Phil Forum : Quantum Reality

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/370809

What I now understand is that there is a natural independent realm of activity, the actuality of our environment which is truly "out there" and independent of us. — jambaugh

In his most recent book, The Case Against Reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, discusses the distinction between our relative perspective of Reality, and the Ultimate Reality itself. His analysis is not primarily about Quantum paradoxes. But he does mention Quantum Bayesianism, which says that “quantum states describe not the objective world but the beliefs of agents about the consequences of their actions.” Although his worldview is essentially Idealism, he does not deny an ultimate Reality, but says, like Kant, that we don't know it directly, but through a self-constructed "interface" that he compares to icons on a computer screen. That interface (belief system) displays our own personal model of Ultimate Reality.

What that has to do with Qualia like Love, I don't know. But it supports the notion that "Love is in the eyes of the beholder".


Reality Interface : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html


Possibly he is referring to the "Actuality" and just not explicitly verbalizing the distinction. "Reality" typically is loaded with the presumption of a state description. — jambaugh

Since he wanted to be taken seriously as a scientific researcher, Hoffman alluded to some Ideal or Transcendent Reality without being very specific. He pointedly avoided discussing god/heaven concepts. But I got the impression that he was referring to something like Plato's Ideal realm of Forms, and Kant's ding-an-sich (thing-in-essence).

In my own thesis, I distinguish that Ultimate Reality -- which I call "Ideality" -- from Proximate Reality by labeling Forms as "Potential", and their material instances as "Actual". Which seems to be just the opposite of your usage of "Actuality". My "Actual" is equivalent to material Reality, which is "loaded with the presumption of a state" that we can describe in physical (space-time) terms. Ironically, Hoffman's theory indicates that even the Reality we interface with is imaginary --- a mental state.

My concept of "Ideality" is transcendent, in the sense that it is beyond space-time --- a timeless state (eternity) within which the Big Bang signaled the start of space-time. With that concept in mind, I interpret such Quantum phenomena as Virtual Particles in terms of Potential, and Physical (measurable) Particles as Actual. Other absurd Quantum behaviors -- entanglement, tunneling, etc -- are also interpreted as transitions between space-time Actuality and eternal Potential. Likewise, the Big Bang is imagined as the transition of a Virtual World (concept, design, Form) into an Actual World (space-time, matter/energy). Potential is like Energy that has not been activated (actualized). Unfortunately, this notion can get confusing if we don't agree on the meaning of such terms as "actual".


Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html