Existence in Broad Sense. Fundamental Reality

This entry was posted by on Saturday, 20 February, 2010 at

From classical objective reality to fundamental reality



Reality (Existence ) has to be  understood not as a collection of  separated objects  but rather as a process of undivided integrality.Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles, that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I ‘m proposing the reverse , that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment and these particles are abstractions from that.
David BOHM

According to modern vision about the world, we are living into a universe constituted from stable objects, separated and well localized in space time, having well defined properties; in this  ( realist- dogmatic ) universe  the potential possible is practically non-existent , being imperceptible ( according to Berkeleyan criterion – esse is percipi ). This model of universe, exclusively composed from integrable systems was preferred, among others, by Einstein to whom “ is real only what it can be conceived as object.” Even traditional thinkers truly interested by the modernization of methodological status of the possible, did not hesitate to annex possible to real: “ Necessity and possibility are conditioned by real, pre-existing them ” ( N. Hartmann, 1938 ). The reductionism of the Western culture toward potential – possible, has been tightly correlated with the consideration of the becoming systems ( supposedly stable ) as one “ ontological scandal ”: indeed, from Aristotle to Einstein, to be consistent science / knowledge has to remain objectual, accepting without any reservations the postulate “ a thing either exists or does not exist ”, or in Plato’s version – what is becoming, it is not. This position static and realistic of the world, has been supported by the fact that in the surrounding, macroscopic world, the becoming itself was evanescent, as well as by the linear- analytical options of some reference  philosophers, such as: “ in nature, the generative processes are inexistent   “ ( G.W.F. Hegel ) or “ nature is characterized by total independence of its parts ” ( J.P. Sartre ).  This explains why even presently many researchers continue to be “ blinded by real ” ( W. Biemel, 1973 ), promoting – voluntary or not – conceptual confusions between real / existent, real / perceptible, real / reflected, etc.

An indisputable reversal of perspective: the real is always possible


The failing of modal decoupling “ either real or possible” could not have been delayed for long: hadronic systems ( strong interactions ) introduce for the first time an effective connection between  the objective real and objective potential, qualitatively modifying the real / possible relation thus clearly raising the problem of an imperative modernization of the traditional category of existence ( which was identifying existence with objective reality ) as well as the re-thinking of the methodological status of becoming. The new quantum mechanics, nonlinear physics, dissipative structures theory, synergetics, etc. have decisively contributed to “ activation / triggering of the possible ” imminently leading to the transition from Cartesian model “world as machine” to the model (metaphor) “world as potentiality ”.  The methodological  contemporary status of categories real / possible ( matter/ /spirit, animate / inanimate ) contains a double revelation: not only that they are not  opposite ( such in the case of Cartesian – Hegelian  antinomic dualism, Fig. 5a ) but they allow reciprocal transitions! Indeed, presently there is a remarkable perception in science / knowledge of a complementary continuity between real and potential possible ( Fig. 5b ), from this indisputable continuity deriving the so-called syncategories and especially the existence in broad sense, with its correlate – fundamental reality ( a reality connected with its concrete potentiality ), for any microobjects, as well as any other type of fundamental reality, being characteristic a perpetual transformation, in both directions on the track connecting possible to real:

possibility / potentiality ↔ actualization / realization



Fig. 5   Existence in broad sense

a.   traditional, objective reality

b.  fundamental reality

c.  the soap foam model

Some final remarks:

  • Traditional, objective reality has proven to be empirical, non-fundamental one, without genesis, and without genuine becoming ( time been reduced to a scalar / parameter = duration). Existence in broad sense allows the restoration of becoming into existence, this time, the fundamental reality being articulated with potentiality through existential processes perpetually unfolding in double directions: actualization potentialization; the time in broad sense becomes a processual entity, becoming alive, active, fluctuant.  Also the fundamental reality allows in a firm manner the introduction of miracle into science; this methodological mutation, which I consider an extraordinary gift given to all willing to understand the deep, subtle, non-reductionist pathways of life / nature / universe, is described in decoherence theory literature in the following terms: “ Everything that is possible becomes real no matter how improbable it is. And that is fairly solid physics. ”
  • The recognizing of the empirical, non-fundamental character of the traditional real, implies de-absolutization of some concepts / models / principles considered by the modern science as fundamental, intangible: formal logic, dynamic trajectories, atomism, time as duration, properties ( length is no longer a primary quality but rather a function), occurrence probability (no real is 100% real because being in contact with a field of non-zero probability possibilities, the existence probability of any “ alive ” real becomes subunitar), linear – analytical rationality, etc.

In the following I want to highlight  some of the most interesting conceptual repositions which have decisively contributed to the reversal of the traditional perspective.

W. Heisenberg: The world “ is ” made of possibility waves. The wave function describes a set of possibilities.  Particles are merely potentialities.”

G. Lukacs: “ in potentiality are contained in nuce all determinations constitutive for every  new system   in social existence.”

V. A. Fock: “Presently, the understanding of  existence itself has to be broaden until inclusion in it alongside of the realized states and of potentialpossible states.”

I. A. Manin: “ for contemporary physicists the most important collections are not the object sets (atoms, molecules, etc.) but rather the sets of potential possible distinct states. ”

E. Agazzi: “ the object of contemporary science is constituted not just from the real states but even from the possible states.”

I. R. Prigogine: ‘ Far from equilibrium all possible states are actualizing, co-existing and interfering with each other, the system being concomitantly everything it may be.”

D. Bohm: “ Reality (existence) has to be understood not as a collection of separated objects but rather as a process of undivided integrality.”

M. Heidegger: “ The authenticity of living being is guaranteed by the persistence into possible. ”

C. Noica :” Today we  live into possible.”

Conclusions:

  • Possible (potential possible) as well as its correlate – the spirit in broad sense, should not be conceived as two “empty” categories, devoid of any physical content. A similar position will further promote, in a subtle manner, the discontinuity in real / possible relation, aiming among others to block the existential pathways that introduce into science the miracle – a physical possible event having an occurrence probability extremely small but non-zero.
  • Fundamental reality designates the subsystem of existence in broad sense which is constituted from the totality of actualized (realized) states found in effective contact with potential possible.
  • The main particularities that distinguish the fundamental reality and classical objective reality are:
  1. an efficient connection between real (actualized) and possible, which confer to the actualized (realized) state an intrinsic instability and correlatively a subunitar occurrence probability.
  2. The essence of fundamental reality is intrinsic stochastic (probabilistic), the dissipative structures being, for instance “ huge fluctuations ” ( I. Prigogine ) whose upkeep is assured through energy and / or substance consumption, unlike classical structures ( molecules, crystals ) which can preserve their normal states indefinitely without any resource utilization.
  3. The fundamental reality brings into forefront the continuum values ( coupling, whole / totality, inseparability, etc.) which involves some new objectivity criteria since as a rule the classical criteria are centered on independence, individualization, localization.

One Response to “Existence in Broad Sense. Fundamental Reality”

  1. What a great resource!


Leave a Reply