Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy

Sam Martinez9 said:I find this passage from Capri regarding the electron much easier to wrap my head around than the whole Schrödinger's cat dilemma:

*These subatomic building blocks are highly abstract entities possessing a dual nature. Depending on our perspective, they manifest as particles at times and waves at others; light exhibits this same duality, appearing as either electromagnetic waves or discrete particles.

This dual nature of both matter and light is quite bizarre. At first glance, it seems impossible to accept that something can simultaneously be a particle—an entity confined to an incredibly tiny space—and a wave, which spreads out over a vast area. Yet, that was precisely what physicists were forced to confront. The situation felt hopelessly paradoxical until it was realized that the terms "particle" and "wave" are classical concepts that aren't quite suited for describing atomic phenomena. An electron isn't strictly a particle or a wave; rather, under certain circumstances, it behaves like one or the other. While acting as a particle, it can develop its wave-like characteristics at the expense of its particle-like traits, and vice versa, undergoing a constant transformation between the two. This implies that neither the electron nor any other atomic *body* possesses any intrinsic properties that exist independently of its environment.

It would be more accurate to describe the electron as a wave-particle/particle-wave hybrid—something entirely distinct.
In field theory, an electron is merely an embodiment of that field within space; it lacks any internal structure.

The issue with these definitions is that modern physics is increasingly invoking the principle of non-locality—essentially suggesting that spacetime isn't a fundamental dimension, but rather something that emerges from a more foundational level of reality.

Current theories are leaning toward holography—the idea that all information is contained on an event horizon (or, to put it more simply, within the photon sphere surrounding an object).
A prime example of this is a black hole and its event horizon.

Another possibility is that gravity—and by extension, the entirety of spacetime—is a statistical quantity, much like temperature.
Temperature arises from local, random movements—the vibrations of molecules and other particles; it is an average value, dependent on entropy, which measures the disorder of a system.
Spacetime might similarly emerge from field fluctuations.

It is entirely possible that both analogies hold merit. 😁

Harold Doyle3 said:You know that Planck was terrified of presenting his "crazy" idea regarding blackbody radiation?
Why do you think that was?
If you ask me, it was because of rigid attitudes like these—the fear of being branded a charlatan.

Roger Penrose actually added a disclaimer about this, noting that his book isn't a formal scientific text, but rather his own subjective musings on consciousness.

He asks more questions than he provides answers, but then again, a well-posed question is half the answer.

If the math holds up, there's no reason to call him a fraud. We can just treat these things as hypotheses until we have solid proof, which is basically what most theoretical models are until they're proven.

I don't see the issue here. 🤔

So, his book is essentially religious, yet it leans on scientific terminology and personal authority to create an illusion of science. In other words, it's pseudoscience. 🙂

A man just passed out 😁

He took it.

bluemason3 said:If the math holds up, there's no reason to call him a fraud. We can just treat these things as hypotheses until we have solid proof, which is basically what most theoretical models are until they're proven.

I don't see the issue here. 🤔

So, his book is essentially religious, yet it leans on scientific terminology and personal authority to create an illusion of science. In other words, it's pseudoscience. 🙂

The guy posed a perfectly valid question: does an "algorithm for consciousness" exist?
Where is the pseudoscience in that?
A proponent of strong UI would say yes, while a proponent of weak UI would say no.
Which one of those two is the "pseudoscientist"?

How are we supposed to prove the existence of, say, a specific subatomic particle if proving it requires a particle accelerator the size of our solar system?
Mathematical proof isn't enough; you need empirical evidence for it to be scientifically accepted.
What happens when we reach a point where we simply lack the capacity to empirically prove certain theories or hypotheses?
Does science just stop existing then?

Yeah

Sam Martinez9 said:Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

Since I promised to join the group read over at the "literature" ("book club"), I am currently working my way through "The Flatshare" by Beth O'Leary. It isn't exactly deep philosophy, but the humor is quite charming. 😁

Harold Doyle3 said:The guy posed a perfectly valid question: does an "algorithm for consciousness" exist?
Where is the pseudoscience in that?
A proponent of strong UI would say yes, while a proponent of weak UI would say no.
Which one of those two is the "pseudoscientist"?

How are we supposed to prove the existence of, say, a specific subatomic particle if proving it requires a particle accelerator the size of our solar system?
Mathematical proof isn't enough; you need empirical evidence for it to be scientifically accepted.
What happens when we reach a point where we simply lack the capacity to empirically prove certain theories or hypotheses?
Does science just stop existing then?

bluemason3 said:Yeah

... and just like that, we've identified the limits of science as we currently understand it.
😉

Sandra Murphy33 said:... and just like that, we've identified the limits of science as we currently understand it.
😉

Honestly, hitting those scientific limits is a much smaller evil than realizing we've reached the edge of our own imagination.😉

Harold Doyle3 said:Honestly, hitting those scientific limits is a much smaller evil than realizing we've reached the edge of our own imagination.😉

Imagination knows no bounds! 🎉

😁

mistybison said:Since I promised to join the group read over at the "literature" ("book club"), I am currently working my way through "The Flatshare" by Beth O'Leary. It isn't exactly deep philosophy, but the humor is quite charming. 😁

I’ve spent nearly a decade reading nothing but *serious* books. I find myself feeling somewhat nostalgic for Ephraim Kishon; I think I really ought to carve out some time to read something a bit more lighthearted. "The Unlikely Marriage" seems like a wonderful choice.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Robert Goodwin: "A short introduction to philosophy"

It's just a quick rundown of philosophical history and 20th-century thought.

As for physics, I've moved on to:

Joanna Baker: "50 physics ideas you really need to know"

Just 50 straightforward essays covering everything from classical mechanics to relativity and quantum theory—no math equations to deal with. I also have a pretty interesting one by Albert Einstein: "The History of Physics," which tracks things from ancient tools all the way to quantum mechanics.

To my great disappointment, I can't tackle that kind of literature in English. However, Supek seems like a solid choice.

Though, if memory serves, one of Supek's books was actually quite disappointing—it felt like he was just recycling fundamental questions regarding the relationship between consciousness and matter without offering much original insight.

ruggedraven36 said:Charles Taylor - Sources of the Self (The Making of Modern Identity)

Going through this one for the second time—honestly, it hits even harder now than it did the first pass.

I looked up what I could find online about that book, and it covers a topic that I find personally fascinating. I think I'll give it a read; I see the local public library has a copy available.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Elisabeth Moon: Speed of Darkness

You caught me off guard there. I didn't realize you read fiction.

Gerald Jackson48 said:@mravac

You’re better off sticking with Penrose ' The Road to Reality'. Capra gets way too caught up in all that mystical stuff.

I mean, sure, Penrose dives into some metaphysical obscurity himself, but at least he stays grounded in philosophy. Capra is more like New Jersey mysticism.

I'm currently working my way through *The Tao of Physics* and *The Dancing Wu Li Masters*, though I haven't quite finished either yet. In the beginning, *The Tao of Physics* traces the evolution of physics—moving from Newtonian mechanics toward Einsteinian quantum theory—while also illustrating how mechanistic physics influenced other fields, like biology, leading people to view biological organisms as mere mechanical machines.

So far, I haven't run into much mysticism, although I have noticed him referencing Buddha, Yin and Yang, and various Eastern perspectives on the world. That said, I don't expect any single book to perfectly align with my interests. As I've mentioned before, I find his take on consciousness to be somewhat underwhelming.

Given my current level of understanding, Capra might actually be exactly what I need right now. It’s entirely possible you've simply outgrown his work, which would explain why you prefer Penrose.

Rachel Richardson said:It would be more accurate to describe the electron as a wave-particle/particle-wave hybrid—something entirely distinct.
In field theory, an electron is merely an embodiment of that field within space; it lacks any internal structure.

The issue with these definitions is that modern physics is increasingly invoking the principle of non-locality—essentially suggesting that spacetime isn't a fundamental dimension, but rather something that emerges from a more foundational level of reality.

Current theories are leaning toward holography—the idea that all information is contained on an event horizon (or, to put it more simply, within the photon sphere surrounding an object).
A prime example of this is a black hole and its event horizon.

Another possibility is that gravity—and by extension, the entirety of spacetime—is a statistical quantity, much like temperature.
Temperature arises from local, random movements—the vibrations of molecules and other particles; it is an average value, dependent on entropy, which measures the disorder of a system.
Spacetime might similarly emerge from field fluctuations.

It is entirely possible that both analogies hold merit. 😁

What you've described sounds reasonable to me. The books I'm reading by Capra were published back in 1998 and 2004, so I imagine there have been significant breakthroughs since then. Regardless, I have to start from the basics and see how far I can get.

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm currently working my way through *The Tao of Physics* and *The Dancing Wu Li Masters*, though I haven't quite finished either yet. In the beginning, *The Tao of Physics* traces the evolution of physics—moving from Newtonian mechanics toward Einsteinian quantum theory—while also illustrating how mechanistic physics influenced other fields, like biology, leading people to view biological organisms as mere mechanical machines.

So far, I haven't run into much mysticism, although I have noticed him referencing Buddha, Yin and Yang, and various Eastern perspectives on the world. That said, I don't expect any single book to perfectly align with my interests. As I've mentioned before, I find his take on consciousness to be somewhat underwhelming.

Given my current level of understanding, Capra might actually be exactly what I need right now. It’s entirely possible you've simply outgrown his work, which would explain why you prefer Penrose.

What you've described sounds reasonable to me. The books I'm reading by Capra were published back in 1998 and 2004, so I imagine there have been significant breakthroughs since then. Regardless, I have to start from the basics and see how far I can get.

Have you ever picked up L. Lederman's *The God Particle*?
Honestly, that book blew me away... and it was just plain fun.
It's one of those page-turners you can't put down.
"If the universe is the answer, then what exactly is the question?" 🤔

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm currently working my way through *The Tao of Physics* and *The Dancing Wu Li Masters*, though I haven't quite finished either yet. In the beginning, *The Tao of Physics* traces the evolution of physics—moving from Newtonian mechanics toward Einsteinian quantum theory—while also illustrating how mechanistic physics influenced other fields, like biology, leading people to view biological organisms as mere mechanical machines.

So far, I haven't run into much mysticism, although I have noticed him referencing Buddha, Yin and Yang, and various Eastern perspectives on the world. That said, I don't expect any single book to perfectly align with my interests. As I've mentioned before, I find his take on consciousness to be somewhat underwhelming.

Given my current level of understanding, Capra might actually be exactly what I need right now. It’s entirely possible you've simply outgrown his work, which would explain why you prefer Penrose.

What you've described sounds reasonable to me. The books I'm reading by Capra were published back in 1998 and 2004, so I imagine there have been significant breakthroughs since then. Regardless, I have to start from the basics and see how far I can get.

I wouldn't say I've moved past him, but I do think it's useful to understand the perspective someone uses to interpret the world. Capra often falls into that category of authors who have wandered way past the "scientific boundary." Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up guest-starring on a late-night talk show hosted by someone like Joe Rogan.

Penrose, on the other hand, stays closer to the line. Sure, he’s been lumped in with some "crackpot" theories occasionally, but it's usually because he gives those fringe theorists plenty of ammunition rather than being a crackpot himself.

Harold Doyle3 said:Have you ever picked up L. Lederman's *The God Particle*?
Honestly, that book blew me away... and it was just plain fun.
It's one of those page-turners you can't put down.
"If the universe is the answer, then what exactly is the question?" 🤔

I don't think I have, though I can't say for certain. No matter—I'll add it to my reading list for when I have more downtime.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I wouldn't say I've moved past him, but I do think it's useful to understand the perspective someone uses to interpret the world. Capra often falls into that category of authors who have wandered way past the "scientific boundary." Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up guest-starring on a late-night talk show hosted by someone like Joe Rogan.

Penrose, on the other hand, stays closer to the line. Sure, he’s been lumped in with some "crackpot" theories occasionally, but it's usually because he gives those fringe theorists plenty of ammunition rather than being a crackpot himself.

Based on what I've read of his work, I don't really see him that way. Could you elaborate a bit more on what specifically gave you that impression?

Sam Martinez9 said:I don't think I have, though I can't say for certain. No matter—I'll add it to my reading list for when I have more downtime.

Based on what I've read of his work, I don't really see him that way. Could you elaborate a bit more on what specifically gave you that impression?

It’s been a long time since I picked up his 'Quantum physics,' but I definitely remember how he tries to wrap Western scientific theories inside Eastern mystical traditions. I'm not saying the book is bad because of that. It's just that the ideas lean heavily toward mysticism, and "Eastern mysticism" is pretty much one of the main pillars of the whole book.

Gerald Jackson48 said:It’s been a long time since I picked up his 'Quantum physics,' but I definitely remember how he tries to wrap Western scientific theories inside Eastern mystical traditions. I'm not saying the book is bad because of that. It's just that the ideas lean heavily toward mysticism, and "Eastern mysticism" is pretty much one of the main pillars of the whole book.

Once again, I’m clearly out of the loop here. Which specific ideas of his are leaning toward mysticism? I mean, give me something concrete. Like, *he wrote X, and to me, X qualifies as mysticism.*

Take his section on biology, life, and living organisms, for instance. He argues that living beings should be viewed strictly as processes in constant interaction with their environment. Every organism—from a single bacterium to a human being—isn't just a solid object walled off from its surroundings; we are in a continuous state of exchange, pulling nutrients in through permeable membranes and pushing waste back out. With single-celled organisms, that process is pretty easy to visualize, but when you get into complex multicellular organisms, you have to account for more than just chemical exchange; there's the entire social component to consider as well. To some readers, even that single perspective could be interpreted as mysticism.

Sam Martinez9 said:Once again, I’m clearly out of the loop here. Which specific ideas of his are leaning toward mysticism? I mean, give me something concrete. Like, *he wrote X, and to me, X qualifies as mysticism.*

Take his section on biology, life, and living organisms, for instance. He argues that living beings should be viewed strictly as processes in constant interaction with their environment. Every organism—from a single bacterium to a human being—isn't just a solid object walled off from its surroundings; we are in a continuous state of exchange, pulling nutrients in through permeable membranes and pushing waste back out. With single-celled organisms, that process is pretty easy to visualize, but when you get into complex multicellular organisms, you have to account for more than just chemical exchange; there's the entire social component to consider as well. To some readers, even that single perspective could be interpreted as mysticism.

Look, it's when he starts looking at particle properties and processes through the lens of Eastern mystical traditions. He talks about a cosmic dance where particles are basically "singing their songs forever." Then he ties all that back to the dance of Shiva and stuff like that.

I'm not just making up my own interpretations of the book's take on matter. Capra draws those parallels point-blank, so I'm genuinely curious which book you actually read. My copy even has a subtitle that says 'An Exploration of Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.' Plus, the preface literally states the book is for readers interested in Eastern mysticism and claims that those traditions provide a "beautiful philosophical framework that can embrace our most advanced theories about the physical world."

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, it's when he starts looking at particle properties and processes through the lens of Eastern mystical traditions. He talks about a cosmic dance where particles are basically "singing their songs forever." Then he ties all that back to the dance of Shiva and stuff like that.

I'm not just making up my own interpretations of the book's take on matter. Capra draws those parallels point-blank, so I'm genuinely curious which book you actually read. My copy even has a subtitle that says 'An Exploration of Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.' Plus, the preface literally states the book is for readers interested in Eastern mysticism and claims that those traditions provide a "beautiful philosophical framework that can embrace our most advanced theories about the physical world."

To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, it's when he starts looking at particle properties and processes through the lens of Eastern mystical traditions. He talks about a cosmic dance where particles are basically "singing their songs forever." Then he ties all that back to the dance of Shiva and stuff like that.

I'm not just making up my own interpretations of the book's take on matter. Capra draws those parallels point-blank, so I'm genuinely curious which book you actually read. My copy even has a subtitle that says 'An Exploration of Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.' Plus, the preface literally states the book is for readers interested in Eastern mysticism and claims that those traditions provide a "beautiful philosophical framework that can embrace our most advanced theories about the physical world."

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

I’m not convinced calling it a "particle" in an elementary particle is actually the right way to go about it. It feels like we’re just trying to visualize things based on our everyday experiences—treating them like tiny little pieces of matter simply because they're too small for us to see, even though they aren't necessarily "bits" of stuff at all.

It’s similar to how I feel pop science turns different modeling methods into these "objective realities" when they’re explaining things to laypeople. For instance, they present a phenomenon as being both a wave and a particle, whereas I’d argue we’re just applying the concepts of a wave or a particle depending on which model we use. The phenomenon itself isn't physically morphing from one thing to another.(I have a feeling someone mentioned "dualism" earlier, but I can't be bothered to scroll back and check).

These are heavy topics for the natural sciences. Honestly, I doubt many people here have enough background knowledge to avoid getting a pretty warped perspective from those questionable "mystical physics" authors out there.