints...

There is no single commonly accepted and consistent way to interpret the term "existence" even among professional philosophers, let alone the ordinary people. "Existence remains, then, itself a serious problem in philosophy of language, metaphysics, and logic and one connected to some of the...

I don't see any inconsistency here, he is just being careful not to draw too far-stretching conclusions based on his QM interpretation and not to deny any possibility of existence of any objective reality behind/beyond the non-objective non-reality of the world that we are experiencing (that he...

Is there still any room for any deterministic formulation of QM in view of Bell's theorem? Would any deterministic formulation of QM imply an existence of a set of variables that deterministically determine the state of any system? Wouldn't that contradict the Bell's theorem?

Here is another example of alternative ontology in physics related to the so-called "zero-world" interpretation of QM. In such interpretation there are no real physically existing atoms whatsoever: The Ithaca Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us...

The whole question of ontology is unanswerable anyway, but I personally still find it interesting, regardless whether such entity as "I" exists or not . The only thing that we know for a fact about ourselves and about the world is the existence of our conscious experience. Everything else...

Oh, no, there is a large variety of ontic interpretations of the experimental data from experiments with silver atoms. Your ontology represents physicalism, a particular branch of materialistic monism in philosophical ontology. You really need to study philosophical ontology to learn about other...

There is no doubt about that. The question is: what existential/ontic modality could we ascribe to these invariants? In other words, do they exist as any physical realities or any real modalities of external physical reality, or are they only invariants of mathematical models describing the...

As I said, in philosophical ontology there is large variety of platforms such materialistic, idealistic or neutral monism, variants of dualism, panpsychism, phenomenalism and so on with multiple sub-variants in each category. Many of them are compatible with QM interpretations, others call for...

Oh sure, there is a philosophy of physics and philosophical ontology as professional academic disciplines. And some people manage to be both professional physicists and philosophers.

OK, fair, I agree that QM by itself is neutral to the phenomena of consciousness. Thanks, it appears that my knowledge in this area is quite outdated. Thanks to all for a good discussion, I now have better understanding.

I agree, and not only that, but we can make even a stronger statement that QM and its known interpretations as they are currently formulated are simply not applicable to the qualia of conscious experience and to any correlations between quantum states of systems and the qualia. Therefore, we...

This is correct and consistent in the context of the QM math when we talk only about physical objects and the Hilbert space of their quantum states. Don't assume I do not understand it, it is pretty clear. But things crucially change once the conscious experience gets into the picture, because...

One of the things with ontology in physics is, once you add ontology to mathematical models of physics, the number of possible ontological interpretations quickly multiply like fruit flies and physicist quickly lose any common ground and split into interpretation-biased groups. This split not...