(2020-12-02, 01:23 AM)Hurmanetar Wrote: I think it is most useful to think in terms of triads.
The physicist Stapp's paper on the topic might be up your alley ->
Quote:Quantum Triality
...In spite of this claim that quantum mechanics can be understood without needing to understand the reality lying behind the rules, these rules themselves naturally specify a conceptual structure that is effectively invoked when applying them. The conceptual structure involves three processes: a physical process, a probing process, and a response process...
...Understanding these rules about how our human experiences are connected to the physically described aspects of nature, already involves a conceptual framework involving a three-leveled structure: 1), a bottom level consisting of the mathematically described quantum state of the universe; 2), a middle level consisting of enduring minds (of agent/observers) whose only specified capacities are to choose, and consciously intend to enact, specific probing actions, and then to experience the psychological aspects of nature’s response; and, finally 3), a top level consisting of a ‘nature’ whose only specified role is to select and deliver responses to the agent-generated queries. This conceptual framework involves three kinds of “realities”: 1), the physically described quantum state; 2), the probing agent/observers; and 3), the responding ‘nature’? But what are the ontological characters of these three putative “realities”?...
...As regards the agent’s choice of probing action, it is an important fact that this choice is not determined within the structure of contemporary quantum mechanics. Thus Bohr8described this choice as “the free choice of experimental arrangement for which the mathematical structure of the quantum mechanical formalism offers the appropriate latitude.” In actual practice this choice seems to come from “reasons”: from the reasonsthat the experimenter chooses to perform this particular experiment rather than some other one. Thus as regards process 1, both the psychological and physical sides seem to have an ontological character that is more idea-like than matter-like....
...As regards the ontological character of nature’s choice of the outcome of the agent-chosen probing action, the standard position is that nature’s choice is purely random. I find that position unacceptable: I consider it to be rationally incoherent for some definite choice to arise from nothing at all, completely “out of the blue”...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)