All is interaction

Carlo Rovelli is trying to explain the riddle of quantum mechanics.

The riddle resides in the fact that the theory works very well but we don't know how.
How can the a wave suddenly act as a particle when it's observed?

Rovelli means that its about interaction.
We should not see manifestations as photons or mountains as independent objects:

"I believe that in order to understand reality we have to understand that reality is this network of relations, of reciprocal information, which weaves the world..... reality is nor made up of discreet  objects. It is a variable flux. Think of an ocean wave. Where does a wave finish? Where does it begin?.... a wave and a mountain is not objects in themselves, they are ways that we have of slicing up the world to apprehend it, to speak about it more easy". ( From Rovelli - Reality is not what it seems)

So it seems that Rovelli has the same view as Buddha. Things and persons have no intrinsic selves.
And it's about the same with photons and electrons - so if a camera or a person observes the the minimal objects information is sent in both directions. The observer and the observed becomes interrelated. And the wave function collapses.

Its easy to comprehend when we think of persons; we influence each other in bad or good ways.
If we meet a person with an intelligent and emphatic mind we want to stay and be influenced...
But that persons will not be so interested in us if we we don't have a similar personality.
It is not, as some new age people want it to be - we cannot have want we want if we just wish it or look for it.
But we can change a bit if we meet people and surroundings that are good for us. And the longer we stay in that place the more we get interrelated with it. And maybe, on day, we say that we want to move - want to learn something new.

Rovelli and David Chalmers have been mentioned here before, And here both of them are interrelated in a funny discussion:

Chalmers claims that even electrons

Chalmers claims that even electrons can have some kind of primitive consciousness. But in physics  Rovelli doesn't need the theory of consciousness. He means that we are our brain and our body, and nothing more. We are nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Even though they seem to enjoy the company of each other, and they may even change a bit when they try each other perspective...

Its about the same as to listen to music that some artists have made. We can sing along and try their perspective for a while.

Here is what I have tried the last days:
(it's possible to see the video in the light of the election in the States)


This  music was inspired  by Kurt Wagners wife who wanted a more modern sound than the one Lambchop usually have. So that's interaction too!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more