Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities (General)

by dhw, Friday, August 02, 2013, 13:21 (4130 days ago) @ rekastner

RUTH: I think you're reading something pejorative into my categorization that isn't intended. All I'm saying is that the physical possibilities I'm referring to are those things that are describable by QM -- by that particular theory.
I'm not addressing other types of things, e.g., that could be mental in nature, and I'm not saying those aren't real, they are just not part of the 'actualized, physical' realm (spacetime) or of the realm described by the QM formalism.-Also, I've noted that QM seems to be telling us there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as 'real,' but at subtler levels. One could think of the mental realm as a subtler level of the QM realm, which would mean it is more fundamental but less manifest in a physical sense. I'm not endorsing that view but it's certainly a possibility.-Thank you for this response, which certainly brings me a lot closer to an understanding of your ideas. I don't see your categories as necessarily pejorative, though. We all struggle to express these difficult ideas in language that will clarify and not obscure (and there are other instances in your Chapter 7 which I'd like to discuss if you're still willing). The statement that threw me was your categorical one that Heisenbergian 'potentia' "are less real than events in the actual world, yet more real than mere thoughts or imaginings or conceivable events. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2." And under Figure 2 you repeat the formula of less real/more real. This led us into a philosophical maze, searching for criteria by which you measure reality. You came up with physicality, and then with predictability, both of which led us even deeper into the maze. In the light of what you've written above, would it not be less confusing to remove all the references to comparative realities, and say that Heisenbergian 'potentia' are less physical than events in the actual world, but more physical than thoughts [why 'mere'?] or imaginings or conceivable events? -The idea that there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as "real", is far more flexible than "x is more real than y". I'm not sure about "subtle" and "subtler" or "more fundamental" (both of which could suggest some kind of value judgement), but the idea that some levels are "less manifest in a physical sense" than others sounds to me like a good neutral compromise! Perhaps also they are less accessible, or less definable. I hope you won't feel these comments are presumptuous on my part. They're just my clumsy attempts to avoid what may be unnecessary confusion. In this context, do please read my latest response to David on this thread.
 
I must confess the mental area is what fascinates me most, and of course David is hoping it will encompass all levels of consciousness right through to a Universal Intelligence. I'm intrigued by the fact that you don't endorse that view but regard it as a possibility. Sounds like a nicely balanced agnostic approach!-******-A formal note: it's generally helpful if you can preface your post by identifying the person and quoting any particular passage you're responding to, as above. It saves switching back and forth between posts.