Notes on Beyond the Atom: The Philosophical Thought of Wolfgang Pauli by K. V. Laurkainen
The notion that there is a complete world separate from the observer (state function of the whole universe) forces physics to make some convoluted conclusions, like the many world hypothesis of Deutsch, in order to fit with current theory in physics. Bohr and Pauli (and Fuchs it seems) disagree and believe the subject is part of the whole.
Seems to use state function interchangeably with wave function.
Multi overlapping fields (multiple universes) are designed to take into account all events and find all of their wave functions, including that of consciousness (Pauli would find this untenable). In this conception, there is no free will because everything already is (a clockwork universe).
(What I don't get is why the will or consciousness or whatever you want to call it has to be other than the physical world? I don't really get how it could be? If it isn't part of the physical world, then what is it?
Is there some way that "subjectivity is part of all measurements but isn't special? We, as humans, aren't somehow outside of physics while everything else is inside of it?
Laurkaniene says the will is independent of the physical world. Can't see how this could be so or why it's even necessary to posit it. Why can't there be a will that is simply part of the world. To say its outside of "rationality" is rather limiting because rationality is only how we see things. Just because it doesn't seem rational to us, doesn't mean it isn't rational. States "reason can never completely express reality" (p. 7), which I would agree with but that is a limitation with our reason and not a testament to the fact that there are things outside of reason. It's ironic to write entire books on how the world "makes sense" and then try to posit that there are just these things that are outside of sense because we do not understand them.
States that the deep problems that probability raises are not solvable and thus indicate these problems "belong to the very structure of reality" (p. 71). Real anthropomorphic centrism here--reality does not have to be only that which we can access. In fact, it seems pretty clear that isn't reality (needs to make the distinction that Mermin, I believe, makes between two realities. "correlations have physical reality and not reality (physical reality means they can be accounted for by a physical theory) (p. 7). Makes a very clear cut distinction between these two (of two or more?) realities--the physical (that we can measure and to some degree predict) and the real which is outside of our tools. Conscious awareness, in contrast, has reality and not physical reality. . .we have no theory to explain it but it exists, is how I understand this." from post
Laurekaninen states that the particle is localizable while the wave extends in space and time (and is not localizable). They are complimentary and the collapsing wave function is the two becoming one, no longer separate?
L states the atomic world has contradictory properties (looks like a wave sometimes and sometimes a particle) but is that the world or our perception?
There are things that happen that physics cannot explain (consciousness, "the supernatural", for example). L concludes from this that they are irrational and outside science (p. 55).
When he says there are "room for choices", choices for whom? Room where? Room in our consciousness or room in the physical world?
A better title of this book seems to be: Beyond the Atom: The metaphysical thought of K. V Laurkainen
Tentative conclusions:
1. If humans are just part of the physical universe then is the role of subjectivity different than if we are not?
2. Physics is just a human discipline that would not exist if it weren't for humans, but the physical world would not change because we weren't calling it physics.
3. We affect the physical world in the same way that the stars or the moon or far away universes affect the physical world; but in no special way.
4. It is only in observing ourselves observing that we start to see ourselves as somehow central or major players. But that is so only in the human world and not in the the universe.
5. The world is no more pre-determined for humans than it is for stars, and no less. If starts can have "random" affects on the universe than so can humans.
6. Physics provides us a way to make observations that we can share with one another about the world but it only matters to us. Our observations are only from our perspective.
Seems to use state function interchangeably with wave function.
Multi overlapping fields (multiple universes) are designed to take into account all events and find all of their wave functions, including that of consciousness (Pauli would find this untenable). In this conception, there is no free will because everything already is (a clockwork universe).
(What I don't get is why the will or consciousness or whatever you want to call it has to be other than the physical world? I don't really get how it could be? If it isn't part of the physical world, then what is it?
Is there some way that "subjectivity is part of all measurements but isn't special? We, as humans, aren't somehow outside of physics while everything else is inside of it?
Laurkaniene says the will is independent of the physical world. Can't see how this could be so or why it's even necessary to posit it. Why can't there be a will that is simply part of the world. To say its outside of "rationality" is rather limiting because rationality is only how we see things. Just because it doesn't seem rational to us, doesn't mean it isn't rational. States "reason can never completely express reality" (p. 7), which I would agree with but that is a limitation with our reason and not a testament to the fact that there are things outside of reason. It's ironic to write entire books on how the world "makes sense" and then try to posit that there are just these things that are outside of sense because we do not understand them.
States that the deep problems that probability raises are not solvable and thus indicate these problems "belong to the very structure of reality" (p. 71). Real anthropomorphic centrism here--reality does not have to be only that which we can access. In fact, it seems pretty clear that isn't reality (needs to make the distinction that Mermin, I believe, makes between two realities. "correlations have physical reality and not reality (physical reality means they can be accounted for by a physical theory) (p. 7). Makes a very clear cut distinction between these two (of two or more?) realities--the physical (that we can measure and to some degree predict) and the real which is outside of our tools. Conscious awareness, in contrast, has reality and not physical reality. . .we have no theory to explain it but it exists, is how I understand this." from post
Laurekaninen states that the particle is localizable while the wave extends in space and time (and is not localizable). They are complimentary and the collapsing wave function is the two becoming one, no longer separate?
L states the atomic world has contradictory properties (looks like a wave sometimes and sometimes a particle) but is that the world or our perception?
There are things that happen that physics cannot explain (consciousness, "the supernatural", for example). L concludes from this that they are irrational and outside science (p. 55).
When he says there are "room for choices", choices for whom? Room where? Room in our consciousness or room in the physical world?
A better title of this book seems to be: Beyond the Atom: The metaphysical thought of K. V Laurkainen
Tentative conclusions:
1. If humans are just part of the physical universe then is the role of subjectivity different than if we are not?
2. Physics is just a human discipline that would not exist if it weren't for humans, but the physical world would not change because we weren't calling it physics.
3. We affect the physical world in the same way that the stars or the moon or far away universes affect the physical world; but in no special way.
4. It is only in observing ourselves observing that we start to see ourselves as somehow central or major players. But that is so only in the human world and not in the the universe.
5. The world is no more pre-determined for humans than it is for stars, and no less. If starts can have "random" affects on the universe than so can humans.
6. Physics provides us a way to make observations that we can share with one another about the world but it only matters to us. Our observations are only from our perspective.
Comments
Post a Comment