• Michael
    4.8k
    It's data streams all the way downMarchesk

    Is that any different to saying that it's quantum fields (or whatever) all the way down?
  • Marchesk
    1.6k
    I don't think it makes sense to say it's anything all the way down.

    But something is ontologically primary. Maybe quantum fields is a good guess or approximation?

    Anyway, whatever else exists is made up of the primary stuff, be it quantum fields or what have you. So it would be society then brains/biology, then chemistry, then physics, or however one wishes to do the reduction.
  • Michael
    4.8k
    But something is ontologically primary. Maybe quantum fields is a good guess or approximation?Marchesk

    I wonder if that's what charleton means, then. Data streams are ontologically primary, and all other things (brains, hands, trees, etc.) are emergent phenomena.
  • Marchesk
    1.6k
    I wonder if that's what charleton means, then. Data streams are ontologically primary, and all other things (brains, hands, trees, etc.) are emergent phenomena.Michael

    Possibly. I don't know what it would mean for data streams to be primary. Streams of data according to whom?
  • Michael
    4.8k
    But you do know what it would mean for quantum fields to be primary?

    Personally, I don't actually understand much of physics (especially quantum mechanics). I just know to repeat the things it says.
  • Marchesk
    1.6k
    Do I know what quantum fields mean as a physicist? No. I don't understand the math at all, nor the experiments. Just some of the lay explanations.

    But I mean ontologically the way the Greek atomists thought it was atoms and the void.
  • Blurred
    1
    But something is ontologically primary. — "Marchesk

    Ontological primacy gets a bit murky when we're talking about quantum mechanics, though.

    My understanding is that it would be valid to say that quantum fields are in a sense primary with respect to particles (and thus all matter), but that there is a reciprocal ontological relationship between the two nonetheless.That is, while certain quantum fields potentiate certain particles (and the latter could not exist without the former) it may be just as correct to say that particles potentiate quantum fields. For example, we would say that the Higgs field gives rise to the Higgs boson, but if there were no Higgs bosons, then the Higgs field wouldn't exist in any coherent sense because it wouldn't be doing anything.

    It seems to be, then, that we can't have particles without fields, but that we also can't have fields without particles. To that extent, it wouldn't make sense to say that either is primary.
  • Marchesk
    1.6k
    It seems to be, then, that we can't have particles without fields, but that we also can't have fields without particles. To that extent, it wouldn't make sense to say that either is primary.Blurred

    Sure, whatever happens to be the case.
  • Marty
    122
    Why have a flat ontology?

    Do you see a utility in emergentism? What work is it suppose to do?
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.