Stephen, Jack, List: Peirce's metaphysical distinction between existence and reality seems applicable here.
Existence as reacting with the other like things in the environment is *always *temporal and actual. In that sense, nothing *exists *atemporally, and saying that a pure possibility *exists *is incoherent. On the other hand, a scholastic realist maintains that there are atemporal *realities* that do not exist, including some (but not all) possibilities--specifically, for a proponent of pragmaticism, those that "*can become actual*" (R 288, 1905). In quantum mechanics, I suggest accordingly that a continuous wave function accurately describes a probabilistic *reality*--a distribution of *real *possibilities--but a discrete particle state only *exists *upon being actualized by a measurement event. With that in mind, I propose combining and replacing Jack's #3-4--which, as formulated below, are both straightforward contradictions and thus logically impossible--to say instead, "is real but does not exist." This avoids the pervasive but problematic presupposition of physicalism that Stephen notes, which carries with it the nominalist doctrine that existence/actuality and reality are coextensive, thus entailing that there are no *real *possibilities. My guess at what Jack is recalling as Peirce's "story about his brother" is this one presented in a footnote, not as an example of abduction, but as an illustration of how "*reiterations in the inner world ... produce habits*, just as do reiterations in the outer world; *and these habits will have power to influence actual behavior in the outer world*" (CP 5.487, EP 2:413, 1907). CSP: I well remember when I was a boy, and my brother Herbert, now our minister at Christiania [ambassador to Norway], was scarce more than a child, one day, as the whole family were at table, some spirit from a "blazer," or "chafing-dish," dropped on the muslin dress of one of the ladies and was kindled; and how instantaneously he jumped up, and did the right thing, and how skillfully each motion was adapted to the purpose. I asked him afterward about it, and he told me that since Mrs. Longfellow's death [after accidentally setting her dress on fire] he had often run over in imagination all the details of what ought to be done in such an emergency. It was a striking example of a real habit produced by exercises in the imagination. I am now going to follow Jack's example by trying to stay quiet on the List for a while. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:10 AM "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> wrote: > Jack, List > > > > >”* Exists and does not exist* (E∧¬E) — conjunctive/disjunctive > paradoxes, e.g., quantum superpositions in standard formalism.” > > > > THIS is a central issue that is now in question, thanks to RQM. Under > *classical* QM, physicalists (materialists) controlled the narrative. > Under RQM, however, there is no “superposition of states”. “Superposition > of states” is what you have when a physicalist tries to factor in, for > example, the peaks and the troughs of the Schrodinger wave equation. In > RQM, by contrast, there is context and relations, there is the > phenomenology of the very small, where the square-cube law strips subatomic > particles of their classical properties, opening them up to possibility, > availing them to context and relations. We no longer need to twist > ourselves into knots trying to explain subatomic billiard-balls popping > into and out of existence, a classically physicalist interpretation. RQM > changes everything. > > > > The dominance of the physicalist narrative is, I suggest, behind the > crisis in physics that is now popping up throughout conversations > everywhere online. I foresee a solution in the synthesis of RQM with > semiotics. > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Jack Cody > *Sent:* 11 August, 2025 2:36 PM > *To:* [email protected]; Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] QM: Schrodinger's cat is semiotic - RQM > explains why > > > > 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.
