From Being to Knowing…
A Semiotic Metaphysical Interpretation of Quantum Collapse
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” …
— Richard Feynman
The following is a continuation of the exploration of some of the ideas contained in Resolving the Quantum Paradox — Beyond Bohr: Rethinking the Copenhagen Interpretation –The Mediation of Meaning from Being in the World to Generalisations and Universal Abstractions of the Human Mind.
Semiotics and the Order of Things
If we accept that our Minds interact with the Physical World via our Being in the World (i.e. Ontological — Heidegger — this Being (Dasein) relationship to Being (Sein) — Aristotle — Substance — primary mode of Being) and the interplay between a Mind-independent Reality and Mind-dependent representation is mediated via Consciousness (Husserl — Intentional Consciousness) then Semiotics (Peirce), as the study of signification and meditation (via Signs (Peirce)), could be considered foundational to logic (i.e. a precondition for thought for the Perceiving Subject) for a mind dependent representation and understanding of disciplines such as Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Humanities, etc.
In other words, the meaning of all forms of abstract representations of knowledge that emerge is ontologically grounded in the idea of Being (Rosmini) and ultimately the act of Being (Aristotle, Aquinas).
It is through our Embodied Being in the World and its relationship to Being that Meaning emerges, which has the potentiality of actualisation into different forms of Knowledge.
Interpreting Quantum Collapse from a Metaphysical Semiotic Perspective
Rather than attempt to understand the collapse of the wave function in Quantum Physics from a Scientific Perspective, what if we zoomed out and attempted to interpret Quantum Collapse from a Metaphysics (i.e. Study of Being — Science of Reality) perspective grounded in Peircian Semiotics and the synthesis of key ideas from leading Western Civilisation Philosophers (e.g. Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Rosmini, Peirce, Heidegger, and Husserl et al.)?
In other words, a Semiotic Metaphysical reinterpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation to understand Quantum Mechanics.
“A quality is something capable of being completely embodied. A law never can be embodied in its character as a law except by determining a habit. A quality is how something may or might have been. A law is how an endless future must continue to be”…
— Charles Sanders Peirce
“Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions”…
— Robert Pirsig
Let’s begin with a sequential logical outline of a hypothesis:
If we assume:
- Human Being’s participate in Reality ( act of Being — Aristotle (Energeia) & Aquinas (Actus essendi));
- Minds interact with the Physical World via our embodied (Mind & Body) Being in the World. In other words, the basis of this interaction is Ontological;
- Human participation in that Reality is intelligible ( Peirce — Semiotics — Christian Theology — Logos ) through the relationship of this being to being ( Heidegger — this Being (Dasein) to Being (Sein)). A relationship between a perceiving mind-independent reality ( Rosmini — idea of Being — a-priori, universal, innate and necessary — Peirce — Object (Subject Matter)) and a mind-dependent representation (Rosmini — Perceiving Mind — Descartes — res Cogitans — Husserl — Intentional Consciousness — Peirce — Interpretant & Representamen);
- Leibniz Law ( identity of indiscernibles) can be reinterpreted not as a substance dualism (Descartes — thinking thing ) and res extensa (Descartes — corporeal substance ) but as a property dualism (e.g. David Chalmers — Dualism of Consciousness (Physical & Non-Physical Properties (e.g. qualia — phenomenal properties)) results in an understanding of the Brain’s properties as physical and non-physical — Thomas Nagel’s subjective experience and physical explanation). Furthermore, could these physical and non-physical properties of consciousness reflect three separate states of consciousness ( aligns with Charles Sanders Peirce – Primisense, Altersense and Medisense) that are central to a phenomenological ( Meaning – Peirce Categories), ontological ( Being – Aristotle Categories) and epistemological ( Knowing – Kant Categories) understanding. In other words , an intelligibility via the triangulation of a Mind Dependent Representation ( Perceiving Subject) of a Mind Independent Reality grounded in Being; and
- Charles Sanders Peirce’s Phaneroscopy**** can be understood as the subject matter of phenomenology — how things appear to the Mind. It bears a resemblance to phenomenology, particularly as a study of experience and appearances to consciousness, however, it can be distinguished from the phenomenology of Husserl, which seeks to uncover a priori transcendental and foundational structures of consciousness that make experience and meaning possible. In contrast, Phaneroscopy is content-oriented (i.e. total content of awareness). A classificatory logic of appearances that seeks to understand everything that presents itself (i.e. total content of awareness) to the mind in any way, regardless of whether it is real, imagined, true, or false. Phaneroscopy is distinct from, yet foundational to, semiotics — the study of signs. By analysing the elements of experience, phaneroscopy lays the groundwork for understanding how signs function and convey meaning. The phaneron represents a continuous entanglement of an infinity of relations.
**** Note — Professor Peter Gärdenfors’ 21st Century ideas relating to the geometry of thought can be viewed as a kind of cognitive-scientific continuation of Peirce’s phaneroscopic inquiry. Gärdenfors provides a formalism that Peirce’s rich phenomenological inquiry suggested but could not formalise in his time. Both are part of a lineage that values structure, relation, and the primacy of experience in understanding cognition. Peirce’s framework is semiotic and metaphysical, whereas Gärdenfors’ ideas are anchored in a naturalistic and cognitive-scientific paradigm. Both are seeking non-reductive, structured approaches to how meaning and thought arise.
Then could the quantum mechanics term collapse of the wave-function be understood as the bringing to the mind an understanding through the process of Meaning — Being — Knowing?
An intelligibility of Being that begins with and is ontologically grounded in Beings’ entanglement (Heidegger) with Being in the World, where:
- meaning (Peirce) emerges mediated through an intentional consciousness(Husserl — Peirce) & relationships of Being and ends with the representational (Peirce — sign) abstraction and structuring (Kant’s Categories — Aristotle Forms)by the Mind’s (i.e. a Belief) relationship of Knowing to Being (Rosmini — idea of Being);
- the level of alignment reflects an unfolding understanding — a degree of Knowing, and the idea of Being (Rosmini) is the light of illumination of the relationship between the Perceiving Subject and Object (Rosmini — Peirce); and
- Truth is a recognition of an independent objective Reality that is grounded in Being. Truth is what a thing ought to be (i.e. the correspondence of essence(i.e. Aristotle — what a thing is)) and its representation by the Perceiving Subject with its existence (i.e. Aristotle — that a thing is) and its act of Being (i.e. Aquinas and Aristotle).
The right-hand side depicts the process from the act of Being (Aristotle & Aquinas) to the relational act of Being (Heidegger — this Being (Dasein) relationship to Being (Sein)) to an Embodied Conscious Being (Rosming — triad of Being) that derives Meaning (e.g. Wave-Function) from their embodiment in the World (Rosmini — Real Being which is part of his Triad of Being) and relationship to other Beings (Peirce — Semiotic Triadic — Pragmatic Maxim — Abduction & New Hypothesis (New Relationships of Meaning — Potential of Actualisation )) to the Embodied Conscious Being bringing potential new knowledge (Bacon — Novum Organum — Peirce — Altersense) to the idea of Being (Rosmini’s Ideal Being which is part of his Triad of Being) — Mind (Rosmini — idea of Being — French Rationalism) through embodied observations (Bacon — Empiricism) in the World to the mediation of new Knowledge (e.g. collapse of the Wave-Function) to the Mind (Rationalism — Logic — Peirce (Medisense) — Actualisation).
In other words, the collapse of the wave function reflects the metaphysical and physical processes by Human Beings in moving from Meaning (i.e. Wave-Function) to Knowing (i.e. collapse of the Wave-Function).
A property dualism that reflects the distinction between a Mind Independent Reality anchored in the act of Being’s entanglement with Being (a Unity of Being), and a Mind Dependent Representation that begins with Meaning and through the actualisation of the potential ends in a Knowing (an intelligibility of Being) through the idea of Being.
However, the “picture” (i.e. Embodied Conscious Being (Perceiving Subject) relationship to a Sign — Semiotics) — is not — the “pipe” (i.e. This Being’s relationship to Being (Rosmini — Real Being — Heidegger — Dasein relationship to Sein****).
****
“Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” (a person is a person through persons)…
- Zulu phrase
In other words, the image (i.e. the perceiving subject’s relation to a Sign) is not the thing itself**** (i.e. the perceiving subject’s entangled relation to Being) but merely a mind-dependent representation.
****
“The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it’s just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture “This is a pipe”, I’d have been lying!”…
— Rene Magritte
What is perceived as a sign (e.g. Wave-Function (i.e. meaning)) is not the same as what is encountered as Being that is entangled with Being
.
