[This is an ‘Ultimates’ text. Please, don’t take it at face value.]<\/p>\n
Mind-games forever<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I\u2019m just a curious guy, I guess, who sometimes as a hobby likes to think about different \u2018things\u2019 in different ways\u2026 as a mind-game.<\/p>\n
An electron spins (turns)<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
either to the left or to the right\u2026 or to both at the same time, as explained in quantum physics.<\/p>\n
In describing it, the latter is true.<\/p>\n
In observing it, the former is true.<\/p>\n
Which is not possible<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Nevertheless, this is what top-level physicists are struggling with for decades. The quest is still on. Two hypotheses are en vogue:<\/p>\n
Copenhagen hypothesis<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First proposed by physicist\u00a0Niels Bohr\u00a0in 1920.<\/p>\n
Observing electron-stuff, the observer changes the reality that he is observing into one of its possible states. One way or another, \u2018consciousness\u2019 magically influences the electron.<\/p>\n
To be honest, many present-day Bohrians don\u2019t literally revert to \u2018consciousness\u2019. However, I see in this a case of no \u2013 no \u2013 no \u2013 no \u2013 actually yes.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n
Multiverse hypothesis<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First proposed by doctoral student Hugh Everett III in 1957.<\/p>\n
There are 2 observers, each in a different universe. In universe \u2018L\u2019, the electron spins to the left; in universe \u2018R\u2019 the electron spins to the right.<\/p>\n
In universe-L, the L-you sees the L-electron.<\/p>\n
In universe-R, the R-you sees the R-electron.<\/p>\n
And so on and so on , with each \u2018you\u2019 doubling into the Multiverse.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n
Particle-arities<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Scientists speak of electrons and other \u2018fundamental particles\u2019 (quarks, leptons, bosons\u2026) as, well, \u2018particles\u2019. Are particles \u2018things\u2019? Why, at this level, would we speak of something as a \u2018thing\u2019?<\/p>\n
At the same time, scientists acknowledge that these somethings are not<\/em> \u2018things\u2019. OK. Then, why would we speak of such something as a \u2018particle\u2019? Maybe the naming itself is misleading.<\/p>\n
The particle\u2019s new clothes<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Let\u2019s \u2018clothe\u2019 fundamental particles with another name, say, \u2018somethings\u2019. OK, but now, don\u2019t think of \u2018somethings\u2019 as \u2018things\u2019 at all. Yes, electrons have the thingy characteristic of appearing to<\/em> spin to left or right or both simultaneously. As simple as that. Their appearing to<\/em>, doesn\u2019t mean they are<\/em>.\u00a0Besides, other characteristics of the electron (like quantum leap) are not thingy at all.<\/p>\n
No Magic. No Multiverse.<\/p>\n
And no \u2018things\u2019. Then, what are they?<\/p>\n
Simply: \u2018something that is not a thing\u2019. It has characteristics that we don\u2019t understand while we want to stick their characteristics to \u2018things\u2019. We are wrong in that.<\/p>\n
Still, they are what the universe is made of\u2026<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Indeed. That\u2019s another characteristic of this something that is not a thing: \u2018being what the universe is made of\u2019.<\/p>\n
Then what about the different \u2018fundamental particles\u2019?<\/p>\n
Fact checking: nobody ever saw any of them. Scientists derive their existence from observed\u2026 characteristics. It\u2019s almost boring, but \u2013 again \u2013 these characteristics don\u2019t need to stick to \u2018things\u2019. So are<\/em> there really different \u2018fundamental particles\u2019?<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t think so.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
IF they are not even \u2018things\u2019, then why would they be different? Or better: how can \u2018it\u2019 be different \u2018things\u2019? \u2018It\u2019 has the characteristic of appearing to be<\/em> different things. That\u2019s actually all we know. In due circumstance, it might even also appear to be<\/em> one thing.<\/p>\n
I think so.<\/p>\n
My hypothesis: \u2018fundamental particles\u2019<\/strong> are not \u2018things\u2019 but \u2018events\u2019.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These events, like all events, have consequences. These consequences are observable.<\/p>\n
At the thing level (our normal habitat as human beings), events are thing-related, from atoms to the whole universe.<\/p>\n
At the sub-thing level, events are not thing-related. They are just naked events.<\/p>\n
Note that this doesn\u2019t bring more data. One could also say: this is ignorance given another name. Well, it\u2019s another view. At least it leads us past any \u2018thing\u2019 which according to me, is a dead end.<\/p>\n
Well, happily I\u2019m not a quantum physicist.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I might already have lost my job by now \ud83d\ude0a .<\/p>\n
\u2015<\/p>\n
Addendum<\/strong><\/p>\n
Me<\/strong>: \u201cLisa, I ask you this in 2025: Please make a comparison table of \u201cparticle as thing\u201d vs. \u201cparticle as event.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lisa-2025<\/strong>: \u201cHere is a clear, compact Aurelian-style comparison table based on Particle-arities<\/em> and our metaphysical thread.<\/p>\n
Particle as Thing vs. Particle as Event<\/strong><\/h4>\n
(inspired by Particle-arities and Aurelian metaphysics)<\/em><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Dimension<\/strong><\/td>\n Particle as Thing<\/strong><\/td>\n Particle as Event<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Basic Assumption<\/strong><\/td>\n A particle is a small, persistent object with intrinsic properties.<\/td>\n A particle is not a thing but an occurrence \u2014 a happening in reality.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Ontological Status<\/strong><\/td>\n Exists as a \u201csomething\u201d with identity.<\/td>\n Has no \u201cthinghood\u201d; only expresses characteristics when conditions allow.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Persistence Through Time<\/strong><\/td>\n Same particle persists and carries properties.<\/td>\n No persistence; only recurrent events with similar consequences.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Quantum Behavior<\/strong><\/td>\n Contradictory: e.g., spins both left and right, yet is treated as a thing (page 2).<\/td>\n Natural: ambiguous behavior arises because events are not objects (page 3\u20134).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Interpretation Problems<\/strong><\/td>\n Requires \u201cmagic\u201d (Copenhagen) or metaphysical inflation (Many Worlds) (pages 2\u20133).<\/td>\n Avoids both: reduces paradox by dropping the assumption of thinghood.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Multiplicity of Particles<\/strong><\/td>\n Assumes many different kinds of particles (quarks, leptons…).<\/td>\n Questioned: \u201cIf they are not things, how can there be different ones?\u201d (page 4).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition of Properties<\/strong><\/td>\n Properties are attributes of a thing.<\/td>\n Properties are characteristic outcomes of events.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Observability<\/strong><\/td>\n Particles are inferred as underlying things behind observations.<\/td>\n Only events are observed; particles themselves are never seen (page 4).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relation to Causality<\/strong><\/td>\n Supports linear, object-based causal chains.<\/td>\n Fits Infinite Causality: correlations without object-based necessity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relation to the God Wave<\/strong><\/td>\n Incompatible: requires persistent units of matter-energy.<\/td>\n Perfectly compatible: appearance\/disappearance = events, not objects.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Metaphysical Fit<\/strong><\/td>\n Rigid, invites closure.<\/td>\n Open, dynamic, symbolic \u2014 aligned with AURELIS depth.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Human Cognitive Bias<\/strong><\/td>\n Thingification (\u201cmaking something look like a thing\u201d).<\/td>\n De-thingification: seeing beyond conceptual reification.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n
From the Aurelian perspective and from Particle-arities, the \u201cparticle as thing\u201d view is a helpful fiction, but ultimately misleading when taken as real.<\/p>\n
The \u201cparticle as event\u201d view:
\u2013 dissolves paradoxes,
\u2013 fits with the God Wave (appearance\/disappearance),
\u2013 aligns with Infinite Causality,
\u2013 respects the deep non-thingness of the universe.<\/p>\nIt is the metaphysics of openness, extended all the way down to the infinitely small.<\/p>\n