Dear All,
Ontology is an interesting issue. I have tried to investigate it for the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM). From Section 3.15.1 of (Vimal, 2016):
As per ('t Hooft, 2015), “Quantum mechanics [QM] is looked upon as a tool, not as a theory. Examples are displayed of models that are classical in essence, but can be analysed by the use of quantum techniques, and we argue that even the Standard Model, together with gravitational interactions, might be viewed as a quantum mechanical approach to analyse a system that could be classical at its core” [p1]. I tend to agree with him. Therefore, the superposition of dual-aspect ontological (real) states as basis states in Hilbert space, as a tool, can be used from micro-level (such as elementary particles) to macro-level (such as neural level) whenever uncertainties and probabilities/possibilities/potentialities are involved as in the co-evolution since Big Bang (BB) and the co-development and co-tuning with the environment since birth of a baby. These uncertainties are resolved when stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signals interact/match with cognitive feedback (FF) signals. The resultant signals then interact with self-related signals for the selection of specific state for a specific subjective experience (SE, such as redness) out of many states related to many SEs embedded/stored in related NN. The self, which is the mental aspect of a state of self-related NN, experiences this specific SE from the 1pp. A dual-aspect ontological state represents a ‘real’ state in the real world and follows the commutative classical logic, whereas the superposition involves uncertainty as in QM and follows the non-commutative quantum logic. For example, an ontological state has the 1pp-mental aspect (such as SE, redness) and its inseparable 3pp-physical aspect (such as redness-related neural network and its activities). “When two observables O1 and O2 do not commute, they cannot both be measured accurately. [p29 …] Since angular momenta are non commutative, they cannot be quite ontological, but their ‘classical parts’ must be [p196]” ('t Hooft, 2015).]
For further details, kindly look at Section 3.15 of (Vimal, 2016).
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Ram
10/17/16
't Hooft, G. (2015). The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548v3.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2016). A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] This is updated version of the original 2014 article:[DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2464.2009], 8(4), 1-271.
Hi Ram,
We have a choice, we do as you suggest or we assume that there is a duality out there with an agent that belongs to some degree to both conditions. i.e. it renders the duality apparent/visible. 'Geometry' governing matter, 'geometry' governing dark matter. We may then assume that the agent and its dual orientation towards us as biological systems has ensured that we have evolved to deal with (handle) the duality of information sets the agent presents to us about the real world we in habit. The agent being light of course. This would then suggest the duality 'detected' at a fundamental physical level and at the level of conscious awareness 'implicit and explicit spatial awareness', leaves the macro physical (the real) as a operations area largely free of the influence of the duality. It belongs to just the 'geometry governing matter'.
This would then identify that subjective awareness holds the key to our further investigations into the nature of reality and not our current instrumentation that has not been designed with the insight in mind and so engage with part of what's required to conduct the necessary exploration. We should then not be surprised when that instrumentation fails to register any aspect of what its processes eventually imply to be missing. The instrumentation was designed and constructed under an inappropriate ontology (3rd party).
Vision-Space: The scientific approach to understanding the nature of reality is incomplete http://youtu.be/BLFK8rd_QkQ
Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real https://youtu.be/gzzBYOs6mc8
Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y
This position avoids solipsism but identifies that direct 3rd party observation, measurement and probing of all 'geometries' is not going to be possible and there is little point in setting out on an engineering project/solution.
We form a visual relationship with real because that's ultimately as good as it gets!
Hi John,
Thanks for the comments and links.
I agree that materialism based science is good for explaining the physical aspect of nature, but, certainly, has a problem of explaining our experiences (mental aspect). However, the eDAM can explain both mental and physical aspects of nature. For this, we need to understand the principle of superposition for all ontological states as briefly discussed above in Section 3.15.1 of (Vimal, 2016).
Furthermore, it seems that we need to extend the meaning assigned to term ‘superposition’. In the eDAM, a state is a dual-aspect entity and two types of superposition are hypothesized:
(1) Specific superposition: This is the superposition for a specific entity. For example, consider an electron as a specific entity moving according to Schrödinger equation; let its ontological states related to its attribute spin is spin-up and spin-down states, but we do not know which one the electron has until it is measured because of our subjective ignorance. In this case, we can superpose these ontological states in the state (wave-function) of the electron. Similarly, an entity could be our mind-brain system that has innumerable ontological states. This is the usual conventional superposition used in QM and can be extended to classical mechanics (CM) that includes macro-classical objects such as our mind-brain system.
(2) General superposition: This is the superposition of all possible ontological states in all possible states of all possible entities including the primal entity. A justification is that the states of some or all 17 elementary particles participate in all ontological states and all ontological states contain the states of some or all 17 elementary particles. Therefore, one could argue for the ‘general’ superposition.
What do you say?
Kind regards,
Ram
10/18/16
What do I say.....I have to do some homework on eDam! I started one of your papers on this a couple of weeks ago but I am not sure that we do need to extend the superposition to all things. If we take the experiential nature of vision (phenomenon) we certainly find that its operations are very 'QM like' in terms of 'characteristics' but the local environment and its operational level (the real - interns of objects etc) isn't. So for me the QM characteristics of the phenomenon have to be linked to light, the way that it occupies space and transmits data to us (not in terms of body but mind). Our visual system and 'mind' have to deal with the situation light delivers (duality). Hence the 2 visual pathways. The world (the real) has to be presented to us, as far as that is possible a singularity so we can operate in it. The phenomenon has to give a meaningful impression of the real! It does a damn good job as breaking into the visual percept to appreciate the duality on which its based is not easy. (Visual artist have developed strategies for depicting this). This situation could indicate that mind is QM by proxy?
Interestingly both positions (eDam and Vision-Space) recognise the importance of experiential encounter and subjective awareness and what this implies. Actually that's the basis for the change in ontology required?
John, why do you consider light a duality? After all the wave and the particle are never separate, and are just two manifestations of the same entity.
For me its not that light is a duality is that the physical universe is a duality but there are some particles that have a presence in both. Dark matter is dark because it isn't here! The duality arises because light has a physical presence in both camps. It therefor has a duel orientation towards us in our camp. It moves as a particle through our space and it moves as a wave through space delivering the potential for two types of record of where its been! A physicist we tell you that a particle travelling through a slit delivers an impression of the slit on the screen. However the double slit delivers an 'interference pattern'. For me that's just another data set about the slits but its going to take more than a screen to make that coherence pattern deliver up its information! Its going to require a different processing system. I think we as biological systems have both.
The damned double slit with erasure has all the necessary information, but we are incapable of interpreting it correctly.
- Badges
- Science topic