Indeed. But whatever the answer might be, one could ask what that is "made of". It's turtles all the way down.

Not a feedback loop, like a dynamic equilibrium; an identity (not a personality trait, but being the same thing) without teleology (cause or purpose): being. As in the word is.

The best introduction to Bruno Latour as a philosopher wasn't written by him: it's the book Prince of Networks, by Graham Harman. Latour was never formally a philosopher, but his work was massively concerned with metaphysics all the same.

Harman described Latour as a "secular occasionalist". Occasionalist philosophers are concerned with how anything can interact with anything else (a much broader and, to Harman, a much more interesting question than how subject can interact with object, the question which has dominated Western philosophy since at least Kant). Occasionalism sees all substances as radically isolated from each other - but then have to posit a special exception to the rule of separation, like "God" (in classical Islamic occasionalism) or "eternal objects" (A.N. Whitehead's more recent occasionalism).

Latour dispenses with any special substance in occasionalist philosophy by positing that anything can potentially take on the role of mediating bridge between anything else. Harman doesn't view this as a perfect solution to all the problems of philosophies of occasionalism by any means, but he views at as innovative step, worth pursuing further, which for Harman entailed the development of a version of "object-oriented ontology" - but this post is about Latour as a philosopher, so I'll stop now.

>Your entire post uses ignorance of physics as a bludgeon.

Nah. It is an effort to explain to people who understand physics but little else why other peope, who don't understand physics, understand more than they do.

>No, it is precisely the right word. Which you’d know if you knew enough about physics to have this conversation.

You're mistaking what is conventional within physics for what is meaningful in real life. "System" is the wrong word for a single substance, even one so profoundly important to physicists as Bose-Einstein condensates.

>Condensed matter physics is an application of quantum mechanics used to model properties of macroscopic systems.

It is used to model one very specific and particular (pun intended) kind of quantum system, which is really important because that specific "condensed matter" is a macroscopic substance, unlike most quantum systems, which are sub-atomic, so small that even using the contrast macro/microscopic is actually weird.

>I used it as an example of how macroscopic things absolutely do demonstrate quantum mechanical properties,

Nobody disputes that deterministic objects "demonstrate quantum mechanical properties"; as far as I know, they do so simply by existing. The issue being address here is how, and whether that is known with enough detail and accuracy in a wide enough variety of instances to be considered important outside of the singular domain of physics. Most directly observable ("macroscopic") systems don't demonstrate quantum mechanical properties over and above classical mechanical properties. So the use of one example of a "macroscopic thing" demonstrating quantum properties (which, as far as I know, aren't observable as distinct from conventional properties in BEC without special equipment and in highly restricted circumstances) really doesn't have the weight you think it would, in this discussion.

> I never said that it is “all of physics,” but that’s a nice strawman.

Not a strawman, just an example of what it would take to justify saying that QM effects "the macro world" of everyday objects.

>Semantics

AKA language. AKA discussion. AKA the real world.

>I’m not talking about notation,

Semantics.

>The point is that in circumstances when hbar is small compared to the relevant scale factors of a system, quantum mechanics turns into classical mechanics.

A very important issue, in theory. Why is it that you have trouble excepting that proving something in principle to other scientists isn't the same as having an effect on the rest of the world?

>Except I’ve given explicit examples of ways that QM empirically is relevant in macroscopic systems

"Relevant". What a pleasantly useful dragging of the goalposts halfway down the field that is.

I never disputed that QM is relevant in those examples. But despite that, the relevance of those examples is less than you are insisting. At least to the person who made the comment, which we both disagreed with. I just did a better job of it, and I thought I'd be helpful and explain what it is you were doing wrong in that regard.

>But as usual, you simply don’t engage with the parts of my arguments that you don’t know how to address and pretend they never happened.

You have it backwards. The parts I don't engage are either trivial or accurate. The sections of your comments I directly address are mostly just the more illustrative mistakes in your reasoning.

Facing Gaia - to get acquainted with the ecological crisit

Your entire post uses ignorance of physics as a bludgeon.

> The term "systems" seems a bit of over-reach, in line with your original premise.

No, it is precisely the right word. Which you’d know if you knew enough about physics to have this conversation.

> What is important, for the purposes of this discussion, is that condensed matter physics is a specific sub-domain of physics, rather than all of physics itself,

None of this makes sense. Condensed matter physics is an application of quantum mechanics used to model properties of macroscopic systems. I used it as an example of how macroscopic things absolutely do demonstrate quantum mechanical properties, and gave examples of macroscopic phenomena that we can only explain in terms of quantum mechanics. I never said that it is “all of physics,” but that’s a nice strawman.

> which exemplifies the fact that QM doesn't literally explain how or why classic physics ("Newtonian physics" was the iconic representative) arises from the principles of QM. In theory we "know" it must, but as it has not yet been convincingly demonstrated in general cases, insisting that conjecture is fact is problematic.

I even gave you a link to a general proof of the correspondence principle and described an approach for an alternative proof, and it’s telling that you didn’t even respond to that at all, and instead built a strawman to argue against instead. Neither of those are conjecture, they are proofs. Your ignorance of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You should stop arguing about things you don’t know. You may be the best philosopher in the universe, but you can’t do philosophy about topics you don’t understand, let alone those that you aren’t even aware of.

> I would dispute half of that. Scientific models are entirely about how, and necessarily unconcerned with why.

Semantics. Science is about constructing models that reflect reality insofar as we can measure it. A scientific model is good if it is consistent with existing data and accurately predicts the results of future experiments. For example, quantum mechanics doesn’t address how things happen, only what will happen. GR does the same, although in both cases we use words that ascribe some sense of “how,” but it’s more to help us talk about and understand the math, than intrinsic to the model. For example, we often say that mass curves spacetime, and that’s what gravity is, but it’s possible to reframe GR in terms that have nothing to do with spacetime curvature. e.g. it can equivalently be thought of as arising from torsion instead of curvature, or even as a field on a standard spacetime background; all of these are probably mathematically equivalent and no experiment can ever, even in principle, distinguish between them. This nearly identical to the issue of interpretations in QM, it just gets less attention for a variety of reasons.

> I would say that the notation arises from the distinction rather than the other way around.

I’m not talking about notation, I’m talking about the meaning behind the notation (which I suspect you probably don’t know). Either way, you’re missing the point. The point is that in circumstances when hbar is small compared to the relevant scale factors of a system, quantum mechanics turns into classical mechanics. In that sense, classical mechanics is embedded in quantum mechanics.

> But of course, and I may be mistaken about this and please enlighten me about your reasoning if I am, I presume you meant classic physics reduce to QM, rather than the other way around, which is what you actually typed. I think the idea that quantum behavior necessarily reduces to Newtonian mechanics is absurd, isn't it?

No, I meant what I said. In the macroscopic limit, quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics. Just like GR reduces to classical mechanics in the limit of low masses and small scales. This is an important aspect of the development of scientific models, it is what the word “reduce” means in this context. It means that quantum mechanics is a more encompassing model, and by taking the appropriate limit you can reduce it to recover classical mechanics.

> I don't mean to sound flippant, but that is an awfully convenient excuse. Which is to say that since you cannot demonstrate that you can perform such a feat, it remains conjecture rather than knowledge, faith rather than fact, a valid supposition but not a foregone conclusion, that it actually can be done.

It’s not an excuse. In a Newtonian world, Newtonian mechanics could be used to deterministically predict the precise time evolution of a gaseous system given accurate and precise initial conditions, regardless of the number of gas particles. It is wildly impractical to do that for anything above a small number of particles, but that doesn’t make it conjecture. And again, I’ve already proved your second sentence wrong. You just chose not to even acknowledge it.

> "Often", after all, does not mean 'always', and whether the instant case is such an example requires empirical demonstration or else it is simply not convincing, all the more so because of the specifically confounding results that differentiates QM from classic physics.

Again, I literally gave you the proof. You’re not even just using ignorance as a weapon here, you’re using willful ignorance. QM has been unambiguously and explicitly proven to reduce to classical mechanics in the macroscopic limit. Hard stop.

> And also as I pointed out, it remains an act of faith to suppose that means it is true in reality.

And again, it’s been proven true in reality. The model of QM reduces to the model CM in the macroscopic limit. You can argue all you want against that, but you’d be wrong. The only place “faith” shows up is in the assumption that QM accurately models reality, but I’m not arguing whether it’s correct or not (and also that is always the case for every scientific model that ever has and ever will be constructed, making it a pedantic argument in the first place). The fact that QM reduces to CM is mathematical fact, regardless of the applicability of either model to the real world.

> Then it, quite arguably, has nothing to do with the discussion, in a way very analogous (or perhaps entirely identical) to whether QM "has nothing to do with" actual reality, but only mathematically models particular systems in scientific laboratories.

No, the other person made false claims about the limits of applicability of quantum mechanical systems. They weren’t arguing that we can’t know whether QM is actually, truly correct. They were clearly under the wrong impression that QM, even if true, doesn’t apply at macroscopic scales. That is what I argued against. You are merely creating strawmen.

> But I still insist you are overstating the case of their applicability, since functional utility in restricted examples does not actually prove general accuracy in all instances, even with further theoretical bases to support the belief that QM fully explains why Newtonian physics arises from quantum interactions.

Except I’ve given explicit examples of ways that QM empirically is relevant in macroscopic systems. But as usual, you simply don’t engage with the parts of my arguments that you don’t know how to address and pretend they never happened.

>Well now you just seem to want to redefine "computer" as a piece of an emergent "computing system",

Not a piece, a purpose. The computer is the logic behind the hardware, not the hardware.

> At what part does this distinction occur?

Distinctions occur when they are made. You can refuse to make the distinction; obviously enough, it was mentioned only to illustrate a point. But regardless of whether it is a common usage of the term, it is easy to grasp (metaphorically, though as impossible to physically grasp as any metaphor) if you try even a little bit to understand the point. It isn't even all that novel. There was a time when "computer" was a career choice, not equipment. The computer is not the appliance, but the function. It may require a process, but it is holistic; the (abstract) computer missing any "part" of the process is no longer a computer at all. In contrast, the appliance without a given chip or a hard drive is still a "computer" in the conventional sense, just not a functioning one.

>Until you clearly define the physical parts of the commonly held definition of compute

LOL. Until you come to grips with the point I was making, that the hardware (or even software) isn't the issue, the computation is, you'll continue to be mystified by the fact that anything that computes is a computer, and it is not necessary for it to be the "macro" device you are thinking of when you use the term, and you'll be unable to recognize the significance of your error when it comes to the relationship between QM and deterministic objects. It is easy to assume and believe that our current QM models are sufficient for explaining how and why deterministic objects we directly interact with emerge from the quantum mechanics we've already discovered, and nothing more, just as it is easy to assume the word "computer" only refers to the electronic appliances you are familiar with. But until you do explain how and why the "macro world" emerges from quantum interactions, in each and every detail and every possible instance, you're just testifying to your faith, not reporting a fact. I can't dismiss your assumption that Newtonian (and relativistic) mechanics would certainly emerge from what we already know about quantum interactions as nonsense, because it is not nonsense. It's just arrogance and ignorance. It might not even be an inaccurate belief, but it is still wrong simply because it is a belief rather than actual knowledge.

Let me close by summarizing the distinction between my reasoning and yours, in terms of the quibbles we have with the original comment we've both separately addressed by disagreeing with it:

>>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

Here's your quibble, as you've attested, indicated by emphasis:

>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

I said you overstated your case in your quibbling, and I hope you'll take the trouble to review the thread to see why I said it, and how it was a reasonable criticism. I think it is more important than you realize. In contrast, here's my quibble, again indicated by emphasis, which I also hope will be self-explanatory in making a less overblown and thus stronger case against the original comment:

>It has nothing to do with the complex macro structures we know as "reality."

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

Very sad news. The world has lost a great social scientist

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

Thanks for this. Your insight very much appreciated!

Sorry, the "just today" was from an earlier post I made (correct the time time).

I'll fix it.

Philosophize This just did an excellent episode on Bruno. RIP

Well now you just seem to want to redefine "computer" as a piece of an emergent "computing system", but you've failed to clearly do so. At what part does this distinction occur? Can we include the motherboard? Is your arbitrary definition confined to only the computer's processor? Can we include the processor's BIOS, or are we also excluding any assembly code that is essential to the processor's function? Do we need to go to individual logic gates of the processor to reach your definition of "computer"?

Until you clearly define the physical parts of the commonly held definition of computer that fit your esoteric definition, forgive me for dismissing yours as nonsense.

Very influential in ludology as well.

emphasis on "sociologist"

Is it a common belief that all life is just different manifestations of the same consciousness? Not in a vague spiritual way, like a real, physically consistent way. I really can't think of a better explanation. Take consciousness as a fundamental, singular property of the universe (or reality in general) that can manifest in different ways (with some complicated interaction with brain structure/information that results in different qualia).

We obviously can only remember our own lives because physically it's only possible for our brains to generate the qualia for remembering our own past. But different people (and life, and whatever else is conscious), would still be part of the same consciousness, just physically disconnected. In the same way you might not remember being a kid a long time ago, you don't "remember" being other people (because it's physically impossible for you to have those qualia), but it's still all "you," because consciousness is just one thing, not something that gets "duplicated" for each person.

You could "model" it as reincarnation, where you experience another life after death but don't remember you're old one, but really there wouldn't be time dependence (you're this life, then you're this life), they would just be two, causally disconnected lives that don't happen in any definable order (you're this life, and you're this life, no explainable order because there's no causal connection).

lol

Morality will always be subjective go group consensus over time, its an emergent aspect of human society.

Any claim of definitive or objective morality is just foolish, like claiming rocks are good/evil without considering the subjectivity of human development.

>Sure, if you describe "reality" as what humans are capable of perceiving,

I describe "reality" as what humans do percieve, and consider only humans to be capable of perceiving. But I don't limit perception by excluding what we can empirically measure from it. To believe that QM is different from classic physics because it requires more precise measurements to identify it's principles is just like believing that QM is a matter of size rather than scope.

>A computer is undeniably a macro structure.

I accept that challenge. A computing appliance (a generally programmable calculating device) is a macro structure. But the computer which it enmatters is not. It is a system, but it would be the same system if it were implemented with any other structure, regardless of the size. In a very real way, all computers are "quantum devices", because a binary digit is a quantum of information/data, and also because somehow (we know not how!) the electrical mechanisms we use to execute the computer are themselves quantum effects, more so than the physical object is. But of course, the current craze concerning 'equipment which utilizes superpositions for computation' makes that identification of a data processing appliance as "a quantum computer" confusing.

>A computer manipulating the rules of quantum mechanics must have something to do with our macro "reality", even if it is rather inconsequential at this time

It really doesn't, although admittedly the mind boggles at trying to imagine a computing mechanism which does not require deterministic ("macro") components. But your analogy furthers my position, because neither the mathematical manipulations (translations, in mathematical terms) nor the rules of quantum mechanics are bounded by "our" reality, although they are objective so there is a parallel.

In case you didn't notice, I quibbled with the same comment (a reply to my previous comment) that you did. I am not opposed to your conjecture about the necessary relationship between QM theory and the more directly observable universe of objects. I was just picking at a particularly troublesome part of the reasoning you apparently based that conjecture on.

Sorry to have bothered you. Carry on. 😉

Philosopher*

>sorta naively think of as “so what” or “what would knowing the answer change for you?”

I can appreciate the "hot take", but it is, indeed, naive. My questions certainly had a similar dispositive character to what you could naturally presume to be dismissive argumentation, but they were sincere and exploratory, not merely rhetorical.

>Reason expanded with intuition?

In my view, which is thoroughly unconventional, intuition and reason are much more closely related than reason and logic, the conventional view that I believe you and that book said about 'genius' are both starting from.

Happy to help, hope to hear more from you.

I’m not sure if there are holes to poke so much as this is currently a field where unfalsifiable hypotheses are easy (for theoretical physicists) to come up with. I don’t think the probabilistic nature of quantum particles excludes the possibility of either free will existing or not existing. For example: either you placed your chips on the wrong bet in roulette or the ball landed in the wrong slot on the board. Both are based in probability and it’s really impossible to tell if the ball was always going to land there, or if you were always going to put your chips there, or both, or neither. That however is where I would disagree with the “‘you’ aren’t even you” sentiment, because at the very least you were there to observe it. It doesn’t matter that in actuality it’s just a bunch of oxygen and nitrogen atoms moving along a temperature gradient, it’s still the wind. And it doesn’t matter if on a quantum scale you are just a flow of quantum particles that are bottlenecked at what you call a mouth only to be temporarily stored and expelled, you are still you.

I like to think of it like sailing: you can’t control the direction of the wind, but you can move the sails. On a certain level that is not an entirely random event because you are making decisions that will benefit yourself, but on another level even with free will you only reacted to the wind because you knew what to do based on what the wind was doing. Even still I would consider self preservation and altruism to be “proofs” of free will, because in a situation where the two choices are to fight for life or blindly accept death nearly everyone chooses to fight. And if serving yourself was just a probabilistic likelihood then that would be a cascade of factors leading to apparent decision making. Maybe you didn’t have any options other than fight the wind or be swept out to sea, but either way you can still choose to do the Macarena while reciting Shakespeare. And if that’s not free will then it doesn’t matter much, because the universe just so happened to make it likely which is good enough for me

Also I didn’t state the silt, sand, pebbles thing just today, just to say. This must have been copy and pasted from a while back. Iirc the original post was about how quantum particles change what we think

Was a bad joke. Latour published under this alias for some time.