A Note on Emerging Philosophy of Neo-Scalism.

Following Kant and Schopenhauer concepts of noumenon of “will” one could state that objective reality, the singular unitary thing in itself, all permeating entity beyond our perception capabilities, could be considered as reality that gains its representation as a structured, plural world, only in a form of separate but complementary ideas in our mind. Hence, so-called phenomena i.e. objects+relations, determined by our aesthetics do not objectively exist beyond our awareness of them since they are simply plural concepts incepted into our minds.

And hence fundamental laws of nature we seem to discover “experimentally” may likely be just mathematical/tautological creation of our mind, as D. Hume insisted, the result of already preconceived ideas about structure and processes of what we call universe but rather what we should call the universe of our over-interpreted sensibilities. Our intellectual journey beyond the border of our common sensibilities all too often result in instability, variability or failure of validity of what we understand as fundamental laws of nature, which actually are just consequences of mathematical tautologies i.e. varying expressions of the same singular idea.

A Note on Metaphysics of Reality.

In the post “It’s about Time” on this blog, following E. Kant “Critique of Pure Reason”  a conjecture was put forward that time-space, may in fact not exist as a part of external objective reality but rather is simply a way, a method of perceiving reality of sensed events. Consequently a question arises. If time and space does not objectively exist but instead they are merely tools utilized to describe sense-perceived phenomena, can we use some other perception tools to replace our built-in time-space aesthetics?

A Note on Science: Surrealism of Quanta.[UPDATED2]

The Quantum Mechanics (QM) is established branch of physics with about 100 years of history behind it and countless technological implementations. I want to state clearly at the beginning of this post that I am aware and appreciate enormous contribution of QM as well as Solid State Physics to development of truly innovative discrete (digital) technologies in optics (laser, LED, photo voltaic cells, etc.) and electronics (superconductivity, semiconductor components etc.).

AUTHOR’S NOTE: When I wrote this essay based mostly on my own work in the field many decades ago and work by Richard von Mises famous book, “Probability, Statistics and Truth” 1957 and his critique of common, popular misinterpretation of Quantum Mechanics [among other issues of modern science]  I was not aware of several works by another quantum physicist that as myself tried to dispel myths about this quite strange branch of science.

Especially two books from 2014, 2017 by Jean Bricmont, a physicist  of Université Catholique de Louvain, seem to address in much more comprehensive and controversial ways many questions I have asked as a part of our conversation on this blog about role and need for intelligibility of modern science and its metaphysical foundations.

These are: “Quantum Sense and Nonsense”, 2017 (little math)
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319652702#aboutBook

And “Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics 2014 (more math) 
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319258874

As I never recommend purchasing anything on this blog so it is placed as informational link although they offer this book for sale at Springer Verlag as well as many other places. But  if you want to read those books anyway, do me a favor do not buy from Amazon.com thank you.

I do not intend here to question efficacy of the theory of Quanta but rather aim to question narratives disseminated widely in media, academia, and in many scientific circuits, supposedly explaining foundations of the Quantum theory as closely related to reality of universe. I will attempt to address some more controversial, often characterized as surreal, aspects of theory of QM in context of intelligibility debate continuing on this blog.

A Note on Science: Theory vs. Reality.

The fact that modern scientific theories are nothing more than linear models, human literary narratives based on conceptualized sense perceptions peculiarly interpreted as external experiences is rarely admitted by scientists themselves, often due to fear of loosing, their strangely perceived universal truth proclaiming, authority. While black-box models are pure constructs of our mind (tautologies of mathematics), they are being incorrectly promoted, by media and educational system, as descriptions of true reality of universe. Moreover, these are models of human perceptions only, organized by processes of abstract thinking, rather than theories addressing underlying objective reality in itself.   We have (almost) no perceptual access into objective reality as I mentioned in my previous post (A Note on Objective Reality). What’s worse is that contemporary scientific method, completely abandoned requirement of intelligibility of scientific theory, which successfully guided founders of modern science, and lost emphasis on intelligible mechanisms to describe physical processes. Consequently, 21^st century science provides us with mostly unintelligible stories of universe, selectively matched to internal perceptions via subjective interpretations (experiments/experiences) of very narrow scientific community of “experts”.

A Note on Objective Reality.

So what is Objective Reality? First of all, the reality, we accept as existing out there, is pure fabrication of our mind although our models of it (science) seem to work in narrow circumstances. This is not controversial statement but conclusion based on widely accepted evidences. However, where we are going, there are no accepted evidences. We are crossing here into sphere of pure philosophical speculations. Enjoy the ride.

A Note On Search For Objective Reality.

What our indispensable life narratives tell us for sure is, that our perception of the reality of the world is very individual and specific to training and abilities and past experiences. We may hear sounds but not perceive it as music but merely noise, we may pass a rock formation where others see sculpture, we may smell delicious food while others only odor, we may perceive danger upon touch, while others only refinements of luxury alligator skin purse, we may perceive convex, others concave space, looking at flat wall.

So why, we appear to react to seemingly the same sensations with sometimes completely opposite perceptions of what is actually happening in world that surrounds us? Is it because of our individually categorized, limited cultural precepts or authority driven, religious, ideological, scientific or other perception framings of our sensations?

A Note on Transcendental Mind. What do we really know before we learn anything?

 In previous post (It’s About Time) I put forward conjecture that time and space may be merely a faculty of our mind dedicated to inception of comprehensible narratives about sense perceived abstract class entity(es) called “matter” or more widely, material reality(es). But before we could proceed into our metaphysics of reality, risking of loosing my  reader, I suggest that we pause a little to inquire more sincerely upon our transcendental mind, which underlies the above question.

It’s About Time.

It’s hard to find anyone who would have fundamental problem accepting common meaning of time. We need it. We need our future and our past. What is interesting is that no one is asking why we so easy accept it and use it as a fundamental element of our perception and what we would call “understanding” of world around us, which we describe as our “reality”.

What if, time is so fundamental to our lives, that we had to invent it.