So I think I can get on board with the no hidden variables, everything is now thing. If I go with something like a Brahman-atman, Leibniz's monadism, Indra's net thing where all that exists are minds with some type of radical free will that inner penetrate each other such that one's actions is another's perceptions (action-perception having the same mirror relationship as subject-object, mind-body etc)... but does QBism not even attempt to answer the question of why there are consistent patterns of observation (ie physical laws) or why agents' perceptions generally tend to cohere together? There's something to be said about the precise and consistent way agent decisions are made or perceptions are had. The fact there is consensus (inter subjective?) reality must be from some secret rule(s) shared between all agents before performing/enacting this reality.
And the consistency of physical laws across time is like an extremely engrained habit of behavior and choice but that doesn't actually have an ontic potentiality (am I philosophizing correctly here?) since at any time the agent with radical free will could decide to break from this habitual behavior whenever.
It is the confluence of the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for a shared world. This is something that is experimentally proven, but of course very hard to grasp. We usually see the subjective and the objective as opposites. But in truth they help each other into existence.
Very peculiar that this video popped up in my recommended. But I HAD to see why. I mean I am interested in Quantum Mechanics, but it makes my brain hurt. Does Self ID, trans persons etc, have a footing in Quantum Mechanics? I know the social sciences Foucault etc. But I can see why theoretical (even so called Hard Science) could have easily fallen even in it's infancy.
I think self identity is interesting here since either in this video or the one before, they were talking about how the system is always split into context and observation or agent-observer and observation and how the quantum state or description of the world always excludes the observer herself (They said something like this). ANYWAY, the reason this is interesting is because self identity itself is like a strange hack to get around this by putting a representation of the observer into the observer's "measured state" or perception. The self identity or representation is never actually the observer itself tho. I might be getting too loosey goosey with these concepts tho
So I think I can get on board with the no hidden variables, everything is now thing. If I go with something like a Brahman-atman, Leibniz's monadism, Indra's net thing where all that exists are minds with some type of radical free will that inner penetrate each other such that one's actions is another's perceptions (action-perception having the same mirror relationship as subject-object, mind-body etc)... but does QBism not even attempt to answer the question of why there are consistent patterns of observation (ie physical laws) or why agents' perceptions generally tend to cohere together? There's something to be said about the precise and consistent way agent decisions are made or perceptions are had. The fact there is consensus (inter subjective?) reality must be from some secret rule(s) shared between all agents before performing/enacting this reality.
And the consistency of physical laws across time is like an extremely engrained habit of behavior and choice but that doesn't actually have an ontic potentiality (am I philosophizing correctly here?) since at any time the agent with radical free will could decide to break from this habitual behavior whenever.
It is the confluence of the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for a shared world. This is something that is experimentally proven, but of course very hard to grasp. We usually see the subjective and the objective as opposites. But in truth they help each other into existence.
Very peculiar that this video popped up in my recommended. But I HAD to see why. I mean I am interested in Quantum Mechanics, but it makes my brain hurt.
Does Self ID, trans persons etc, have a footing in Quantum Mechanics? I know the social sciences Foucault etc. But I can see why theoretical (even so called Hard Science) could have easily fallen even in it's infancy.
I think self identity is interesting here since either in this video or the one before, they were talking about how the system is always split into context and observation or agent-observer and observation and how the quantum state or description of the world always excludes the observer herself (They said something like this). ANYWAY, the reason this is interesting is because self identity itself is like a strange hack to get around this by putting a representation of the observer into the observer's "measured state" or perception. The self identity or representation is never actually the observer itself tho. I might be getting too loosey goosey with these concepts tho