What Does Schrödinger Convey in the Epilogue of What is Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonDrew
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Schrödinger's epilogue in "What is Life?" addresses complex concepts such as the "plurality hypothesis," which suggests that multiple consciousnesses may constitute a single consciousness. He critiques Kant, attributing certain philosophical extravagances to him. Additionally, Schrödinger asserts that personal existence is preserved, referencing the stability of consciousness modeled by aperiodic crystals at absolute zero, implying that thermodynamics and quantum physics affirm our willful existence. These interpretations highlight the intersection of philosophy and physics in understanding consciousness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Schrödinger's "What is Life?"
  • Familiarity with the plurality hypothesis in consciousness studies
  • Basic knowledge of Kant's philosophical contributions
  • Concepts of thermodynamics and quantum physics related to consciousness
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the plurality hypothesis in contemporary consciousness research
  • Study Kant's philosophy and its critiques in modern contexts
  • Investigate the implications of aperiodic crystals in quantum consciousness theories
  • Learn about the relationship between thermodynamics and consciousness in physics
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, cognitive scientists, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of consciousness as discussed in Schrödinger's work.

JonDrew
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I just read Schrödinger's "What is life?" and was very confused by some of the things he said in his epilogue, some help understanding it would be great!

What does he mean by the "plurality hypothesis"? I think he means that idea that multiple consciousnesses could make up one consciousness but I seemed to have missed what he meant by that, I think.

Was he meaning to talk negatively about Kant when he said "For this extravagance Kant is responsible."? I think he is but I really don't know.

And finally when he states "In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be." does he mean to offer a proof that we can know who we are because we are so far below the 'melting point' of the aperiodic crystals which make up our consciousness. Or in other word since our brains can be model as if they were at absolute zero we can be assured, from the laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics, that we are willful beings? I am sooooo confused by what he meant by this last line.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not trying to rain on your parade or drown your enthusiasm, but philosophy (even when espoused by famous physicists) is a strict 'no-no' in PF.
 
Curious is correct, we stopped purely philosophical discussions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
11K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K