"These means are so ineffective, so exiguous in their poverty that, if that were the whole machinery, we could know little or nothing or only achieve a great blur of confusion." — Sri Aurobindo
I think it's quite unfortunate that the fact that things aren't simply "made of particles" isn't more well known or explained somewhat in popular science. I think a lot of people would find it very interesting, certainly makes the world a more interesting place.
Falkenburg's monograph is very good in this regard. So is Hans Primas's "Knowledge and Time", if you haven't read it. Another fun read on the difficulties of reductionism in QM is Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano's lovely short paper "Quantum Holism".
If there ever was anything said about this matter in a more clear and consistent way, other than by yourself a few posts back, I honestly don’t know, and don’t believe it possible.
I’m glad to read the names of PFS and Sri Aurobindo mentioned in a single line of thought. Regarding science pitfalls and shortsightedness, what image can be more robust than the following. You spend, let’s say, two years going through the inner workings of matrix mechanics following the Cohen, or any similar undergraduate course. When you get to the end of it you ask: “That’s fantastic! What problem have we effectively solved Sir?” And you get a straightforward answer: “You can now solve the two-body problem”. “Really? That’s superb! And to which objects in nature can we apply that solution?” -you might be inclined to ask. “You can apply that solution to the Hydrogen atom..”, that is the short answer. So you carry on perplexed: “But what about all the rest?”. At this point the metaphysical delusion you have been bought into opens up: “Well, for all the rest you may as well find a suitable approximation.”
Hi Ulrich - I think the basis of memory is another great example of "promissory materialism". Technical difficulties associated with the prevailing mind-as-computer paradigm were discussed years ago in an insightful paper by Stephen E. Braude entitled "Memory Without a Trace". Other areas where science seems to have run up against intractable obstacles (despite periodic claims of "breakthrough research") include phenomena such and long distance animal migration, the biological basis of schizophrenia, near death experiences, and more. Hey, if you partially amputate the antennas of a monarch butterfly, they have difficulty finding their way around anymore - who knew!
I also wanted to express how much I appreciate your generosity in sharing your ideas. Years ago I stumbled on Aurobindo's brief commentary on Heraclitus, which immediately prompted me to delve further. The very next thing I read was a paper that you had published which was - if memory serves - about Aurobindo's approach to the problem of pain. These days, my honorably worn copy of LD is always close at hand. Thank you so much for your work!
I think it's quite unfortunate that the fact that things aren't simply "made of particles" isn't more well known or explained somewhat in popular science. I think a lot of people would find it very interesting, certainly makes the world a more interesting place.
Falkenburg's monograph is very good in this regard. So is Hans Primas's "Knowledge and Time", if you haven't read it. Another fun read on the difficulties of reductionism in QM is Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano's lovely short paper "Quantum Holism".
If there ever was anything said about this matter in a more clear and consistent way, other than by yourself a few posts back, I honestly don’t know, and don’t believe it possible.
I’m glad to read the names of PFS and Sri Aurobindo mentioned in a single line of thought. Regarding science pitfalls and shortsightedness, what image can be more robust than the following. You spend, let’s say, two years going through the inner workings of matrix mechanics following the Cohen, or any similar undergraduate course. When you get to the end of it you ask: “That’s fantastic! What problem have we effectively solved Sir?” And you get a straightforward answer: “You can now solve the two-body problem”. “Really? That’s superb! And to which objects in nature can we apply that solution?” -you might be inclined to ask. “You can apply that solution to the Hydrogen atom..”, that is the short answer. So you carry on perplexed: “But what about all the rest?”. At this point the metaphysical delusion you have been bought into opens up: “Well, for all the rest you may as well find a suitable approximation.”
Hi Ulrich - I think the basis of memory is another great example of "promissory materialism". Technical difficulties associated with the prevailing mind-as-computer paradigm were discussed years ago in an insightful paper by Stephen E. Braude entitled "Memory Without a Trace". Other areas where science seems to have run up against intractable obstacles (despite periodic claims of "breakthrough research") include phenomena such and long distance animal migration, the biological basis of schizophrenia, near death experiences, and more. Hey, if you partially amputate the antennas of a monarch butterfly, they have difficulty finding their way around anymore - who knew!
I also wanted to express how much I appreciate your generosity in sharing your ideas. Years ago I stumbled on Aurobindo's brief commentary on Heraclitus, which immediately prompted me to delve further. The very next thing I read was a paper that you had published which was - if memory serves - about Aurobindo's approach to the problem of pain. These days, my honorably worn copy of LD is always close at hand. Thank you so much for your work!