+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Logic, Metaphysics & Philosophy (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-80.html)
+--- Thread: Article Neither objects nor processes are fundamental + Scientific realism (/thread-20576.html)
Neither objects nor processes are fundamental + Scientific realism - C C - Jun 4, 2026
Neither objects nor processes are fundamental
https://iai.tv/articles/neither-objects-nor-processes-are-fundamental-auid-3588?_auid=2020
INTRO: Reality, physicists and philosophers have long assumed, must bottom out somewhere: in particles, fields, consciousness, or some other fundamental layer of being. But philosopher Emma Jaura, who is working on the foundations of quantum mechanics, argues that we should give up this quest for ultimate building blocks, and instead see reality as radically interdependent, where nothing enjoys absolute metaphysical priority, not even the universe as a whole. While this vision cuts sharply against the grain of Western thought, Indian and Chinese philosophy have explored how we might understand reality in this way for centuries... (MORE - details)
Scientific realism: Are electrons real?
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/70
INTRO: In 2023, philosopher Philip Goff posed a deceptively simple question on X (formerly known as Twitter): “Do electrons exist?” Physicists, philosophers, and a wide range of commentators responded in droves. Their reactions ranged from curt dismissals to insightful reflections on the nature of scientific knowledge. Against this lively backdrop, three academics conducted a formal investigation into how physicists might answer the question.
Céline Henne is a philosopher working on the epistemology and philosophy of language at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Hannah Tomczyk, a physicist at HighFinesse in Germany, specialized in the history and philosophy of science at the University of Cambridge in the UK. Christoph Sperber is a data scientist at Tübingen University Hospital in Germany. Together, they surveyed 384 physicists, publishing their findings under the title “Physicists’ Views on Scientific Realism”. Henne and Tomczyk spoke to Physics Magazine about scientific realism—a philosophical position embraced by many physicists—and about alternative viewpoints... (MORE - details)
RE: Neither objects nor processes are fundamental + Scientific realism - Magical Realist - Jun 5, 2026
Quote:A relational interpretation of quantum mechanics comes with a commitment to a relational view of all existent physical phenomena. This view suggests that all things are dependent for their existence and nature on something other than themselves, and as a result, nothing can exist completely independently. There is nothing ultimately fundamental.
This alternative to the typical picture can be called anti-foundationalism. The particular flavour of anti-foundationalism that results from a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics is one where a vast web of dependence relations connects phenomena, and structure reality.
I'm game for that. I have already been on the trail lately of some sort of relational metaphysics where even ontologically speaking--with being itself--there is no irreducible substance nor in-itselfness. If everything physical falls apart in our hands into innumerable relationships, it doesn't seem too much a leap that this is true even at the metaphysical level. Philosophers have already suggested as much---Derrida, Deleuze, Rorty, Whitehead, Bergson, etc. The urge to settle upon some irreducible and absolutely real substrate is at times overwhelming because it entails that what I am thinking isn't representing some model or unknown static state in some way but only opening more doors of sense-making from here to there and from this to that. It's a different sort of movement of thought, always dispersing outward from every specific event or thing, never converging upon some prima materia or omega point that we can just accept as given. In this sort of reality nothing is given, each "thing" or nexus linking up to more things or nexuses in one endless network or web of interrelations.
"Rorty explicitly argues that objects and ideas do not have an independent, intrinsic "essence." Instead, everything is known only through its network of connections.Rorty famously articulated "pan-relationalism" in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, arguing that all things are simply a "forever expandable" network of relations, stating "there are, so to speak, relations all the way down, all the way up, and all the way out in every direction".
RE: Neither objects nor processes are fundamental + Scientific realism - Ostronomos - Jun 6, 2026
(Jun 5, 2026 12:33 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:Quote:A relational interpretation of quantum mechanics comes with a commitment to a relational view of all existent physical phenomena. This view suggests that all things are dependent for their existence and nature on something other than themselves, and as a result, nothing can exist completely independently. There is nothing ultimately fundamental.
This alternative to the typical picture can be called anti-foundationalism. The particular flavour of anti-foundationalism that results from a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics is one where a vast web of dependence relations connects phenomena, and structure reality.
I'm game for that. I have already been on the trail lately of some sort of relational metaphysics where even ontologically speaking--with being itself--there is no irreducible substance nor in-itselfness. If everything physical falls apart in our hands into innumerable relationships, it doesn't seem too much a leap that this is true even at the metaphysical level. Philosophers have already suggested as much---Derrida, Deleuze, Rorty, Whitehead, Bergson, etc. The urge to settle upon some irreducible and absolutely real substrate is at times overwhelming because it entails that what I am thinking isn't representing some model or unknown static state in some way but only opening more doors of sense-making from here to there and from this to that. It's a different sort of movement of thought, always dispersing outward from every specific event or thing, never converging upon some prima materia or omega point that we can just accept as given. In this sort of reality nothing is given, each "thing" or nexus linking up to more things or nexuses in one endless network or web of interrelations.
"Rorty explicitly argues that objects and ideas do not have an independent, intrinsic "essence." Instead, everything is known only through its network of connections.Rorty famously articulated "pan-relationalism" in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, arguing that all things are simply a "forever expandable" network of relations, stating "there are, so to speak, relations all the way down, all the way up, and all the way out in every direction".
I like that you made referrence to the prima materia and the omega point. Transhumanism does state that we as humans have a final destination in which we merge with God, but before that technology.
P.S. I just noticed you mentioned "static state".
Nevertheless what you wrote was beautifully put. Including "movement of thought".