Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

[Bohm2]

Just musing with the following: Supposing this "something" idea is correct. Suppose that there must be "something" in nature besides matter that explains the rules (laws) we see.

Basically by definition, this "something" is immaterial, just as rules are immaterial. If it was "material" (a charge or a force or mass, or length, etc.) , that is, something measurable, then it would be one of the things that follow the rules. But this "something" is the source of the rules, not something which follows the rules. Hence it is no like charge or mass, etc., it doesn't follow the rules, it is the rules (in a way). So it has to be "immaterial" since "material" things follow rules, and it doesn't, it's the source of the rules.

What else do we know of that seems "immaterial", oh right, consciousness...

The fact that some highly complex modifications of matter are intrinsically (at least partly) conscious is not a strong argument that all matter is conscious, Especially given that most of our own behaviour is governed by processes that occur at an unconscious level.

Of course you may be correct, but it is hard for me to imagine that there are literally billions and billions of little conscious entities inside me. Are the quarks (or whatever future physics discovers), that make up my body all conscious? How about the atoms? How about the molecules, cells, etc. What about the space in between matter? Are all these conscious entities co-existing or do they combine in some way and the larger one we are conscious of, takes over? I guess, I just have a hard time seeing how something like this can occur.

[Mgrinder]

Just musing with the following: Supposing this "something" idea is correct. Suppose that there must be "something" in nature besides matter that explains the rules (laws) we see.

Basically by definition, this "something" is immaterial, just as rules are immaterial. If it was "material" (a charge or a force or mass, or length, etc.) , that is, something measurable, then it would be one of the things that follow the rules. But this "something" is the source of the rules, not something which follows the rules. Hence it is no like charge or mass, etc., it doesn't follow the rules, it is the rules (in a way). So it has to be "immaterial" since "material" things follow rules, and it doesn't, it's the source of the rules.

What else do we know of that seems "immaterial", oh right, consciousness...

The fact that some highly complex modifications of matter are intrinsically (at least partly) conscious is not a strong argument that all matter is conscious, Especially given that most of our own behaviour is governed by processes that occur at an unconscious level.

That's not the argument I just wrote here at all.

Of course you may be correct, but it is hard for me to imagine that there are literally billions and billions of little conscious entities inside me. Are the quarks (or whatever future physics discovers), that make up my body all conscious? How about the atoms? How about the molecules, cells, etc. What about the space in between matter? Are all these conscious entities co-existing or do they combine in some way and the larger one we are conscious of, takes over? I guess, I just have a hard time seeing how something like this can occur.

That's not my theory, really. The theory I have presented is that consciousness (the phemomenon associated with qualia and decisions, not the self aware consciousness we humans have and other animals don't seem to that you are referring to in your post) is a universal calculation mechanism that all particles use to "figure out" what to do next. I've discussed this with you before, I hope you remember. When a particle changes state, a quale is produced and this aids in calculating what to do next. Usually these quale are like seeing grey and that's it, but when you get a complex interaction between large molecules, then you should be able to produce our experiences.

Anyways, the theory I am presenting is not that matter is full of conscious particles (in the self aware sense), it's that matter is full of particles that constantly access quale as part of calculating what to do next.

My theory is here if you want to look at it.

[Fcacciola]

Of course you may be correct, but it is hard for me to imagine that there are literally billions and billions of little conscious entities inside me. Are the quarks (or whatever future physics discovers), that make up my body all conscious? How about the atoms? How about the molecules, cells, etc. What about the space in between matter? Are all these conscious entities co-existing or do they combine in some way and the larger one we are conscious of, takes over? I guess, I just have a hard time seeing how something like this can occur.

That's not my theory, really.

But for what is worth, that is the idea that *I* presented (I don't call it a theory though). So, if you let me respond:

Yes, all quarks (all fermions in fact) are all conscious. And all bosons too, unless they are effectively virtual particles meaning they don't really exists for themselves.

Or perhaps, neither fermions nor bosons are themselves conscious because they don't really exist, ontologically speaking, but then, the superstrings or whatever does really exist, is.

And not just those that make up your body but all of them, whether in a rock or your brain.

Regarding aggregates, such as atoms, molecules, cells, etc... the individual consciousness do sort of combine, but hierarchically (this is important), in a similar way we people organize ourselves socially.

Now, I understand that these ideas are just "given" (and even if I would go to explain where all this comes from, it still won't be scientifically backed up, just "somehow" backed up, which is why I present them a part of a belief system)
However, why do you have a hard time seeing how something like this can occur?
Is there anything in our current understanding of physics that *itself* makes this hard? or is just the giant shift in mindset what gets in the way?

[JamesOfSeattle]

Mgrinder and Fcacciola, would it be possible to render a particle unconscious? What's the difference between something that is conscious and something that isn't?

Mgrinder, you speak of a quale as if it's a physical thing that can somehow be "accessed". Is that right?

*

[Fcacciola]

JamesOfSeattle:

In order to elaborate a proper response, first I need to draw a distinction between the different meanings of the term conscious.

On the one hand, there is the self-awareness formed by sensing the things our bodies (mind included) do.
For example, I sense my hand going up.
Also, I "sense" my intention, decision and will to raise my hand in the form of thoughts in my mind.
Both my hands moving and my thoughts forming are things I sense and so become aware of.
That process is one of the things we refer to as "conscious", and we do that while awake.

When asleep, usually denoted "un-conscious", that self-awareness pauses, even of thoughts (except when we dream, but the thought process in a dream is not like that of being awake).

Here, consciousness means awareness (self and external), and it something that goes on and off as we alternate between lucid and sleeping states.

On the other hand..

When "we" sense our bodily actions (linked to our will) and re-actions (linked to the external stimuli that reaches the body), when "we" sense our train of thoughts, or our emotions and desires, and even just those things that are "just" inside our heads (the things we imagine, or picture, even without a semiotic--more elaborated--thought), then that is something "we" do, not something our body OR mind (which isn't us) do.

But then, that "me", the subject that is aware in that sense of "consciousness" used above, is also and on itself conscious. In fact, is the source of consciousness, except that here is not just the awareness, that comes in and out, but something that includes awareness but is more fundamental.

At this level, consciousness might be roughly described as the faculty of possessing cognition, affection, motivation and a (free) will to act onto "X" (and I said X just to defer the issue of what exactly does this free will impacts) whereby said actions include, but are not necessarily limited to, communication with any other conscious agents. (this is of course far from complete)

Here, this meaning of consciousness is not the same as the lucid vs asleep human awareness that I mentioned before and that is usually also denoted consciousness.

So now, having said all that, I'll try to respond:

would it be possible to render a particle unconscious

No.

Furthermore, "we" (as the subject being aware in the scenario of a lucid human being) are also never unconscious, is just that we are temporarily disengaged from the body (mind included) and so unaware of everything that goes on in it (which includes moving hands, thinking that "there is no self" (pun intended), or imagining pink unicorns.. all things that "we" don't do, our body(+mind) does)

What's the difference between something that is conscious and something that isn't?

Considering "consciousness" they way I described it above, and not as lucid awareness, I'd say that if anything un-conscious ontologically existed (that is, besides the pink unicorns I think about all the time), it would be totally inert.
That is, the fundamental trait of consciousness is that it is the very source of dynamism. Nothing happens if it is not the product of consciousness.
(I know this totally rules out determinism and I would have to elaborate on it to defend it, but I leave that for another thread)

[Mgrinder]

Mgrinder and Fcacciola, would it be possible to render a particle unconscious? What's the difference between something that is conscious and something that isn't?

In my theory a particle is unconscious while not changing state, just cruising around in the vacuum, no need for a quale to pop up. Then it encounters something, has to change state, so a quale pops up, decision gets made, a moment of consciousness occurs. Then it's back to cruising.

However, there is the issue of remembering as well. A simple particle not in a brain (as well as most of the particles in brains) has no access to past states, it has no memories. SO it's unconscious of its own history. So are we to an extent.

In this theory, our consciousness (self awareness) is caused by certain special complex molecules within whose structure memories and complex sensations are encoded. Not everything thought is recorded in our minds though. We can go about doing things deliberately and on purpose, but if we don't remember this, then if asked about it later, we might claim to do it unconsciously. Further, there are alot of things in our minds that probably involve thoughts (like our startle reflex, solving a math equation that's hard) that we don't record. Hence we say we do these things unconsciously, because we have no memory of them, when in fact, they probably involve thoughts.

Mgrinder, you speak of a quale as if it's a physical thing that can somehow be "accessed". Is that right?

*

A quale is a representation of the situation a particle is in which is used by the universal calculation mechanism for particles (consciousness) to help particles calculate what to do next. It is partially not a physical thing, because it partially doesn't follow physical laws, rather it (as a part of the universal calculation mechanism) is the source of the laws of nature, not something which follows laws of nature. The universal calculation mechanism's behaviour follows rules, which we then codify as physical laws. So its behavior is the source of physical laws, which measurable things (physical things like length, charge, etc) follow.

A quale also has a physical component to it, its information is encoded in the wavefunction of the particle (it seems). But also a non physical component to it (a source of physical laws, rather than an obeyer of physical laws)

[Fooloso4]

One of the main arguments for panpsychism is that it is supposed to do away with the problem of emergence, but if one makes a distinction between consciousness as it is allegedly exists at the quantum level and human consciousness then the problem of how the former gives rise to the latter still exists. It cannot simply be that more of the same yields something different. Once some form of emergence is admitted then the argument that consciousness must be fundamental because emergence fails as an explanation can no longer be sustained.

[Mgrinder]

One of the main arguments for panpsychism is that it is supposed to do away with the problem of emergence, but if one makes a distinction between consciousness as it is allegedly exists at the quantum level and human consciousness then the problem of how the former gives rise to the latter still exists. It cannot simply be that more of the same yields something different. Once some form of emergence is admitted then the argument that consciousness must be fundamental because emergence fails as an explanation can no longer be sustained.

My theory seems to answer the combination problem. The "primal" consciousness associated with most particles differs from animal consciousness (from certain complex molecules reacting in living cells) because the certain molecules can have memories, and represent sensations from sense organs, and even have a sense of self. For more detail,s please read my essay. Oh, and my theory is not really panpsychism, but kinda close.

[Fooloso4]

Mgrinder:

My theory seems to answer the combination problem.

I read through your essay and do not see how what you say avoids emergence. One problem is that you claim that the “particles” in a rock have experience but do not say whether the rock has experience and if so how it integrates the various experiences. The same question arises as we move from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules. A related problem is that you claim that memory and a sense of self come into play with living organisms but you do not explain how conscious particles give rise to memory and a sense of self. The appeal to molecules is problematic because the claim is that something happens when atoms form molecular units and more importantly with protein molecules:

conscious experiences for living beings occur when two “largish” molecules interact.

Isn't that emergence? The obvious problem is that you can combine largish molecules all day long and never get the kind conscious experience we find in living organisms.

[Bohm2]

Now, I understand that these ideas are just "given" (and even if I would go to explain where all this comes from, it still won't be scientifically backed up, just "somehow" backed up, which is why I present them a part of a belief system) However, why do you have a hard time seeing how something like this can occur? Is there anything in our current understanding of physics that *itself* makes this hard? or is just the giant shift in mindset what gets in the way?

The latter. There are a few prominent physicists that are panpsychists (Bohm and Dyson come to mind). My reasons for not buying panpsychism is the same reason I'm not a pan-life-ist or pan-atomist. The fact that some macrosystem can form atoms/molecules, life or consciousness does not imply that all matter must have these properties in some "proto" form at the more fundamental micro-level.

If one assumes that the Big Bang model is close to correct then there was a time in the past in the evolution of our universe where there were no atoms/molecules, no life and no consciousness. Then as evolution progressed atoms/protons, stars, galaxies, life and consciousness evolved. So, I think emergentism and evolution are the norm; at least the more weaker notion of 'weak emergence' as opposed to "brute" or ontological emergence.

It's true that the emergence of consciousness from matter is not as explanatory as is the case of the emergence of say water (liquidity) from Hydrogen/Oxygen (strong versus weak emergence), but given that our understanding of the properties of matter at the more fundamental micro-level (particularly its intrinsic properties) is not complete, this is not surprising. The way I see things is that emergence only seems "brute" because our picture of the micro-entities is still work in progress. As to what type of MICROproperties can lead to mental, conscious stuff, it's unclear but I don't see why these micro-properties should be anything like consciousness. I mean one doesn't assume this with other MACROproperties.

[Fcacciola]

The latter. There are a few prominent physicists that are panpsychists (Bohm and Dyson come to mind). My reasons for not buying panpsychism is the same reason I'm not a pan-life-ist or pan-atomist. The fact that some macrosystem can form atoms/molecules, life or consciousness does not imply that all matter must have these properties in some "proto" form at the more fundamental micro-level.

Indeed, it doesn't imply that.

If one assumes that the Big Bang model is close to correct then there was a time in the past in the evolution of our universe where there were no atoms/molecules, no life and no consciousness.

Actually, the Big Bang model refers to atoms/molecules and (biological) life, but not directly nor necessarily to consciousness.

And, within the belief system I referred before, there is the idea that:

There was a, let's say, "Bigger bang" giving birth to consciousness (but not atoms etc), and much later the "Big Bang", giving birth to fundamental physical particles, on a subset of the conscious entities that existed before this Big Bang, coming from the "Bigger bang"

Then as evolution progressed atoms/protons, stars, galaxies, life and consciousness evolved.

Or, consciousness (alone, with no atoms etc) have been evolving since that "Bigger bang" and the later Big Bang is just an expression of that evolution.

So, I think emergentism and evolution are the norm; at least the more weaker notion of 'weak emergence' as opposed to "brute" or ontological emergence.

I agree on evolution being the norm.
And I think of it as being the most fundamental "Law"

Then I adhere to a view of "weak emergentism", but not one referring to the emergence of "consciousness", since that is postulated as the product of the "Bigger bang", but the other way around: the emergence of matter, and also of "life" which is a product of the hierarchical aggregation of individual conscious agents (from both the "material" and "inmaterial" subsets)

Notice that any top-down approach to this problem will almost certainly focus on "life", which as I said, it is in my view an emergent property. Is just that life is then built upon fundamental consciousness, which is not the same as "a thing that is alive". So, consciousness (at the level I'm referring it) is fundamental, and both matter and "life" are the emergent products of its evolution.

[Bohm2]

There was a, let's say, "Bigger bang" giving birth to consciousness (but not atoms etc), and much later the "Big Bang", giving birth to fundamental physical particles, on a subset of the conscious entities that existed before this Big Bang, coming from the "Bigger bang"

This is the part I have trouble believing. In my view there are:

1. Extrinsic stuff that is amenable to scientific investigation like matter that develops new and sometimes novel properties as it conglomerates from more basic stuff: ?→baryons/fermions→atoms→molecules→organisms . Of course, the most basic extrinsic stuff is still work in progress as more stuff is left to be discovered (hence the ?). And this incomplete picture might explain why we can't even unify some extrinsic stuff that is open to scientific investigation, like gravity and QM.

2. Intrinsic stuff that is often not open to scientific investigation. The major part we do know that exists is our own consciousness. So: Intrinsic proto-baryon/fermion→intrinsic proto-atoms, intrinsic proto-molecules→consciousness.

The problem is that the only intrinsic stuff that we do have access to is our own consciousness. Nevertheless it seems reasonable to assume that just as a macrosystem/ organism like ourselves has intrinsic properties like consciousness, other smaller systems may have intrinsic properties that we don't have access to. These intrinsic properties despite being essential to produce consciousness need not themselves be conscious, just as is the case with the extrinsic stuff. You won't find life or liquidity by looking at individual atoms/particles. It's something that springs up when matter reaches a certain level of complexity at the macroscale. There's no sense is arguing that a single water molecule has proto-liquidity, etc. Similarily there's no sense in arguing that proto-consciousness exists in smaller particles.

The extrinsic/intrinsic divide may not be real but exists for epistemological reasons; that is, not because nature, in itself, has this divide. So from an angel's point of view there might be only one stuff (monism) but the extrinsic/intrinsic divide occurs because of the way our cognitive apparatus is designed.

So for a super-intelligent being who had the cognitive power to have scientific access to both the fundamental intrinsic and extrinsic properties, emergence would kind of be redundant as such a being would be able to explain in detail how to get consciousness from more fundamental micro stuff, just as is the case with most of the extrinsic stuff. But again, just as is the case with extrinsic stuff, there is no necessity that the micro-stuff contain consciousness in more primitive form. But for limited organisms like ourselves who don't have access to the intrinsic properties of matter and also have not even completed our understanding of the extrinsic stuff, we are forced to choose between two views that appear magical or gappy: strong emergence or panpsychism. The gaps exist because of our own cognitive limitations.

[Mgrinder]

Mgrinder:

My theory seems to answer the combination problem.

I read through your essay and do not see how what you say avoids emergence.

Ah, so you're the one. heh.

One problem is that you claim that the “particles” in a rock have experience but do not say whether the rock has experience and if so how it integrates the various experiences.

The rock as a whole does not have experiences, particles in the rock do. Things have experiences when their wavefunction collapses. So molecules have experiences as they chemically bond and so on. I assume that rocks themselves don't have wavefuntions, as the wavefunctions of their constituent particles are collapsiing all the time. I think the theory has to agree with the idea that wavefunctions collapse in the prescence of many other particles, not just when measured.

The same question arises as we move from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules. A related problem is that you claim that memory and a sense of self come into play with living organisms but you do not explain how conscious particles give rise to memory and a sense of self. The appeal to molecules is problematic because the claim is that something happens when atoms form molecular units and more importantly with protein molecules:

The idea is that with a molecule, you get wavefunction collapse for a very complex wavefunction, capable of encoding more information. When the molecule is constructed, information that reflects what the cell is sensing goes into the formation of the molecule. When it reacts with another molecule (possibly also representing information from the organism's senses) The qualia that occurs reflects the situation the organism is in. If it also has some sort of sense of self (rudimentary sense of self for something like a paramecium) encoded when manufactured, then you get a qualia that "something" experiences. Who experiences it? Something must, so let's chalk it up to the organism. Later on, another molecule reacts, if it has different sense information, but the same sense of self, then we can chalk that experience up to the organism too. And so on. As long as the molecule has the same sense of self, these various interactions will all be part of the continuity of experience of the organism.

In a sense, this is just another wavefunction collapse of a particle, just like any other, but since each one over time within a cell (or within cells of a multicellular organism) references the same set of information (sense of self) the organism has experiences of qualia that all have the sense of self in the background, constructing the experience of the organism over time. The organism as a whole does not have experiences, particles within it do, but only a small subset of those get a sense of self as they occur. But you can see how they can be identified sa the expereinces of the organism as a whole.

Admittedly, there's alot more research to be done, and I don't know enough to do it, plus I have zero help, so that's sort of the best I can do for now. Nevertheless, it seems like it can work.

conscious experiences for living beings occur when two “largish” molecules interact.

Isn't that emergence? The obvious problem is that you can combine largish molecules all day long and never get the kind conscious experience we find in living organisms.

The word "emergence" applies, but the emergent theory of consciousness is basically that consciousness is nowhere to be found at all in any sense in an atom. All atoms are completely dead, period. Then magically, when a bunch of atoms get together, then consciousness emerges. It's similar to saying that liquidity is nowhere to be found whatsoever in hydrogen and oxygen atoms, then liquidity magically emerges when you combine them into H2O and get alot of H2O atoms together. The thing is, if you know enough about hydrogen and oxygen (which we do) you can derive, using physics, that the molecules will interact in a way that will produce liquid properties at the proper temperature, not solid ones. So the idea that liquidity is nowhere whatsoever to be found in H and O atoms is false. However, you cannot derive the prescence of consciousness from putting atoms together, all you get are objects behaving like objects do.

So I am not advocating emergence like that, which is a popular, but silly theory of consciousness. I am saying that animal type consciousness "emerges" from primal (sort of) but (1) it's there fundamentally already, not totally unpresent as in emergent theories (2) it's a far cry from what people normally talk about when they say "emergence".

-- Updated Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:55 pm to add the following --

The problem is that the only intrinsic stuff that we do have access to is our own consciousness. Nevertheless it seems reasonable to assume that just as a macrosystem/ organism like ourselves has intrinsic properties like consciousness, other smaller systems may have intrinsic properties that we don't have access to. These intrinsic properties despite being essential to produce consciousness need not themselves be conscious, just as is the case with the extrinsic stuff. You won't find life or liquidity by looking at individual atoms/particles. It's something that springs up when matter reaches a certain level of complexity at the macroscale. There's no sense is arguing that a single water molecule has proto-liquidity, etc. Similarily there's no sense in arguing that proto-consciousness exists in smaller particles.

Yes there is. You can use physics and predict that many water molecules will produce liquid properties when many of them are put together (at the right temperature, solid at other temperatures). So you can call that "proto-liquidity". You can even show that many Sodium and Chlorine atoms will produce a solid at room temperature when bound ionically, not a liquid ("proto-solidity" of a sort). "proto" is admittedly a terrible way to put it, but the idea of "proto-whatever" works in a fashion.

However, you can't use physics to predict and derive that someone or something will be conscious or not. It won't happen. So I am sure you are quite wrong here Bohm2.

Plus it will never happen. As Sean Carrol says (he ought to know) we've discovered all the physics that exists in our neck of the woods (energy levels from near absolute zero up to and beyond the temperatures that occur in stars). Carrol rightly calls it a stunning achievement, we know all the physics relevent to human beings. The only physics that's missing is that for extreme energy regimes like black holes and the birth of the universe. However, when this is found, it won't contradict any of the physics that we know to work in our energy realm, it will just be physics we can derive our current physics from, with no contradiction. The idea of particles, atoms and molecules will still be fruitful ideas, just a Newtonian physics is still a great bunch of ideas for the energy realm it applies to. If we can't derive it from current physics (which will always be valid for this energy regime) we'll never derive it from future physics (unless maybe you incorporate my ideas .

[Bohm2]

Yes there is. You can use physics and predict that many water molecules will produce liquid properties when many of them are put together (at the right temperature, solid at other temperatures). So you can call that "proto-liquidity". You can even show that many Sodium and Chlorine atoms will produce a solid at room temperature when bound ionically, not a liquid ("proto-solidity" of a sort). "proto" is admittedly a terrible way to put it, but the idea of "proto-whatever" works in a fashion.

However, you can't use physics to predict and derive that someone or something will be conscious or not. It won't happen. So I am sure you are quite wrong here Bohm2.

Plus it will never happen. As Sean Carrol says (he ought to know) we've discovered all the physics that exists in our neck of the woods (energy levels from near absolute zero up to and beyond the temperatures that occur in stars). Carrol rightly calls it a stunning achievement, we know all the physics relevent to human beings. The only physics that's missing is that for extreme energy regimes like black holes and the birth of the universe. However, when this is found, it won't contradict any of the physics that we know to work in our energy realm, it will just be physics we can derive our current physics from, with no contradiction. The idea of particles, atoms and molecules will still be fruitful ideas, just a Newtonian physics is still a great bunch of ideas for the energy realm it applies to. If we can't derive it from current physics (which will always be valid for this energy regime) we'll never derive it from future physics (unless maybe you incorporate my ideas .

I agree that the liquidity example is not a good example but it's an easy one that everyone would be familiar with. But I don't think many would deny the existence of weak emergence. A highly cited paper on emergence, that is often discussed in reviews on emergence/reductionism is the paper written by the Nobel laureate physicist P.W. Anderson:

More is Different
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jay ... ferent.pdf

It's the existence of strong emergence that is questioned:

In search of ontological emergence
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2660261?se ... b_contents

Are systems in entangled states emergent?
http://www.cmls.polytechnique.fr/perso/ ... rgence.pdf

Ontology, Matter and Emergence1
http://michel.bitbol.pagesperso-orange. ... enceMB.pdf

With respect to Carrol's view that there isn't much more to be discovered in physics, history is not on his side. One can look back to the history of physics where similar pronouncements were made only to be crushed down later on by the new physics. We can't even account for ~ 85% of the matter in our universe. And with respect to the QM (i.e. wave function) we don't even know what it represents. You use "particles" throughout your essay as do most physicists but can a particle picture account for the double slit results and other similar phenomena? And I'm not saying that this has any impact on your essay arguments. I'm only saying that although we have exceptional predictive models (particularly with simple systems), it's not clear what the mathematical entities represent. Carrol on the one hand claims that physics has largely been completed for all intensive purposes but in another blog goes on to discusses the embarrassing interpretational difficulties that plague QM:

Think about it — quantum mechanics has been around since the 1920’s at least, in a fairly settled form. John von Neumann laid out the mathematical structure in 1932. Subsequently, quantum mechanics has become the most important and best-tested part of modern physics. Without it, nothing makes sense. Every student who gets a degree in physics is supposed to learn QM above all else. There are a variety of experimental probes, all of which confirm the theory to spectacular precision.
And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).

The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... n-physics/

[Rr6]

Metaphysical-1, cosmic laws/principles, they exist in or as, complement to occupied space.

2} Occupied Space:

....2a} fermionic matter, bosonic forces and any aggregate combination thereof ex biologicals, Earth Galaxies Universe aka Uni-V-erse, ergo our observation of time via frequency/realtiy/physical/energy,

...2b}metaphysical-3{ spirit-3 } gravity aka positive shaped geodesic arc of space,

....2c} metaphysical-4( spirit-4 } dark energy aka negative shaped geodesic arc of space.

123, ABC, thats how easy "U"niverse can be.

1} "U"niverse: God

......1a}Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of Universe, God, Infinite, Dogs etc...

----line of demarcation---------------------------------

.......1b} metaphysical2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that embreaces the following,

........1c} finite occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.

r6