I have some knowledge of Heisenberg but probably not enough. If he held to this then clearly he requires this kind of response. And you seem correct. Still, he was one of the forces behind Quantum Physics so it does seem an odd response on his part.

Discussions in this field tend to be restricted by the mistaken concept of metaphysical materialism - the false belief that there is an objective world independent of experience, a notion not supported by any empirical evidence. A number of thinkers - Kastrup, Hoffman and Taylor in particular - have offered cogent criticisms of this outdated materialism and offered more robust and parsimonious models of reality based on contemporary re-workings of idealism in the light of the findings of quantum physics and the abject failure to make a dent in the hard problem of consciousness. Well worth reading:

Taylor, S. (2018). Spiritual Science: Why Science Needs Spirituality to Make Sense of the World. (London: Watkins Media)

Hoffman, D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from

Our Eyes (London: Penguin)

Kastrup, B. (2014). Why Materialism is Baloney(Hampshire: iff Books)

Kastrup, B. (2015). Brief Peeks From Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism and Culture(Hampshire:i ff Books)

Kastrup, B. (2016). More Than Allegory(Hampshire: iff Books)

Kastrup, B. (2017). On the Plausibility of Idealism: Refuting Criticisms; Disputatio, IX (44), 13-34

Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World(Hampshire: iff Books)

Kastrup, B. (2020). Decoding Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics. (Winchester: iff Books)

Kastrup, B. (2021). Science Ideated. (Hampshire: John Hunt Publishing)

Hope this is useful! Very best wishes - Terry

spencers note is that wrong, that it is not even worth to be answered.

Stanley Wilkin Werner Heisenberg was the first to discover Quantummechanics and formulated it in his famous Matrizenmechanik, long before schrödinger wrote down his wave-mechanical form of quantum mechanics and gave a complete wrong interpretation of it.

Terry Hyland Hinnerk Albert

Dear Terry:

rather than give us a thousand years of reading; why NOT give us a quick summary of the cogent criticisms. I have a deep belief in materialism (all electrons).

I go along with Dr. Johnson's refutation of bishop Berkeley's Idealism by kicking a stone.

Empty argumentation is a pathetic response., dear Hinnerk.

PS I lived in Bolton for 15 years (see my biog).

Dear Herb

Many thanks for your comments. Dr Johnson's so-called refutation of Berkeley was, of course, absurd and fatuous. By kicking the stone (he could have simply looked at it, tasted it or smelled it!) he proved that the senses are required to instantiate the existence of material objects, which was Berkeley's thesis. Our senses require conscious phenomenal experience without which nothing may be claimed to exist. The fact that Johnson was confirming rather than refuting idealism would naturally not have been noticed by an intellectual and arrogant dogmatist like the good doctor.

I agree that, like free will, materialism is difficult to let go of, but I think have now successfully done so in both cases, and I feel better for it. Forms of neo-idealism avoid the myriad problems of scientific materialism (around 14 different interpratations of quantum mechanics, M-theory positing 11 dimensions, many worlds theories hypothesizing infinite mutliverses, etc), dissolve the hard problem of consciousness and satisfy Occam's razor by providing a more parsimonious model of reality than scientific materialism.

The arguments are complex and subtle and need to be looked at seriously rather than rejected out of hand. Difficult to describe in a short summary but I recenly did a short monograph which I attach. However, to appreciate the full picture it is well worth looking at Kastrup and/or Hoffman (both have videos on Youtube).

Best of luck with the journey of discovery!

Regards - Terry

You embarasss yourself to use the childish term “third-rate” about anyone, much less someone as insightful as Heisenberg. Read Heisenberg’s “Physics and Philosophy:The Revolution in Modern Science” (1958) and try to realize it’s implications for all sciences, indeed, all epistemology.

Roger K. Thomas

Dear Roger:

I did read H's book years ago; just as wrong then

as now.

I am afraid you are one of the Curators of the Past,

who treasure anything created by one of the Greats.

I rethink my own position on everything.

This is why Aristotle lasted 2500 years !

Send me an essay or review on H's book.

Apparently you misunderstood. Heisenberg was not about what is materially real but the limits on what one can KNOW about what is real. I believe firmly in material reductionism, but I can do that and also accept the limits of what we can know. I am comfortable with the extremely high probabilities about what we can “know” about many things.

Not referring to your entries but to the comments about Johnson’s so-called refutation of Berkeley’s idealism by kicking the stone (root word “idea“ not ”ideal”) the authors of such entries fail to understand Berkeley. However, Berkeley did compromise his idealism by including the unnecessary “role“ of God in populating the contents of “ideas.”

Roger K. Thomas Terry Hyland

What Dr. Johnson's kick demonstrated was a material interaction that others could see;

just looking proves nothing: hence soccer's appeal. INTERACTION is the KEY to REALITY.

Reality is beyond appearances, dear Roger. Reality existed before (and probably long after us). Sure there are limits to knowledge: brought on by complexity, not mystical idealism.

H's statistical view of QM is simplistic; we never do experiments on a single hydrogen atom.

I believe the following is at the heart of this discussion. Historically, there have been four fundamental positions on the so-called ‘mind-body(brain) problem.‘ Two are monistic, materialism (e.g., Thomas Hobbes) and idealism (e.g., George Berkeley), and two are dualistic, interactionism (Rene Descartes) and parallelism (G. W. Leibnitz). Hobbes, Descartes, and Leibnitz ‘needed’ a belief in materialism for their mind-body(brain) problem solution to work. However, all are equally true or equally false, as you prefer. None can be confirmed or refuted in the ultimate sense of true or false.

Determined by one’s acquired knowledge, one may PREFER one position on the mind-body(brain) problem because it ‘works best’ (i.e., is more comfortable rationally, emotionally, etc.) for her/him.

Similarly, is the notion of reality. One cannot confirm or refute reality; one can only CHOOSE whether believing in reality ’works best.’ My choice is that believing in reality and material reductionism works best for me in my academic and personal ‘lives.’ But I am comfortable with accepting them as the beliefs and choices that they are, and I can live comfortably with the limitations of determining complete knowledge as Heisenberg showed.

BTW ‘Dear Herb,’ ignorant condescension has no place in sober scholarly discourse. But, perhaps I am wrong, and this is not meant to be serious scholarly discussion.

CHEERS!

Roger K. Thomas Terry Hyland Hinnerk Albert

Dear Thomas:

Let's cut out all the BS; Let's do a thought-experiment.

We both go to the edge of a high cliff or bridge.

I say Do not go there (over the edge); you will agree:

It's not imagination, it's material reality as is your soft body.

This is NOT a Ideational preference !!

What's wrong with condescencion; oversteps one's sense

of behavior OR induces a tough reply?

Soberly discussion - YES, scholarly, NO.

I meant to Preface my last contribution by saying that it would be my last to this “Discussion.”