6 replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This follows this questionquestion

The same question, angled a little differently suggests a family resemblence with the measurement paradox in QM:

First and most broadly, QM is standardly said to have an ontology inadequate to its needs, and this must mean by classical conceptions of time and motion; and here we have Aristotle pointing out that ordinary simple motion when thought through classically is also inadequate when the actual facts are confronted.

Does Aristotle have anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM? Has there been any useful discussions?

Something along these lines might be:

  1. Being is the limit of Becoming; the act of measurement actualises the motion of potential motions

  2. Being and Becoming are ontologically distinct - and Becoming is a continua; as actuality and potentiality; and the act of measurement and continuous motion of a wave evolving its potentialities.

edit

In relational QM it's suggested that:

From this perspective, the real events of the world are the 'realisation' (the coming to reality, the actualisation) of the values q1,q2,q3 in the course of interaction between physical systems.

Which appears to have some consonance with the above - particularly when one considers that QM (leaving out the magic word Quantum) is a theory of motion.

This follows this question

The same question, angled a little differently suggests a family resemblence with the measurement paradox in QM:

First and most broadly, QM is standardly said to have an ontology inadequate to its needs, and this must mean by classical conceptions of time and motion; and here we have Aristotle pointing out that ordinary simple motion when thought through classically is also inadequate when the actual facts are confronted.

Does Aristotle have anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM? Has there been any useful discussions?

Something along these lines might be:

  1. Being is the limit of Becoming; the act of measurement actualises the motion of potential motions

  2. Being and Becoming are ontologically distinct - and Becoming is a continua; as actuality and potentiality; and the act of measurement and continuous motion of a wave evolving its potentialities.

edit

In relational QM it's suggested that:

From this perspective, the real events of the world are the 'realisation' (the coming to reality, the actualisation) of the values q1,q2,q3 in the course of interaction between physical systems.

Which appears to have some consonance with the above - particularly when one considers that QM (leaving out the magic word Quantum) is a theory of motion.

This follows this question

The same question, angled a little differently suggests a family resemblence with the measurement paradox in QM:

First and most broadly, QM is standardly said to have an ontology inadequate to its needs, and this must mean by classical conceptions of time and motion; and here we have Aristotle pointing out that ordinary simple motion when thought through classically is also inadequate when the actual facts are confronted.

Does Aristotle have anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM? Has there been any useful discussions?

Something along these lines might be:

  1. Being is the limit of Becoming; the act of measurement actualises the motion of potential motions

  2. Being and Becoming are ontologically distinct - and Becoming is a continua; as actuality and potentiality; and the act of measurement and continuous motion of a wave evolving its potentialities.

edit

In relational QM it's suggested that:

From this perspective, the real events of the world are the 'realisation' (the coming to reality, the actualisation) of the values q1,q2,q3 in the course of interaction between physical systems.

Which appears to have some consonance with the above - particularly when one considers that QM (leaving out the magic word Quantum) is a theory of motion.

5 added 427 characters in body
source | link

This follows this question

The same question, angled a little differently suggests a family resemblence with the measurement paradox in QM:

First and most broadly, QM is standardly said to have an ontology inadequate to its needs, and this must mean by classical conceptions of time and motion; and here we have Aristotle pointing out that ordinary simple motion when thought through classically is also inadequate when the actual facts are confronted.

Does Aristotle have anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM? Has there been any useful discussions?

Something along these lines might be:

  1. Being is the limit of Becoming; the act of measurement actualises the motion of potential motions

  2. Being and Becoming are ontologically distinct - and Becoming is a continua; as actuality and potentiality; and the act of measurement and continuous motion of a wave evolving its potentialities.

edit

In relational QM it's suggested that:

From this perspective, the real events of the world are the 'realisation' (the coming to reality, the actualisation) of the values q1,q2,q3 in the course of interaction between physical systems.

Which appears to have some consonance with the above - particularly when one considers that QM (leaving out the magic word Quantum) is a theory of motion.

This follows this question

The same question, angled a little differently suggests a family resemblence with the measurement paradox in QM:

First and most broadly, QM is standardly said to have an ontology inadequate to its needs, and this must mean by classical conceptions of time and motion; and here we have Aristotle pointing out that ordinary simple motion when thought through classically is also inadequate when the actual facts are confronted.

Does Aristotle have anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM? Has there been any useful discussions?

Something along these lines might be:

  1. Being is the limit of Becoming; the act of measurement actualises the motion of potential motions

  2. Being and Becoming are ontologically distinct - and Becoming is a continua; as actuality and potentiality; and the act of measurement and continuous motion of a wave evolving its potentialities.

This follows this question

The same question, angled a little differently suggests a family resemblence with the measurement paradox in QM:

First and most broadly, QM is standardly said to have an ontology inadequate to its needs, and this must mean by classical conceptions of time and motion; and here we have Aristotle pointing out that ordinary simple motion when thought through classically is also inadequate when the actual facts are confronted.

Does Aristotle have anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM? Has there been any useful discussions?

Something along these lines might be:

  1. Being is the limit of Becoming; the act of measurement actualises the motion of potential motions

  2. Being and Becoming are ontologically distinct - and Becoming is a continua; as actuality and potentiality; and the act of measurement and continuous motion of a wave evolving its potentialities.

edit

In relational QM it's suggested that:

From this perspective, the real events of the world are the 'realisation' (the coming to reality, the actualisation) of the values q1,q2,q3 in the course of interaction between physical systems.

Which appears to have some consonance with the above - particularly when one considers that QM (leaving out the magic word Quantum) is a theory of motion.

4 edited title
| link

Does Aristotle on Zeno, onhave anything to say about the interpretative paradoxes of QM?

3 added 342 characters in body
source | link
2 added 8 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link