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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 12:25 (4126 days ago) @ rekastner

RUTH: Thanks David. Even Feynman said:
"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself,.... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain" into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped."
I think it can 'be like that' because QM is describing entities that are not contained within spacetime. These are what I call 'physical possibilities', after an idea by Heisenbert that he didn't pursue. Most physicists assume that 'physically real' = 'living in spacetime'; I'm suggesting that this should be questioned. Physical reality need not be restricted to the spacetime manifold.-This is what fascinates both David and myself, and eventually I hope we will get onto the POSSIBLE (no more than that) implications for consciousness, psychic phenomena, origins and even the existence of David's God.
 
RUTH: Again, for dhw -- I'm not saying other things (such as mental phenomena) are not real. But for now, I'm not considering them as physical things (but I don't rule out that they could be, on some very subtle level that is not a known part of any current physical theory).-As I've explained in the first part of my post under "Ruth & Rindler", this is a misunderstanding. My concern here was not with reality/unreality but with your repeated formula of more/less real. However, you have now suggested "less manifest", and that is fine with me too! It does away with all the problems of criteria.-My aim in these posts is to point out those areas of your arguments which confuse a layman like myself, in the hope that (a) you can clarify them for me, and (b) such discussions will be useful for your new book. But if they're not, do please feel free to say so!