Yes, at first glance, I would say that there are some overlaps. I expressed similar viewpoints in a less rigorous and elegant manner than you did, but from the perspective of a philosopher of physics here:
When Sean Carroll argues that we must be willing to violate the laws of physics to allow for mental causation, I think he's riding on his popular audience's misunderstanding of what's at stake. They're likely thinking that violating the laws of physics involves pigs flying, mind reading, and Jesus walking on water, but that's nothing compared to what today's physics asks me to believe in. Am I willing to give up the reality of mathematical theoretical abstractions in favor of what cannot be dispensed with in lived experience? Sure! Physics can keep its quantum thises and thats, its multiverses, its spooky action at a distance. Just keep the cool technology coming. ;)
Yes, physics has lost itself in a Platonic realm of mathematical abstractions. That's why so many try to recover some sense of realism by speculating about interpretations of QM. On the other hand, these abstractions have been tremendously successful. The problem is that if we deal with deeper philosophical questions, like that of the interaction problem, our understanding of the world, interpreted through the lens of our everyday "lived experiences," doesn't furnish sensible answers either. The whole point of these essays was not so much to provide a final established worldview but rather to show that our "common sense" understanding of the world is no longer tenable in the light of modern science. We don't know what reality is, but we can say what it certainly is not. Realizing that it is not what it appears to be is already a step forward.
As for Carroll's statement, the next post will show that there is an elegant way to allow for mental causation without violation of the laws of physics, and even without interactions at all. However, this also requires some abstraction first to trigger that proverbial "aha moment." ;)
Can you explain why it's so important to avoid violation of laws?
I usually hear because our science depends on it, that laws have never been shown to be violated, therefore it's extremely important to avoid anything that might violate various laws of nature.
This is so compelling that in 2018, when the American Psychological Association published what may have been the most parapsychologically positive review in its history, they hired Arthur Reber for the rebuttal.
Reber simply wrote, "There is no need to look at the research. Since we know psi violates laws of nature, it's therefore impossible."
Physicists like (Nobel Prize winning) Brian Josephson get around this by saying, "Well, sorry, Mr. Psychologist, Reber, you're wrong, psi does NOT violate laws of nature."
But what if Josephson is wrong? So what.
This may be too Aurobindonian for mainstream folks but perhaps it may be simple:
(1) When consciousness is almost entirely "involved" in matter, laws work as they have been observed to work for centuries.
(2) As consciousness Evolves, it can violate so called "physical" laws, and new laws will have to be conceived of - far more subtle ones - than our conventional laws of physics.
This preserves the concerns of those like Carroll, while allowing the possibility of other more plastic, more subtle laws emerging as consciousness evolves.
This is not original to me. For one thing, in my understanding, sri Aurobindo says as much in The Life Divine.
Amit Goswami has said similar things, though I always found him better as a physicist than yogi or philosopher.
Jim Carpenter, a psychologist who has come with (about 10 years ago, I think?) what may be the single best parapsychological theory, "First Sight," posits that ALL of our perceptions are preceded by a subtle psi field perception. In that subtle field, all kinds of non local effects are present, and the "laws" of that field are quite different from the laws of physical nature.
I've corresponded with Jim, and know that, until I told him about it, he had no contact with integral Yoga in any way.
These efforts seem to point to a resolution of many issues related to matter, life, mind and Consciousness.
This also points to experimental methods. As one becomes more conscious in dream world, it's also possible in the so called "waking state' to be aware of subtle energies, communications, images, thoughts, etc. Scientists who were deeply trained in such methods could communicate with each other - hopefully before this happens, their souls/psychic beings will be developed, to avoid the dangers of the subtle worlds, AND they will have undergone a training to access at least the Higher Mind, so they're not simply aping Iain McGilchrsit who employs a vague mental intuition to speculate about things far beyond his ability to understand.
"Can you explain why it's so important to avoid violation of laws?"
I agree that we should not be overly attached to the laws we currently understand. The violations of today's laws may become the laws of tomorrow, and those new laws could also be violated, paving the way for entirely different models of reality. Physicists are particularly focused on identifying these violations; billion-dollar projects like the Large Hadron Collider have been primarily built for this purpose. Their main objective is to search for breaches of established laws. The history of science is full with laws, models, paradigms, and theoretical frameworks that have replaced older ones. I wouldn’t consider people like Reber representative of the beliefs and thought processes of the typical scientists.
My only reservation arises when people claim that something can emerge from nothing without further explanation. If someone says that energy appeared from nothing and I ask, "How can energy be produced from absolutely nothing?" and the response is, "That's just how it is, accept it," I will take on the role of the skeptic. I’m not suggesting that the principle of energy conservation cannot be violated; it may indeed be proven otherwise one day. However, I argue that it isn't necessary to go to such extremes to understand the interaction problem.
Very interesting takes, with the right ontological questions, which is rare, even Sean Carol has some essential things mixed up now and then.
This is more or less in line with my Kantian view on QM. Looking forward to part 3!
Maybe you'll find my articles of some interest, feel free to comment!
https://open.substack.com/pub/mathiasmas/p/kants-transcendental-idealism-as-a2a?r=3elpqi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Yes, at first glance, I would say that there are some overlaps. I expressed similar viewpoints in a less rigorous and elegant manner than you did, but from the perspective of a philosopher of physics here:
https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/philosophical-idealism-only-the-first
https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/quantum-mechanics-and-the-end-of
https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-observer-effect-in
When Sean Carroll argues that we must be willing to violate the laws of physics to allow for mental causation, I think he's riding on his popular audience's misunderstanding of what's at stake. They're likely thinking that violating the laws of physics involves pigs flying, mind reading, and Jesus walking on water, but that's nothing compared to what today's physics asks me to believe in. Am I willing to give up the reality of mathematical theoretical abstractions in favor of what cannot be dispensed with in lived experience? Sure! Physics can keep its quantum thises and thats, its multiverses, its spooky action at a distance. Just keep the cool technology coming. ;)
Yes, physics has lost itself in a Platonic realm of mathematical abstractions. That's why so many try to recover some sense of realism by speculating about interpretations of QM. On the other hand, these abstractions have been tremendously successful. The problem is that if we deal with deeper philosophical questions, like that of the interaction problem, our understanding of the world, interpreted through the lens of our everyday "lived experiences," doesn't furnish sensible answers either. The whole point of these essays was not so much to provide a final established worldview but rather to show that our "common sense" understanding of the world is no longer tenable in the light of modern science. We don't know what reality is, but we can say what it certainly is not. Realizing that it is not what it appears to be is already a step forward.
As for Carroll's statement, the next post will show that there is an elegant way to allow for mental causation without violation of the laws of physics, and even without interactions at all. However, this also requires some abstraction first to trigger that proverbial "aha moment." ;)
Can you explain why it's so important to avoid violation of laws?
I usually hear because our science depends on it, that laws have never been shown to be violated, therefore it's extremely important to avoid anything that might violate various laws of nature.
This is so compelling that in 2018, when the American Psychological Association published what may have been the most parapsychologically positive review in its history, they hired Arthur Reber for the rebuttal.
Reber simply wrote, "There is no need to look at the research. Since we know psi violates laws of nature, it's therefore impossible."
Physicists like (Nobel Prize winning) Brian Josephson get around this by saying, "Well, sorry, Mr. Psychologist, Reber, you're wrong, psi does NOT violate laws of nature."
But what if Josephson is wrong? So what.
This may be too Aurobindonian for mainstream folks but perhaps it may be simple:
(1) When consciousness is almost entirely "involved" in matter, laws work as they have been observed to work for centuries.
(2) As consciousness Evolves, it can violate so called "physical" laws, and new laws will have to be conceived of - far more subtle ones - than our conventional laws of physics.
This preserves the concerns of those like Carroll, while allowing the possibility of other more plastic, more subtle laws emerging as consciousness evolves.
This is not original to me. For one thing, in my understanding, sri Aurobindo says as much in The Life Divine.
Amit Goswami has said similar things, though I always found him better as a physicist than yogi or philosopher.
Jim Carpenter, a psychologist who has come with (about 10 years ago, I think?) what may be the single best parapsychological theory, "First Sight," posits that ALL of our perceptions are preceded by a subtle psi field perception. In that subtle field, all kinds of non local effects are present, and the "laws" of that field are quite different from the laws of physical nature.
I've corresponded with Jim, and know that, until I told him about it, he had no contact with integral Yoga in any way.
These efforts seem to point to a resolution of many issues related to matter, life, mind and Consciousness.
This also points to experimental methods. As one becomes more conscious in dream world, it's also possible in the so called "waking state' to be aware of subtle energies, communications, images, thoughts, etc. Scientists who were deeply trained in such methods could communicate with each other - hopefully before this happens, their souls/psychic beings will be developed, to avoid the dangers of the subtle worlds, AND they will have undergone a training to access at least the Higher Mind, so they're not simply aping Iain McGilchrsit who employs a vague mental intuition to speculate about things far beyond his ability to understand.
"Can you explain why it's so important to avoid violation of laws?"
I agree that we should not be overly attached to the laws we currently understand. The violations of today's laws may become the laws of tomorrow, and those new laws could also be violated, paving the way for entirely different models of reality. Physicists are particularly focused on identifying these violations; billion-dollar projects like the Large Hadron Collider have been primarily built for this purpose. Their main objective is to search for breaches of established laws. The history of science is full with laws, models, paradigms, and theoretical frameworks that have replaced older ones. I wouldn’t consider people like Reber representative of the beliefs and thought processes of the typical scientists.
My only reservation arises when people claim that something can emerge from nothing without further explanation. If someone says that energy appeared from nothing and I ask, "How can energy be produced from absolutely nothing?" and the response is, "That's just how it is, accept it," I will take on the role of the skeptic. I’m not suggesting that the principle of energy conservation cannot be violated; it may indeed be proven otherwise one day. However, I argue that it isn't necessary to go to such extremes to understand the interaction problem.