XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: Simon.Laub@FILTER.mail.tele.dk   
      
      According to some physicists there is no   
   reality beyond what is revealed by an experiment, an observation.   
   And then there is the ''many-worlds'' interpretion of   
   quantum theory, where each outcome of an experiment   
   exists, somewhere in a multiverse. In some universes   
   the Schrödinger's cat is alive, in others the cat is dead.   
      
      With cats living in superposition of being dead and alive,   
   it has been difficult to find firm ground to stand on and   
   move forward from. Indeed, when the science sounds like fiction,   
   it has been difficult to move on from the science, - and explore and   
   play with reality in say science fiction. Surely, there must be   
   some firm ground somewhere in order for us to move forward?   
      
       In his new book ''Helgoland'' physicist Carlo Rovelli tell us   
   that he will try to make sense of the quantum revolution for us.   
   Indeed, badly needed. But clearly dire straits to move into...   
      
       So, what does quantum theory really tell us? That we live   
   in a Multiverse, where the quantum wave-function splits on observation,   
   and takes us to just another part of the multiverse? Or   
   is the wave-function really a pilot-wave that guides atomic particles,   
   and makes them reveal their true hidden-variables?   
       Or should we ''just all shut up and calculate'' instead of thinking   
   too much about it?   
      
       Maybe the wave function is something as simple   
   as calculating tool hat gives us the probabilility that an electron   
   is somewhere, instead of somewhere else. And the whole dead-cat live-cat   
   is just madness dreamed up by physicists to confuse us all?   
      In the simple version, we just just don't know before we measure,   
   and there is nothing particular weird about that.   
      Still, it is true that in quantum experiments, like in the double-slit   
   experiment, photons can be in two paths, but if you look, only on one.   
      
      So, ''should we just shut up and calculate''?   
   Well, according to Rovelli, science is not just about making predictions,   
   it also something that gives us framework for thinking   
   about things.   
   Which sounds true, just having a great calculator (quantum theory)   
   without really understanding anything isn't much fun.   
      
      Rovelli's way out is to tell us that nothing has any properties   
   at all until it interacts with something else.   
   In his description of quantum theory the focus is that   
   we no longer see the physical world as a collection of objects, but   
   rather as a net of relations. When something does not interact with   
   something else, it has no physical properties.   
      In that sense a property of something,   
   is a bridge to something else.   
      In the end there are only facts relative to something else. Facts are   
   relative to one observer, but perhaps not to another observer.   
      (Rather unconvincingly) Rovelli then tell us this doen't lead   
   to total fragmentation of points of view by saying there   
   are still certain rules of the Universe, grammar, that allow us to   
   be able to observe the same things.   
      
      In need of framework. Rovelli lead us to Ernst Mach, and his ideas   
   that knowledge should be based only on what is observable, facts, which   
   gives us knowledge, which should then be expressed in the   
   the simplest and most economical abstract way.   
      We learn to organize the facts, better and better, each time we   
   interact with the world.   
      As an aside, Rovelli tell us that, politically, this way of looking   
   at the world didn't go down well   
   with Lenin. Lenin apparently thought such a line of reasoning would   
   reduce reality to the content of the mind, a solipsisic world   
   where there is only sensations. Instead Lenin preferred a material   
   world, where there are objects, concrete and knowable. The world should   
   exist beyond our minds. Real, out there.   
      
      In Machs thinking we should not teach the world how it ought to be,   
   but we should instead listen to it, in order to figure out how it really is.   
       And echo of this is found in one of the many Bohr - Einstein   
   debates, where Einstein tell us that ''God does not play dice''. And   
   Bohr responds by saying  ''Stop telling God what to do''. I.e. natue has   
   more imagination that we humans have, we should listen, and not make up   
   idealistic ideas about what ''it'' really is.   
       All, in all, leading us to a sort of ''non-framework'' as a famework?   
      
      In Rovellis thinking, it is the history and experience we have with   
   the world that give our thoughts ''intentionality'', meaning.   
   We are not just living in our own solipsisic world, where   
   we there is no right or wrong. Indeed, evolution would not have   
   allowed us to be here, if we didn't care about the outside world.   
      
   Still, what we can only see out there what we expect, corrected by what   
   we can grasp. Relevant new input is what contradicts our expectations.   
      
       But according to Rovelli the framework is that we observe and make   
   experiments, and take it from there. Logically. Rovelli tell us that   
   quantum theory can't help us understand the mind - and then - like most   
   physicists - he then goes on to tell us that the quantum still has   
   something to teach us about the mind... well, well...   
      Instead of thinking of mass and motion, we should, according   
   to Rovelli, think of relations. Even in a fine grain of salt.   
   And that would then presumably make it easier for us to see minds coming   
   from that?   
   Well, well, perhaps. Still, that line of reasoning that should take us   
   (easily) from theories about the very small to theories about the mind,   
   are of course big ''leaps of faith'' which is   
   sort of amusing coming from Rovelli, when he has just explained to us   
   that ''non-frameworks'' are better tools moving forward.   
   Instead he goes on to tell us that  ''pan-psychism'' is absurd.   
   To him it is like saying that a bicycle is made of atoms,   
   and therefore each atom must be a proto-cyclist.   
       Funny, and totally absurd, no-one has ever said that.   
      
       In e.g. Integrated Information Theory it makes sense to say that   
   a little integration gives ''a little' experience, where much   
   integration gives more.   
       Not saying IIT is true or proven, but the idea that relations   
   is the right path towards minds is no improvement over saying that it   
   is integrated information. Yes, sure, but how?   
      
      Indeed, we are all desperately trying to come up with   
   a framework that will help us to understand.   
   Noone likes to "shut up and calculate''. And yes, sure, Schrodingers   
   wave function can go from being a probability calculator to a multiverse   
   theory in the process.   
      
      For Rovelli truths lies in the idea that everything   
   exists solely in the way it affects something else.   
   Just as relations make up the ''I'', in society, culture etc.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)