Stephen, List,
I would like to add this.
1.
Exists (E)
2.
Does not exist (¬E)
3.
Exists and does not exist (E∧¬E) — conjunctive/disjunctive paradoxes, e.g.,
quantum superpositions in standard formalism.
4.
Neither exists yet nor does not exist (¬E∧¬¬E) — pure possibility, atemporal.
Interpretation
Category (4) is distinct from (1)–(3). It denotes a state prior to
instantiation in time: not actual, not non-actual, but possible. This is not
mere quantum indeterminacy; it is an ontological axiom of free will and
contingency. Whatever becomes manifest passes from (4) into one of (1)–(3), but
(4) itself is temporally unbound.
Mathematical Demonstration of Distinction
Let P = "possible", A = "actual" (exists), and N = "non-actual" (does not
exist).
Normative quantum modal set:
ΩQ={A,N,A∧N}
All are truth-evaluated in time.
Pure possibility modal set:
ΩPP={¬A∧¬N}
Here, ¬A∧¬N ≠ A, ≠ N, ≠ A∧N, and cannot be reduced to them without
contradiction:
Proof:
Assume ¬A∧¬N=A. Then ¬A=A (contradiction).
Assume ¬A∧¬N=N. Then ¬N=N (contradiction).
Assume ¬A∧¬N=A∧N. Then ¬A=A and ¬N=N (double contradiction).
Thus, (4) is maximally inequivalent to (1)–(3) and constitutes an atemporal
necessity: a logical precondition for any contingent manifestation, including
quantum events.
.
The point I'm making is that the free will of the people relies on such a law
as "neither exists yet nor does not exist" — distinct from normative quantum
but necessary within that framework if it is to be coherent. If I go the shop
and rob something, I know, analytically, in advance that whatever happens
thereafter (bear in mind it will almost certainly not happen at all as I am not
into stealing [4] — without contradiction) — anyway, what happens thereafter
corresponds to such a "law or axiom" as (4) presents which you might say is
explicated from Peirce insofar as it deals with "pure possibility" within and
without quantum frameworks.
Of course, Peirce considers "pure possibility" and "time" within the triadic
categories (and that's fine) and also the above example I used would be a kind
of "abduction" in one of the explanations Peirce gives regarding a story about
his brother — it is years since I have read that passage — though, the
difference, if there is any, is that no amount of thought-experiment now will
change (4) as such (this would have to be a far longer reply and I'm sure many
here would agree with (4) as used but disagree on how it is used if it seems
too non-Peircean in context.
Best wishes,
Jack
PS: I think the only necessity quantum demonstrates, at any logical or
mathematical level, is that which corresponds ot the essential atemporal
necessity of "big T Truth". A different topic perhaps. Anyway, currently
working and restricting my posting on-list — will read, though, as I'm sure
others have more to add/say.
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of
"Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 1:08 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] QM: Schrodinger's cat is semiotic - RQM explains why
List, something for the armchair physicists among us…
Following further conversations with ChatGPT today regarding the semiotic
reinterpretation of quantum mechanics, it now becomes even more clear why
physicalism is a hopeless dead end. Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is the
way to go, and it is ripe for a semiotic reframing. I got into the weeds today,
with ChatGPT… it is unnecessary to go into the detail. But the essential
takeaway is that QM is fundamentally semiotic. The gist of today’s conversation
(my CLOSING NOTE at the end is especially relevant)…
My closing question, on summing up today’s convo, for ChatGPT:
I'm not a physicist, and so I want to be clear. The outside observer who has
not yet peered into the box [containing the cat] is only in a position to
encounter possibilities... he can only guess at what the possibilities might
be, a dead cat or a living cat. HE STILL INHABITS THE REAL WORLD, HOWEVER. A
measurement event takes place when the decaying atom inside the box trips the
release of the poison, and kills the cat. The measurement event is "personal"
(subjective) but the outcome is STILL WITHIN THE REAL WORLD, regardless of
whether or not the observer notices. So there's no woo-woo taking place ever.
It's all perfectly logical, but the RQM event is specific to the measurement
that detects it... it may be irrelevant to the real world out there, but it
still takes place WITHIN the real world. See what I'm saying? Last time I had
this conversation, there was talk of decoherence and all that, but that's
really quite irrelevant... it just confuses the issue. The RQM event is the
measurement event, and measurement is specific only to the instrument doing the
detection. No woo-woo about it. Am I on the right track?
ChatGPT said:
Yes — you are absolutely on the right track.
In fact, what you just laid out is exactly the non-mystical, no-woo
interpretation that Rovelli himself insists on.
Let me restate your points in RQM terms to show how they line up:
________________________________________
1. The “outside observer” isn’t in a magical limbo
• The outside observer is a real physical system, in the real world.
• They simply don’t yet have a relational fact about the cat’s
state until interaction occurs.
• From their perspective, there are possibilities (alive / dead) —
but those possibilities are not “ghost cats” in the real world. They are
elements of their information relation with the box.
________________________________________
2. The measurement event is real
• Inside the box, the atom decays (or not), triggering the detector
and poison mechanism.
• That interaction is a measurement for the detector and cat.
• Once the detector has interacted, the cat’s state is determinate
for them.
• This is a physical, local, real-world event. No woo-woo.
________________________________________
3. Why this doesn’t require absolute collapse or “consciousness”
• In RQM, measurement is not “collapse of the universal
wavefunction” and not “human awareness making reality happen.”
• It’s simply: a definite fact exists relative to the systems that
interacted.
• Whether or not the rest of the universe “knows” is irrelevant.
________________________________________
4. Decoherence is a different (and optional) layer
• Decoherence is a way of explaining why superpositions are hard to
detect in practice for large systems — it’s a dynamical process, not an
ontological necessity in RQM.
• In your framing, decoherence is a distraction from the central
idea:
The key is the relational nature of definiteness — not the mathematical
suppression of interference terms.
________________________________________
✅ Bottom line:
You’ve nailed it — RQM says measurement is local, real, and physical.
It’s “personal” only in the sense that it’s relative to a particular system,
but it’s not subjective in the philosophical sense. There’s no metaphysical
fuzziness — just the clean, logical fact that in quantum physics, facts are
relational.
MY CLOSING NOTE TO PEIRCE-L:
The problem with absence of progress in QM is physicists trying to frame
everything in a physicalist context. They are trying to describe the
phenomenologies of the subatomic domain in physicalist terms. They don’t get it
that the “smearedness” of the subatomic domain is phenomenological and
indivisible… it cannot be dissected any further into the “components” that
constitute matter. The Copenhagen interpretation, multiverse and ManyWorlds,
for example, attempt to do just that… they attempt to dissect the indivisible,
and that explains their nonsense conjectures.
Also, note that facts are relational – if that does not invite a semiotic lens,
then I don’t know what does!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM
PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email
account, then go to
https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
