Interesting paper with lots to engage with. Going to have to spend some time with it on a second pass!

Amanda Gefter
An extremely important essay with deep analysis and ideas for finding a way to overcome the modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis in the metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science, which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. " Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" ), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics").
Fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of the "laws of Nature", the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of time, information, consciousness.
How to overcome the "split" in the foundations of the "sciences of Nature" and "sciences of the spirit"?....
A holistic paradigm, the "PARADIGM OF UNDERSTANDING", should come to the aid of the "paradigm of the part" that dominates science today.
More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of the "Self -Aware Universe" (V.Nalimov, 1996).
V. Nalimov writes (and I agree with him):
<<...we must: (1) overcome some of the limitations that weigh on us, established in the paradigm of our culture; (2) sketch out the outlines of a self-aware universe. We are not yet able to build a model of such a Universe, but it seems that we are starting to prepare for this.
Overcoming interfering prerequisites

  1. We are still hung over by the rigid Cartesian distinction between mind and matter. The basis for this was the assertion that matter is spatially extended, but the mind is not. Now we can ignore this argument. We know that the spatial perception of physical reality is determined not so much by the World around us, but by the ability initially given to our consciousness to see the World as spatially ordered. We can also learn to spatially perceive the World of Meanings if we are able to set the image of the semantic field in some fairly visual way. So we can geometrize our ideas about consciousness and create a language close to the language of modern physics.
  2. In order to set the image of the semantic field, it must be recognized that meanings are primary in nature. In other words, it is necessary to agree that elementary meanings (which are not yet texts) are set initially. Here we come very close to the position of Plato, by the way, formulated by him not clearly enough. Such an approach can no longer be considered unscientific - we recognize the initial predetermination of fundamental physical constants, the nature of which is more mental than physical.>>
    But then I do not agree with the approach of V. Nalimov to the construction of the model "Self -Aware Universe".

The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process gives a new look at matter: matter is that from which all meanings, forms, structures (material and ideal) are born.
Today, problem no. 1 ("the problem of the millennium") is the ontological justification / substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the new information age: ontological framework, carcass, foundation. That is, the Big Ontological Revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics".
Here we recall good philosophical testaments for theoretical physicists:
John A. Wheeler: “We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world."
A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”
To understand the EXISTENCE itself means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial ontological structure of matter. That is, to build a model "being-nothing/other-being-becoming" and introduce a new concept, the semantic core of the model - ontological (structural, cosmic) memory, "soul of matter", its measure.
A. EinsteinI like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."
P. Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

Whoever wishes,
May he sit in meditation
With eyes closed
To verify if the Universe be true or false.

I, in the meanwhile
Shall sit with insatiate eyes
To see the Universe
While the light lasts.
-----------------------Rabindranath Tagore
The cosmic mystery is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms.
He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel the amazement, is as good as dead.-------Albert Einstein

Dave: Could it be that our consciousness tricks us into perceiving a false duality of self and other, when in fact there is only unity? We are not separate from other aspects of the universe but an integral and inextricable part of them. And when we die, we transcend the human experience of consciousness, and its illusion of duality, and merge with the universe's entire and unified property of consciousness. So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious.
Hal: Well Dave, it could be that the brain does not create or produce consciousness; but rather filters it. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, it might be that the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ “consciousness” that your theory allows via faster than light communication.
Dave: True Hal, when the eye dies, the electromagnetic spectrum does not vanish or cease to be; it’s just that the eye is no longer viable and therefore can no longer filter, be stimulated by, and react to light energy. But the energy it previously interacted with remains nonetheless. Just because the organ that filters, perceives, and interprets it dies does not mean the phenomenon itself ceases to exist. It only ceases to be in the now-dead brain but continues to exist independently of the brain as an external part of the universe itself.
Hal: Lovelock and Margulis developed a hypothesis they called Gaia, in which living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. Could Gaia be part of the Universal consciousness? Could it extend to whole galaxies as well? With FTL communication a universal “being” may be possible.

17 days later

An excellent view on consciousness from a philosophical point of view, so from Descartes and QBism. Here I wish still upgrade from a neuroscientific view and from a view of quantum consciousness. I wish a focus from the neuroscientific aspect so that we do not speak only about brains, but about the processes in the brain, or even in one cell.

4 days later

Imposing essay, nicely identifying the fundamental inconsistency of Cartesian and Quantum physics. But I do have a 'quibble'. You seem to assume 'Uncertainty' is implicit in closing the subject-object divide. I agree it should be closed but identify a way it can be closed WITHOUT QM's 'weirdness' (Circumventing 'no-go' theorems in the way Bell suggested - "round the back"). Consider.
If a plane wave & electron, (let's say rotating sphere), meet at a 'polariser', there's a 'momentum exchange', subject to Tan point 'P' polar latitude, affecting 're-emission' state. Near a pole the 'curl' is max (+1 or -1). Near the equator it's near 0 so undecidable! but the LINEAR momentum at the equator is + or -1, going to 0 at the POLES!! Bohr didn't account for that 2nd REAL momentum. What's more, the change between the 2 with latitude over 90o is inverse and by the COSINE of the angle of latitude! Witch certain other proviso's (i.e. antiparallel 'pair' axes & complex vector addition) 'uncertainty' is proved physically derivable, and the "Measurement Problem" is solved!! That's even MORE shocking then your own proposition. It was published last year by Springer-Nature (see below), but is of course too far from doctrinal beliefs to be recognised!
I'm not disputing your view, but showing that it can be proved true WITHOUT having to commit to weirdness.
I confess I likely couldn't have put the whole sequence together alone but appear to have had help from more intelligent beings, perhaps aliens? (yes, crazy!) But the wide implications for all physics inferred also result. Do see my subliminal 'interview' essay with them and judge for yourself. I think you have the kind of incisive and objective thinking that may understand.
But good marks for yours anyway. I hope we can be part of an effort to put physics back together!
Free access link; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352056822_The_Measurement_Problem_an_Ontological_Solution

"Science is different when philosophy is different. Science could have been different had Descartes never split the world, and science needs to be different for us to put it back together." Certainly philosophy offers the direction, thinking and culture of our lives. Subject-object split certainly reaching into the dominant quantum mechanics theory thought that seems to be pierced by new ideas including the Qbist interpretation. In "Global Externalities and a new science" I make a case for the dominance of the corporate world in our philosophy, twisting science for their own agenda. Your dualism argument gives good examples of its influence but not sure it is overriding. The features you mention certainly have enabled capitalism/corporate culture twist our thinking. Kant and Hegel do a more modern usage of a dualist philosophy, evolving it for modernity. It has been manipulated to explain the quantum mystery. In all I like your argument.

Hi AquamarineEchidna,

I see you're short of the 10 ratings needed to qualify for the next stage of the contest. As am I. Would you like to help each other get across the line by reading and rating each others essays before the June 8 deadline? Mine is titled "A tool for helping science find the optimal path toward the truth: falsification."

Cheers
CoralBear

10 days later

"The Connective Tissue
The objectivity of Descartes’ mechanistic universe, and of Newton’s classical physics in turn,
was good enough to give us the industrial revolution, good enough to launch us to the moon—
but it was only an approximation. At the dawn of the 20th century, the cracks began to show.
Experiments revealed a startling fact: there exists a smallest unit of energy, which can’t be
further divided. Energy, in all its forms, comes in integer multiples of that single, indivisible
quantum, which goes by the name Planck’s constant, or simply h. Its value depends on your
units—some 10-33 in centimeters, 10-43 in seconds—but however tiny, it was big enough to undo
the subject-object split.
The question of whether energy is infinitely divisible (as in classical physics) or not (as in
quantum mechanics) is, surprisingly, enough to determine the nature of the subject-object
relation. That’s because a measurement (or any physical interaction) involves an exchange of
energy. If we want to say something about an object in itself, we have to subtract out the energy
imparted by the interaction. When energy is infinitely divisible, we can do this with infinite
precision—subject and object can be neatly separated and we can talk about one independent of
3
the other. But when energy comes in units of h, we hit a snag: we can cut away the effect of the
measurement, but only down to h. At h, the knife hits something solid. We can’t get through that
final piece, that connective tissue; there’s an irreducible overlap where subject and object can’t
be pulled apart because, within that h-sized region, there’s no way to say which is which.
“Because of the indivisibility of the quantum,” wrote Niels Bohr, “we are continually
reminded of the difficulty of distinguishing between subject and object” (Bohr 1934/2011, 15).
“Difficulty” is an understatement. It’s impossible. We can think of Planck’s constant as a
kind of coupling constant between subject and object—turn the strength of the coupling down
and the area of their overlap will grow smaller; turn it down all the way, until h equals zero, and
they’ll break clean apart, recovering classical physics. It’s worth emphasizing this point: the
value of h is the sole difference between classical and quantum physics, which means that the
two paradigms, at bottom, differ only in how they treat the subject-object relation. “In the
mechanical conception of nature,” Bohr wrote, “the subject-object distinction was fixed” (Bohr
1961/2010, 91-2). In the quantum mechanical conception, the distinction became ambiguous,
contextual, fictitious"
Permit me to write your text in another manner:
"The Connective Tissue
The objectivity of Descartes’ mechanistic universe, and of Newton’s classical physics in turn,
was good enough to give us the industrial revolution, good enough to launch us to the moon—
but it was only an approximation. At the dawn of the 21th century, the cracks began to show.
Experiments revealed a startling fact: there exists a smallest unit of power, which can’t be
further divided. Power, in all its forms, comes in integer multiples of that single, indivisible
quantum, which goes by the name new universal constant, or simply alpha0. Its value depends on your
units—some in watts, in erg/second—but however tiny, it was big enough to undo
the subject-object split.
The question of whether power is infinitely divisible (as in classical physics) or not (as in
quantum mechanics) is, surprisingly, enough to determine the nature of the subject-object
relation. That’s because a measurement (or any physical interaction) involves an exchange of
power. If we want to say something about an object in itself, we have to subtract out the power
imparted by the interaction. When power is infinitely divisible, we can do this with infinite
precision—subject and object can be neatly separated and we can talk about one independent of
3
the other. But when power comes in units of alpha0, we hit a snag: we can cut away the effect of the
measurement, but only down to alpha0. At alpha0, the knife hits something solid. We can’t get through that
final piece, that connective tissue; there’s an irreducible overlap where subject and object can’t
be pulled apart because, within that alpha0-sized region, there’s no way to say which is which.
“Because of the indivisibility of the quantum,” wrote Niels Bohr, “we are continually
reminded of the difficulty of distinguishing between subject and object” (Bohr 1934/2011, 15).
“Difficulty” is an understatement. It’s impossible. We can think of new universal constant as a
kind of coupling constant between subject and object—turn the strength of the coupling down
and the area of their overlap will grow smaller; turn it down all the way, until alpha0 equals zero, and
they’ll break clean apart, recovering classical physics. It’s worth emphasizing this point: the
value of alpha0 is the sole difference between classical and quantum physics, which means that the
two paradigms, at bottom, differ only in how they treat the subject-object relation. “In the
mechanical conception of nature,” Bohr wrote, “the subject-object distinction was fixed” (Bohr
1961/2010, 91-2). In the quantum mechanical conception, the distinction became ambiguous,
contextual, fictitious"

"In the face of such challenges, cognitive science has a few options. One is to double down on
representations and hope that something—complexity? emergence? an fMRI?—comes along and
solves the hard problem. But another option might be to notice that the hard problem follows
directly from the subject-object split, and that the subject-object split has already come undone in
quantum mechanics.
No one should be surprised that the implications of quantum mechanics haven’t filtered into
cognitive science. They’ve barely sunk in within physics. But there’s no denying that quantum
mechanics pulled the philosophical rug out from under representational cognitive science.
“This,” Heisenberg wrote, “was a possibility of which Descartes could not have thought, but it
makes the sharp separation between the world and the I impossible” (Heisenberg 1958, 81).
In other words, we’re going to need a new rug."
The new rug is to split the wave-corpuscle duality into two dualities:
wave-identity duality
corpuscle-identity duality
A wave (or a corpuscle) have two identities: an identity in time and identity in space. There is two universals constants to convert representations as follows:
4-vector wave vector=universal constant1 times 4-vector identity
4-vector momentum= universal constant2 times 4-vector identity
Interactions can only happen between nearly approximatively the sames 4-vectors identities: this is the split between subject and object.

@[deleted]
"“Difficulty” is an understatement. It’s impossible. We can think of Planck’s constant as a
kind of coupling constant between subject and object—turn the strength of the coupling down
and the area of their overlap will grow smaller; turn it down all the way, until h equals zero, and
they’ll break clean apart, recovering classical physics"
Note that Planck show in his "thoery of heat radiation" -1911 that the integral of action in phase space of a resonator is equal exactly to his constant h. I do the same integral of action but times K/L where K is the stiffness of the resonator and L is the classical inertia of the oscillating object: conclusion it exist a new universal constant alpha0 times an inertial time of the oscillating object which equal excatly also the Planck constant h times the frequency of the oscillator .
This constant as I had calculated from GR is : alpha0=1E-10 watts

@[deleted]
I love your article because it can guide us to another way. A way where Quantum Mechanics seems luck a new universal constant. A way where the enigma of disparency about vacuum energy as given by GR and as given by QM had been resolved (I had done it).

    6 days later

    let say there is a split, split means two parts, why stop at two and not a number much greater than two,

    the content of this essay is intriguing.
    according to my present experience there is a a little chance for this dualism
    mind and matter not to completely overlap ,

    an other split is more clearly evident however the externalisation of toughts through various media,
    if sound and air tends to dampens sounds after a certain distance , writing in itself could behave / look like such a split

    what people wrote since the invention of this practice had tackled various themes, Monsieur Rene Descartes, was probably one of the first peoples that wrote about the inner voices practices , according to a book about his life and work, i saw a quote where he was writing in the area of how to think , although i haven' t yet verified , i doubt that he was to much interested in to the less visible (bio)physics of sound

    the patterns can looks extremely different , how nature behave compared to human languages and thoughts , hence this split is partially justified for an era before other scientists tackled this theme.

    this is a receipt for creating (magic ) splits, push apart towards extremes and hide the middle
    rewrite :this is a receipt for creating (magic ) splits, extremes forces grabs and tear the middle

    why not splitting also the mind in half Alaya Kouki (indubitable things),
    the meaning of the word split in this essay refers to splits in two types of different things , if i the split happens once more
    there isn't the same perceived effect for the importance ,having a body and two cloned mirror souls , looks like an unbalanced split , that does not tell the same impactful story , i mean it could once i'm starting to tell it , but there is story fatigue bias, the essay of seven pages plus references already told the story of a simple split .

    10 days later

    after a search Compendium Musicae showed up; apparently this is the first published work of the hipnotic domain of sounds,namely the music ,
    probably after that he switched to other topics

    dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum.
    i use a voice therefore i am [therefore, browser spellcheck ] ( therfore, my original typewrite)
    linguam scio, ergo loquor , loquor ergo sum

    i know common spoken language therefore i use a voice, i use a voice (i think) therefore i am
    Ich kenne die Umgangssprache, deshalb benutze ich eine Stimme, ich benutze eine Stimme (denke ich),also bin ich

    ... after more digging -Newcastle letter-
    https://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy3214/DescartesOnAnimals.htm

    communication like an alternating static turn-based chunks (signs/ discrete states )- written on paper/ or spoken or made with hands,

    are those the only mode of expression of thoughts?
    an unexpressed thought doesn't exist.

    ha ! - i ponder around speech ,in a common spoken language, therefore i am
    Ha! - Ich denke über die Sprache nach, in einer allgemein gesprochenen Sprache, also bin ich es
    ha! - circum loquelam volvo, in lingua vulgari, ergo sum
    ha ! - je réfléchis autour de la parole, dans une langue parlée commune, donc je suis
    χα ! - συλλογίζομαι τον λόγο, σε μια κοινή προφορική γλώσσα, επομένως είμαι
    ha! - Jeg tænker over tale, i et almindeligt talesprog, derfor er jeg det
    ah! - rifletto sul discorso, in una lingua parlata comune, quindi sono
    はー! - 私は共通の話し言葉でのスピーチについて考えています。
    ха! - я размышляю над речью на простом разговорном языке, поэтому я
    ...

    21 days later

    It was nice to see someone recognize the importance of the “philosophical” issue of the object-subject relationship given the state of scientific progress and attempt to point in a few directions of investigation which may lead to a fruitful restructuring of the conceptual foundations of science. My instincts tell me that this issue will be central to the next great conceptual advancement in fundamental science, and will involve an abandonment of the Cartesian view. (Accordingly, I will take more time to review this paper than I normally would.) As with all such advances, the initial steps towards it will probably be messy, confused, chaotic etc. It may take us hundreds of years to get there. But, while we cannot help but blunder on our way there, I think that we should do what we can to reduce the amount by which we might muddy the waters and confuse ourselves and others as we proceed. That said, it seems that there are quite a few “muddying” elements in this paper, some of which I thought would be better to address than not.

    The author claims that prior to Descartes, human beings “had no concept of a private, internal, first-person mind.” This is totally unbelievable. The idea that people have their own private thoughts is probably as old as humans themselves. Similarly, the idea that one is different from and other than the things in the world around oneself originates not with Descartes, but probably in the first instance in which a human ever used the word “I”, (or the development of first and third person grammar to be conservative about it). In other words, the subject-object divide predates Descartes by probably tens of thousands of years.

    The author claims that: “the value of h is the sole difference between classical and quantum physics”. But this is not true. Newtonian mechanics (classical physics), as a general framework, can accommodate energy quantization. Quantum mechanics is a completely different general framework -- a completely different mechanics-- the theories couched within which predict different empirical results than the theories couched within Newtonian mechanics-- even those which might involve energy quantization. It happens that the theories of quantum mechanics correspond to experimental results better than those of classical mechanics.

    The author claims that: “The question of whether energy is infinitely divisible…or not … is enough to determine the nature of the subject-object relation. That’s because a measurement (or any physical interaction) involves an exchange of energy. If we want to say something about an object in itself, we have to subtract out the energy imparted by the interaction. When energy is infinitely divisible, we can do this with infinite precision-- subject and object can be neatly separated and we can talk about one independent of the other.” It seems to me that this is all very confused. First of all, not all physical interactions involve energy transfer (electrons going through a magnetic field for example). Second, we do not necessarily “have to subtract out the energy imparted by the interaction” in order to “say something about an object”. In determining the position of an electron, for instance, we can make as precise of a measurement as we wish, and we need not “subtract out the energy imparted” (whatever that might mean). Energy quantization has no bearing on the ability to precisely determine a chosen property of an object. It does not even necessarily (from a strictly logical perspective) have a bearing on the ability to precisely determine two “conjugate” properties of an object (like position and momentum for example). True, under the assumption of the quantum theoretical postulate of the De Broglie relation (p = h/lambda), it can be shown that the product of the uncertainties of position and momentum of a given object is indeed set by the value of h if we try to determine both properties by illuminating the object with a photon of light. But, while this relationship between h and the product of the uncertainties is necessarily inherent to this particular measurement scheme, it is not necessarily the case in all measurement schemes-- we might be able to find some other way to determine both the position and momentum at the same time (this is what Einstein tried to do even though he granted energy quantization). The mathematical structure of quantum mechanics demands that the product of the uncertainties of any two conjugate variables must be greater than a given value (their commutator squared, which always involves h I think). Therefore, quantum theory is incompatible with the idea that there is any way, in principle, to determine the two values with greater certainty-- if another way were to be found, quantum theory would collapse. In short, energy quantization does not necessarily prevent us from precisely determining any given property of an object; and energy quantization does not necessarily prevent us from simultaneously determining the values of two conjugate variables unless we grant that quantum mechanics is true. In either case, mere energy quantization per se has no necessary relation to property uncertainty as the author suggests. Finally, as far as I can discern, the idea of inherent uncertainties respecting the values of variables in a physical system has no necessary connection to the subject-object relation. One can claim that despite these uncertainties, physical objects still have these properties, it is just that we cannot know them (as in some interpretations of QM). Or, one might claim that, though certain classical concepts (like position and momentum) cannot be simultaneously attributed to the objects of reality with precision, the objects of reality still have independent existence from any particular subject that might go out and measure them. And so on. In summary, contrary to the assertions of the author, the existence of energy quanta per se has no necessary connection to the object-subject question, and no necessary connection to inherent uncertainty (which, in turn, has no necessary connection to the subject-object question either).

    The author says: “But the discreteness, as Bohr emphasized, is not in the object; it’s in the subject-object relation, the connective tissue The same goes for uncertainty. Quantum uncertainty is not uncertainty about a thing-in-theworld; it’s uncertainty about which part belongs to the world and which part belongs to the observer. ” I choose this quote as representative of many in the essay in which the author attempts to attribute specific ideas to great scientists like Bohr in an attempt to lend support to the author’s own views, despite that the attribution of those ideas to those scientists is rather dubious. In fact, to offer a strong criticism, the idea which the author is here trying to attribute to Bohr is frankly bizarre: The uncertainties involved in quantum theory are uncertainties in whether a thing is oneself (the subject) or not oneself (an object). What could this possibly even mean? I am quite confident that Bohr and Heisenberg would have strongly objected to having such an (ostensible) idea attributed to them. These men were deep and subtle thinkers, and it seems improbable that they adhered to an idea so simplistic as “because there is uncertainty in a system, the Cartesian subject-object theory is false”, as the author’s various cherry picked quotes of them seem intended to suggest.

    The author says: If the disembodied, first-person mind and the mechanistic third-person world were two sides of a coin… then the upheaval of classical physics ought to have revolutionized not only our understanding of the world, but our understanding of the mind”. They are not two sides of the same coin. There can be plenty of mutually contradictory theoretical systems which nonetheless assume dualism. For instance, one can think of the world as animistic as opposed to mechanistic while still assuming that the individual subject is categorically distinct from the other things in the world around it. It seems to me that we need to distinguish between substance dualism and subject-object dualism. Cartesian dualism is generally taken as a combination of substance dualism (specifically, the dualism of mind and matter) and subject-object dualism.The ambiguity as to which dualism the author intends to discuss makes a number of claims in the paper hard to evaluate. For instance, the author claims that idealism is “founded” on the “cartesian split”. But, it is not clear which “split” the author is here claiming idealism is “founded” on-- mind-matter or subject-object (although the assertion is false either way as far as I can see.)

    As for the striking of a “middle ground” between realism and idealism (which purportedly transcends Cartesian dualism) discussed in the “Science Without the Split" section, some of the perspectives offered seemed more like wordplay than real philosophical innovation-- attempts to somehow arrange words in such a way as to appear as to present a view which eliminates subject-object dualism without eliminating the very possibility of individual conscious experience along with it in the manner discussed in certain buddhist or hindu philosophies. For instance, take the following passage: “In pragmatism… the notion of “pure experience” is introduced as a kind of unity of existence without the subject-object split; the pragmatists’ “experience” is not inside the subject nor out in the world, but in the interplay between the two. Unlike a “thing” or a “thought,” John Dewey wrote, pure experience “is “double-barreled” in that it recognizes in its primary integrity no division between act and material, subject and object, but contains them both in an unanalyzed totality” ” I don’t mean to be dismissive, but my honest reaction to this is “Well, sounds nice, but does it actually get us anywhere?” If we are to move past the cartesian system, we need to keep in mind that the system we develop to replace it must have important, concrete pragmatic/scientific ramifications-- otherwise it will be just another intellectual curiosity. Perhaps some of the thinkers referenced in this section have ideas which can contribute to a legitimate advance on this front. Hopefully I get a chance to look into them more closely sometime soon.

    Anyway, thanks for taking up this question!

    15 days later

    @[deleted]
    Your article merit to be classified in the first place. Split or unsplit object-subject inetraction guide us to another paradigm. I had invent the 4-vector identity or the 4-vector delete dualities. It is like the invention of zero in the mathematics of numbers.My statements are of course in Restreint Relativity and not in GR . The 4-vector identity which I introduce in the first time in Minkowski space-time is as follows:
    4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
    4-vector identity=(speed of light times inertial time of the corpuscle, speed of the corpuscle times inertial time of the copuscle)
    Inertial time of the corpuscle =universal constant times the energy of the corpuscle
    It is evident now that:
    4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
    The inertial time is like a five dimension of space. The ordinary time is only change. Inertial time does'nt change if the energy of the corpuscle is constant.
    We can deduce the new universals constants (as frequency, power, mechanical impedance...etc.) by taking the same model of Planck black body theory transferred to vacuum. Vacuum will be considered as formed with an infinity of resonators at their fundamental states. Every resonator will have a medium energy and an entropy. The integration of the density of energy of vacuum should give us the same density in General Relativity so we deduce the fundamental universal frequency. Vacuum will have also a density of entropy which is an universal constant.

    I have a response for how to unsplit object-subject model of science:
    For the author the split object-subject is related to classical physics and he give an example is that in classical physics energy is always continue and it can be divided at any ratio so teh Descartes conception " I think so I am" is always applicable because there is the subject which far from the object and he can do measures on it because energy can be infinetely divided. But for the author when the energy is quantified as a mulptipe of a certain quantity labelled " Planck constant" the distinction between the subject and the object at very low levels of energy is hard and at very high levels of energy is possible because we can meet the calssical physics when we tends Planck constant to zero: I have an objection to this.
    For Niels Bohr the Principle of Correspondance in quantum mechanics is a general principle and it is applicable at very high level quantification and very low level quatification of energy. For low level quantification there is always a classical measure to do whithout no need to tends Planck constant to zero. Let's apply this conception to logic:
    1-Split the object-subject in two entities: the object-Observer Identity and Observer Identity-subject
    2-Treat only the Observer Identity: it is like to unsplit the conception object-subject
    Reality is to deleate the conception object-subject: I found it in an article is this Competition. The observer identity is the eraser of the object-subject: it is more transcendent.

    In classical mechanics " I think so I am": my existence is always defined because energy can be infinetely divided.
    In quantum mechanics "I can't think under a certain limit of my existence" or " I can't think without delimiting my existence"

    The problem to split object-subject is very well defined in black body radiation theory. If you take the Planck model for the black body radiation and you suppose that energy of the soscillator is continous so you tends it to zero than you obtain Raleigh-Jeans formulae which we can obtain it without any quatification assumptions. To tends the energy of the oscillator to zero is equivalent to tends the temperature of the black body to a high value i.e. the mean energy of the oscillator is equal approximatively to "kT" like in classical mechanics. But when the temperature is nearly to zero you can't tends the frequency of the oscillator to zero because you obtain a wrong formulae of black body radiation (a classical formulae) so to resolve the problem Planck had divide the energy of the oscillator to finite elements i.e. you should stop to divide infinetely the oscillator energy. The problem for me at least is so clear: disccritness is present at any level of nature.
    All turns around discritness of nature. Classical phenomenas are only emergences of discritness. Let's take an example from the greeks: Zenon to prove that there is no motion proceed to do the following thinking experiment:
    An object which mouve from the point A to the point B separated by the distance d should cross the distance d/2 and so he shoudl cross the distance d/4 and so he should cross the distnace d/(2n) where n integer but n can be infinite so the object can't mouve at all. The solution to this problem is to stop dividing distances and so the object mouve by jumps.
    We can conclude that there is jumps in distances, times and energies: there is an absolute system of unities where the speed of light, the Planck constant and an universal constant having the dimension of an energy are equal to one. It does not mean the distance or the time or the "mass" in this system are minmums or maximums which we can obtain in nature but it means that they are the base of discritness of nature. Don't refer to Planck absolute system becuase who tells you that the gravitationnal constant is an universal constant?. Vacuum density of energy is an universal constant and if consttant lambda of General Relavity depends on time than the gravitationnal constant depends on time: only their ratio is constant. There is something new to discover in order to complete the puzzle.

    I mean by discritness discontinuity ( as my scientific culture is in french I made many mistakes in english). Absolute system of unities base does not mean that there is a minimum lentgh, a minimum time, a minimum mass : it means only that nature is based on discontinuity and jumps. The unit of lenght on the unit of time in this base is equal to "c" the celeririty of light but it deos it mean that we can't depass the speed "c".

    19 days later

    " For example, there’s the symbol grounding
    problem: how can representations come to mean anything about the world, when all we have
    access to are other representations?"
    There is a solution to this in which we should trust : a representation which have been confirmed by experience in a determined context can be transferred in another context with analog forms.
    I can take the exemple of vacuum energy in quantum mechanics which can be treated with analog concepts of Planck model of the black body radiation.