[Fis] it from bit

[Stuart Kauffman]

Hi Carlos and Lou. Hm. Res potentia and Res extensa is not a substance dualism because potentia are not substances. It is still a dualism I guess of "Possibles some of which become Actuals". In what sense do you think the same laws apply to both, QM vs Classical Physics. In one sense Yes: both live in the Newtonian Paradigm, and it is of real interest that there is the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics” here. Hm, Lou too, does that suggest that if the set of Possibilities are bounded and not open, mathematics can work in definable ways that it cannot work if the The Possible is open and growing and cannot be deduced?

Stu 

> On Jan 20, 2024, at 3:55 AM, Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stu,
> 
>> II.
>>  
>> Among the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, consider that of Heisenberg, 1958. The quantum state is a “potentia hovering ghost-like between an idea and reality”.  Potentia are neither true nor false. From this, Ruth Kastner, Mike Epperson and I have taken, “Res potentia, ontologically real Possibles, and Res extensia, ontologically real Actuals.  Res potentia and Res Extensia does not inherit the Mind Body Problem.  This interpretation of QM is not Cartesian substance dualism because potenta are not substances. It is not neutral monism, which lacks potentia. It is not materialism which lacks potentia, and it is not Idealism, which lacks Res Extensa.
> 
> Just a comment on this: Wouldn’t res extensia be a type/subset of res potentia? In this sense, you avoid the dualism: both are information, only one possible (and infinite) and another actual (and finite), but the same laws should apply to both.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Carlos
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240120/bb2f3a7f/attachment.html>