'quasiparticles'

[claudiu]

@Miguel

These quotes are only part of the contradictory mix I noticed in your discussion with @rick on the subject about the existence and actuality of feelings (and all that it led to), and now here.

In spite of all what you said in these two last posts, this very topic evidences your interest to ponder and rationalize, “wrap your head around”, and understand as a feeling being the existence or not, the actuality or not, of quasiparticles, particles, etc. And even when this are not experiential matters, just cognitive ones.

Hmm, and yet I don’t see anything contradictory, or inconsistent, about the quotes of mine that you’ve provided here.

Just to clarify… I never said I am not interested in the topic of the existence or actuality of quasiparticles, particles, etc… I said I am not interested in philosophical debates about ontology and epistemology etc.

To clarify about what I mean when I talk about existence, I mean the existence that is experienced in a PCE, where you can see that the actual world actually exists - and not as an ontological or epistemological position, but rather as a plain fact - and that you do actually exist as a flesh and blood body - not as a philosophical, cognitive, reasoned-out theory or train of thought or chain of reasoning, but rather as a plain and obvious fact.

So when the topic of discussion is whether quasiparticles or particles exist or not… I am not interested in whether I personally conceive of them as existing, which, if I were to engage in such a topic, would depend upon labels, definitions, conceptualizations, and ontological positions etc. That is, I am not interested in whether they exist “for me”. Rather I am interested in whether they actually exist, period – which is a fact independent from me. And whether they actually exist, cannot, by virtue of the nature of existence itself that I am referring to here (the one that… actually exists), have anything to do with any labels, definitions, conceptualizations, ontology, etc.

Indeed, whether an electron exists does not really affect my experiencing so much - the lights stay on regardless of whether I think the electrons exist or not - and it is certainly a cognitive exercise to read these papers (I fully read every link you posted in this topic, including the entire Chapter 12 of “Why More is Different”) – but what I was getting at by saying that existence is an experiential matter, not a cognitive one, is that the answer to the question of whether electrons actually exist, cannot depend on anything thought out, any label, or definition, or any conceptualization, or an ontological position – it depends solely on whether electrons exist in the sense that existence can be ascertained apperceptively for yourself in a PCE.

You can of course say that, whether I am aware of it or not, I am tacitly assuming a definition and an ontological position – but that would be missing the mark. I assume nothing – rather I rememorate a PCE to bring the flavor of actual existence back into my awareness, such as to connect with that actual existence, and then the question is pondered and contemplated from that point onwards. It is not me that is defining or taking a position – it is the nature of the universe that it is the way it is, and I seek to allow the experience of that to happen.

So, if we look at what you quoted, the above is simply a fleshed out version of Quotes #1, #2, and #3:

@Miguel

@claudiu

It is this type or quality of existence that I am interested in.

@claudiu

I’m not so interested in whether something actually exists “for me”.

@claudiu

To reason or conceptualize existence (as in whether something exists, or the nature of existence) is to be missing the point that it’s an experiential matter, not a cognitive one.

As for Quote #4:

@claudiu

@rick

Diverging from the crux of the issue for a moment, one thing that is becoming clear is that a strict reliance on what a PCE informs will produce divergent positions on key issues.

And yet, with regards to this critical point - that ‘I’ do not actually exist and never did actually exist - everybody, be it me, @Srinath, @geoffrey, Richard, Craig, Vineeto, Peter, etc. etc. is in complete agreement. The words we use might be different, and we might conceive of the surrounding ontological matters in different ways, but the key point is precisely the same.

This is not contradictory to the above. It is entirely in line with it – the fact that ‘I’ do not actually exist is an experiential one, and therefore everyone who is in accordance with what is actual (be they actually free or not) agrees on this point. We are free to conceptualize the surrounding ontological matters if we want – why not? But doing so is besides the point when it comes to the topic of actual existence. They are an excess thing, something we can think about, but ultimately it doesn’t matter that much - which is what @Srinath and @geoffrey were saying, for example:

@Srinath

One way out of this (and this is why I think ontological agnosticism about the nature of reality isn’t necessarily a problem) is to maybe realise that your philosophical position doesn’t in any way change how you experience the world.

@Srinath

Tbh, it doesn’t really make a difference at all whether this is true or not. Accepting or not accepting this will not get in the way of actual freedom.

@geoffrey

Whatever one’s understanding, or opinion, on e.g. what ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ are, does not infringe on what is experienced as ‘actual’. And why should it?

@Srinath

Where I agree with Claudiu, is that actual freedom is all about praxis and not theory. As a feeling being I lost count of the number of times I had the intellectual smirk wiped off my face by a PCE that made all my proudly thought out schemes laughably redundant - along with the ‘me’ that thought them up. If you haven’t had a PCE in quite some time and are interested in actualism, then what is the point of all this stuff?

@Srinath

My suggestion is that it would need to start with experience and everything needs to flow on from there.

@Srinath

@Rick I would not characterise what you/we have been doing here as reflective and fascinating contemplative thought. Although this is interesting and not pointless - it is far from that.

As for Quote #5:

@claudiu

@solvann

There is a reason why Richard came up with the Actual vs Real split. Instinctual passions and the feeling being are real (but not actual). And like @claudiu mentions, just because something is not actual doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in this only existing universe. As to what sort of existence a unicorn in a dream has, that’s more a question of defining ‘existence’ and a step out into philosophy.

Aye and as @rick only recently discovered that ‘actual’ has a special-usage meaning in actualism, I thought it would be good to illustrate this distinction of real vs actual with an example […]

As @solvann put it, to ponder about what sort of existence a unicorn in a dream has, it is a “step out into philosophy” – as in, we leave the realm of experiential matters and actuality, and now we enter the philosophical realm, of definitions, ontological positions, etc. In this realm, “existence” is a word that takes different meanings based on the context, the definitions used, the ontological position, etc., and so when we are in this realm, it can be said that things that are not actual (as in, experientially confirmed to exist via apperception), do exist – because of how ‘existence’ is defined. But we have already stepped into philosophy now.

There is no contradiction in my agreement with @solvann here, and what I’ve written in this thread.

---

@Miguel

It’s not that I think these contradictions are a big problem, because […]

As they are evidentially not contradictions – then the rest of what you write here is a non-sequitur.

Incidentally I believe this is the point at which the ball you dropped on Dec 25, 2021, turned into the “undesirable snowball” you feared it would grow into – as this is the point where you changed the topic from the content of the topic under discussion (quasiparticles and the existence or not thereof) into a topic about Claudiu’s defensiveness, close-mindedness, lack of self-awareness, lack of openness, and penchant for gish-galloping – all criticisms about Claudiu himself and his style, as opposed to a meaningful discussion.

And as you foresaw the destiny of this snowball a day before it happened, it would seem that it was already on your mind. And I genuinely wonder, why is that so? That’ll be something for you to ponder, discover, and perhaps share – which may be fruitful as then it will settle matters and we can continue having a fruitful discussion.

Until then, it might help your pondering to know that the reason I “had to add” my last two posts was, primarily, to encourage you to continue the discussion as I found what you had posted to be valuable (“Sure” - as in, I acknowledge your reluctance to continue and you have no obligation to do so if you don’t want to - “but I did appreciate the links you provided and enjoyed reading them as I understand the topic of quantum mechanics and the debate surrounding the existence of the particles and fields etc., much more thoroughly now.” - as in, expressing my appreciation of your contribution with the aim to have the conversation continue if you so desire).

And I followed this up with a clarification on an earlier point as I thought it would clarify matters - though apparently it wasn’t clarified yet, based on your following replies - but perhaps this post will succeed where my earlier ones didn’t.

If my understanding of your position is incorrect, then, of course, you will have to point that out for me to gain the correct understanding. If you are unwilling to do so, then you will be choosing not to provide me an opportunity to understand your position - which is fine, but then you cannot fault me for continuing not to understand it in all its nuance and detail .

Regards,
Claudiu