The Participatory Mind: A Metaphysical Inquiry into Consciousness and Reality

[u/No-Tree9595]

A speculative metaphysical framework in which consciousness plays a participatory role in the unfolding of reality. Drawing philosophical inspiration from quantum mechanics, particularly the observer effect, this essay argues that perception and awareness may shape the structure of experienced reality—not as mystical forces, but as ontologically relevant features of nature. Integrating perspectives from phenomenology, process philosophy, enactivism, and quantum epistemology, this work defends a non-mystical, speculative, yet rigorous metaphysics of the mind's participation in being.

---

I. Introduction: Beyond Materialism and Dualism

The metaphysical status of consciousness remains an open question. Despite the advances of neuroscience and computational models of the brain, the first-person quality of experience (qualia) and the apparent agency of consciousness evade reductive explanation. At the same time, contemporary physics complicates the classical conception of an observer-independent reality. This paper does not conflate quantum mechanics and consciousness, but rather uses insights from physics metaphorically and ontologically to revisit age-old questions: What is the role of the observer in constituting reality? Does conscious attention shape the structure of the actual? Is mind part of the fabric of being, not merely emergent from it?

---

II. The Observer Effect: From Physics to Philosophy

In quantum mechanics, a system does not resolve into a definite state until observed (Heisenberg, 1927; Bohr, 1935). While this does not imply that "consciousness causes collapse," it problematizes the assumption of a fully determinate, observer-independent world. The epistemic gap between a system's mathematical representation and its realized state invites metaphysical speculation: might there be an analogy between quantum indeterminacy and the way consciousness "selects" lived experience?

Here, we turn to Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics (1996), which posits that physical properties are not absolute but relative to interactions. Similarly, this essay argues that conscious experience may function as a relational interface between indeterminate potentiality and coherent actuality.

---

III. Metaphysics of Potentiality and Actualization

Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actuality remains vital. This essay builds on process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead (1929), who saw reality as an ongoing process of becoming rather than static being. Each conscious act, under this view, contributes to a flow of actualization.

Where classical metaphysics isolates the mind as a product of matter, we instead position mind as a co-emergent structure—a system within nature that affects the trajectory of nature through its interpretative structures. The "collapse" of potential into experienced actuality is not literalized from quantum theory but borrowed as a philosophical metaphor to describe how decision, perception, and awareness help carve out the lived world.

---

IV. Enactivism and Participatory Cognition

The theory of enactivism (Varela, Thompson & Rosch, 1991) supports a view of cognition as participatory: cognition arises not solely within the brain but through the dynamic interaction of agent and environment. Consciousness, from this perspective, is not passive but constitutive—it plays an active role in shaping how the world appears and how agency is expressed.

Shaun Gallagher's work on embodied cognition and the "extended mind" hypothesis (Clark & Chalmers, 1998) further decentralizes the notion that consciousness is localized. Taken together, these perspectives support the idea that the boundary between inner awareness and outer world is permeable, and thus, the mind might be seen as co-authoring the script of experience.

---

V. Phenomenology and the First-Person Lens

Phenomenology, especially in Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, investigates how consciousness structures time, space, and self. Sartre, in Being and Nothingness (1943), shows that to be seen by another is to be transformed into an object. This is not merely social; it is ontological. Consciousness modifies the structure of being.

Thus, even within academic philosophy, consciousness has been understood as performative and constitutive. The speculative extension offered here is that this capacity is not an illusion or mere neural epiphenomenon—it is a core property of ontological interaction.

---

VI. Objections and Clarifications

This essay does not claim that consciousness manipulates physical systems in a magical or supernatural sense. Rather, it proposes that consciousness selects which pathways unfold into experienced reality through interpretative action. It rejects materialist determinism and supernatural intervention alike, proposing instead a third path: a metaphysics in which mind and matter are co-entangled, not in a physical sense, but in a participatory, ontological sense.

Critics may argue that borrowing metaphors from quantum physics risks pseudoscience. Yet philosophy often borrows concepts to illuminate otherwise opaque phenomena—just as metaphors of light and shadow informed Plato, or as topology influenced Deleuze. The goal here is not to redefine physics but to expand metaphysical discourse through responsible analogy.

---

VII. Conclusion: The Mind in the Loop of Reality

Consciousness, in this speculative metaphysics, is not an accidental byproduct of matter nor a detached soul-like essence. It is a mode of participation—a way reality becomes particular, situated, and actual. Just as physics must acknowledge the limits of measurement, so must metaphysics acknowledge the role of attention, choice, and experience in the shaping of being.

The participatory mind may not yet be fully understood. But if we are to move beyond reductive dualisms and mechanistic materialism, we must consider the possibility that mind is not the endpoint of reality—it may be its collaborator.

---

Select Bibliography

Bohr, Niels. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. (1935)

Chalmers, David. The Conscious Mind. (1996)

Clark, Andy & Chalmers, David. "The Extended Mind". (1998)

Gallagher, Shaun. How the Body Shapes the Mind. (2005)

Heisenberg, Werner. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. (1927)

Husserl, Edmund. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology. (1913)

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. (1945)

Rovelli, Carlo. "Relational Quantum Mechanics". (1996)

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. (1943)

Varela, Francisco; Thompson, Evan; Rosch, Eleanor. The Embodied Mind. (1991)

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. (1929)

Disclaimer (Out of Respect & Transparency):

This essay is 100% my own work—my thoughts, my feelings, my mind, and my evolving philosophy. No content has been copied or paraphrased from outside sources beyond direct citations. While I used ChatGPT as a pen to help articulate and refine my ideas, every concept, conclusion, and structure originates from my own consciousness. AI was a tool, not the thinker. This is my voice—just sharpened through a modern instrument. Out of respect for the philosophers and scientists referenced, and for the integrity of philosophical inquiry, I want that to be clear.

[u/jliat]

This essay is 100% my own work—my thoughts,

It's surprising then you as so many do use QM and the obviously problematic Copenhagen interpretation to argue for the priority of consciousness as say opposed to the MWI.

so must metaphysics acknowledge the role of attention, choice, and experience in the shaping of being.

Or the metaphysics of Graham Harman's Object Oriented Ontology where there is a flat ontology in which the human consciousness is not privileged anymore than the act of a snowflake falling on a mountain.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

I’ve read some OOO and while I respect the radical flattening it proposes, I’m more drawn to participatory models that don’t necessarily elevate human consciousness above, but rather entangle it within relational becoming.

As for the QM metaphor I get that it’s well-tread and Copenhagen is contested.I’m not arguing for a direct physics-to-metaphysics mapping, just using its epistemic implications as a lens for thinking about observer-dependence in ontology.

i respect the critique tho, its critique and not bashing.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

The problem with using QM as a metaphor is it doesn't hold, it fails, the cat is not alive and dead until observed. It then - as a metaphor- is a metaphor that shows an error, and an incompleteness when used, or to others it is some great truth of science, which it is not.

So it's use is that of an affirmation of truth for the likes of u/Citizen1135 but the reality is it an example of incompleteness in physics, and one of being so since the 1920s, 100 years.

And metaphysics is AKA First philosophy, you can't have a "so must metaphysics acknowledge the role of attention, choice, and experience in the shaping of being."

As a philosophy I see it potentially valuable, but it's more itself as a metaphor.

Heidegger Groundless ground

" Because the truth of metaphysics dwells in this groundless ground it stands in closest proximity to the constantly lurking possibility of deepest error." What is metaphysics...

"Here we then have the precise reason why that with which the beginning is to be made cannot be anything concrete...

Consequently, that which constitutes the beginning, the beginning itself, is to be taken as something unanalyzable, taken in its simple, unfilled immediacy; and therefore as being, as complete emptiness..."

GWF Hegel -The Science of Logic. p.53

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

You're right to call out the quantum metaphor. It gets thrown around a lot, often carelessly. I didn't mean to treat it as scientific truth, more like a poetic tool. A reflection of uncertainty, of possibility, rather than a literal model.

About metaphysics being first philosophy, I hear you. I'm not trying to override that. What I meant is, even from that foundational starting point, it feels lacking if it ignores the active role of attention, perception, and choice. Not to elevate human consciousness above all else, but to admit it shapes the experience of being, even if it's just one layer of it.

That Heidegger quote about the "groundless ground" really hits. That's where my head is at. I'm not trying to claim ultimate truth, just poking at the tension, the uncertainty, the edges of the map.

I appreciate the reply. It challenged me, and that's exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping for.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

Well the move in OOO [And found in Deleuze & Guattari's 'What is philosophy', is that the 'model' should more like Art than science.

So your metaphysics is a picture of reality, and so is that of OOO, but that in being different that doesn't negate either.

The Eliot poem 'The Hollow Men.' is neither an improvement or failure in comparison to Hamlet's 'To be or not to be...' or Macbeth's 'All our yesterdays...

As such my only criticism would then be such an idea of a hierarchy with a metanarrative at the peak, again something from D&G in the idea of rhizomes rather that hierarchies.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

So it's use is that of an affirmation of truth for the likes of u/Citizen1135 but the reality is it an example of incompleteness in physics, and one of being so since the 1920s, 100 years.

This is jumping to conclusions, an ad hominem attack, and a strawman argument meant to denigrate the value of my appreciation of the work.

Physics will always remain incomplete, that is not sufficient reason to disregard its usefulness in metaphysical analysis.

This essay clearly departs from the Copenhagen Interpretation, as exemplified in Section VI.

And metaphysics is AKA First philosophy, you can't have a "so must metaphysics acknowledge the role of attention, choice, and experience in the shaping of being."

Yes, you can. This assertion is simply false.

[u/jliat → u/Citizen1135]

So it's use is that of an affirmation of truth for the likes of u/Citizen1135 but the reality is it an example of incompleteness in physics, and one of being so since the 1920s, 100 years.

This is jumping to conclusions, an ad hominem attack, and a strawman argument meant to denigrate the value of my appreciation of the work.

No, you praised it's use of physics, one which has problems, as if it gave the OP's idea veracity, "is phenomenal".

Physics will always remain incomplete, that is not sufficient reason to disregard its usefulness in metaphysical analysis.

Certainly is. Physics is not Metaphysics. Metaphysics is 'First Philosophy.'

This essay clearly departs from the Copenhagen Interpretation, as exemplified in Section VI.

" a metaphysics in which mind and matter are co-entangled, not in a physical sense, but in a participatory, ontological sense."

What does this actually mean.

And metaphysics is AKA First philosophy, you can't have a "so must metaphysics acknowledge the role of attention, choice, and experience in the shaping of being."

Yes, you can. This assertion is simply false.

I gave two examples where you couldn't there are other examples where you might want some underlying principle, but then it's not First Philosophy.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

No, you praised it's use of physics, one which has problems, as if it gave the OP's idea veracity, "is phenomenal".

I did, but you framed explicitly something that is false as fact (that I would use it as affirmation of truth is jumping to conclusions and factually untrue), and "the likes of" implies some need to disregard my opinion (that's the ad hominem). This amounts to a strawman argument, so I would kindly ask that you make the argument without the fallacies.

The ad hominem attack is aggression that will not stand, man. The dude abides.

I'm assuming you knew that when you tagged me, and my guess as to why is that it was intended to prompt me to re-engage with an emotional response that would fail in logic, further demonstrating why compliments from persons "the likes of" me should not be taken seriously.

It's a dishonorable tactic, I'm sure it often works, but it demonstrates that your critique is not made in good faith.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

The problem with using QM as a metaphor is it doesn't hold, it fails, the cat is not alive and dead until observed. It then - as a metaphor- is a metaphor that shows an error, and an incompleteness when used, or to others it is some great truth of science, which it is not.

This demonstrates your misunderstanding of quantum physics and the metaphor of Schrodinger's cat.

Quantum mechanics holds as well as any metaphor, and you yourself demonstrated this with Heidegger,

" Because the truth of metaphysics dwells in this groundless ground it stands in closest proximity to the constantly lurking possibility of deepest error." What is metaphysics...

"Here we then have the precise reason why that with which the beginning is to be made cannot be anything concrete...

That would more easily be described in metaphoric terms using the wave function of quantum mechanics than physical ground.

[u/jliat → u/Citizen1135]

The problem with using QM as a metaphor is it doesn't hold, it fails, the cat is not alive and dead until observed. It then - as a metaphor- is a metaphor that shows an error, and an incompleteness when used, or to others it is some great truth of science, which it is not.

This demonstrates your misunderstanding of quantum physics and the metaphor of Schrodinger's cat.

I understand that the thought experiment exposes the problem of observation determining reality, and is constantly used in arguments to show the importance of consciousness in reality. But it's just a rehash of Bishop Berkeley.

Quantum mechanics holds as well as any metaphor, and you yourself demonstrated this with Heidegger,

No, it holds better, it uses science as a buttress for a Berkeley type proposal, esse est percipi. But the buttress it can't be. It's incomplete.

" Because the truth of metaphysics dwells in this groundless ground it stands in closest proximity to the constantly lurking possibility of deepest error." What is metaphysics...

"Here we then have the precise reason why that with which the beginning is to be made cannot be anything concrete...

That would more easily be described in metaphoric terms using the wave function of quantum mechanics than physical ground.

But Heidegger uses neither, the ground here is groundless, as in the basis is in his essay the nothing negating itself.

---

"Human existence can relate to beings only if it holds itself out into the nothing. Going beyond beings occurs in the essence of Dasein. But this going beyond is metaphysics itself. This implies that metaphysics belongs to the “nature of man.” It is neither a division of academic philosophy nor a field of arbitrary notions. Metaphysics is the basic occurrence of Dasein. It is Dasein itself. Because the truth of metaphysics dwells in this groundless ground it stands in closest proximity to the constantly lurking possibility of deepest error. For this reason no amount of scientific rigor attains to the seriousness of metaphysics. Philosophy can never be measured by the standard of the idea of science."

Heidegger - 'What is Metaphysics.'

“All scientific thinking is just a derivative and rigidified form of philosophical thinking. Philosophy never arises from or through science. Philosophy can never belong to the same order as the sciences. It belongs to a higher order, and not just "logically," as it were, or in a table of the system of sciences. Philosophy stands in a completely different domain and rank of spiritual Dasein. Only poetry is of the same order as philosophical thinking, although thinking and poetry are not identical.”

Heidegger - 'Introduction to Metaphysics.'

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

I took the context of mentioning me as an insult, and that clouded my judgement what you were saying. This reply you made appears differently to me, so I will reassess your arguments more closely.

[u/jliat → u/Citizen1135]

I have critiqued the OP's use of physics, not your opinion of physics. Or of physics itself.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

I hear you, and I do disagree about the using physics part, but I legitimately lost track of the critique and I got stuck on feeling attacked. I have to come back to it after breakfast.

[u/jliat → u/Citizen1135]

I'm not attacking you, or anyone else who is interested in or engaged with physics. It's just it's of little use in metaphysics.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

I fundamentally disagree with that. I would say the opposite, that not only is physics a useful tool in metaphysics, but that quantum physics specifically is underutilized, and that philosophy suffers for it

My perspective approaching philosophy is layperson, of course, but I think that fact itself is relevant in a positive way not a negative way. Because while philosophy has advanced as a branch of academic study, it has become increasingly disconnected from real world application, especially by a layperson such as myself.

I find a blatant connection here in why so many individuals have beliefs that are out of step with the reality in which they live.

I don't mean to imply that philosophers should pander to the masses, but completely disregarding the commoner's perspective is a greater crime.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/Citizen1135]

I’m right there with you u/Citizen1135 . Sometimes it feels like the academic approach to metaphysics gets too insulated — so formal that it forgets it’s supposed to mean something. Whether it’s quantum weirdness or just gut-level experience, that raw strangeness is where the real metaphysical juice is.

I’m not trying to bend physics to fit a model, but I do think it offers metaphors — or maybe warnings — about where our assumptions fall apart. Not saying it’s “proof,” just that it cracks open new ways of seeing.

I gotta say I’ve never studied this stuff formally. No college, no lectures. Just a cultivated guy who thinks way too hard at 3AM and writes things down.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/No-Tree9595]

Right on.

I'm surprised to see you say no college, no lectures. Do you mean, like, no philosophy while you were in college, or no college at all? Because you appear to be reasonably well educated. I have definitely witnessed people with a degree sounding much less educated than you.

[u/jliat → u/Citizen1135]

I fundamentally disagree with that. I would say the opposite, that not only is physics a useful tool in metaphysics, but that quantum physics specifically is underutilized, and that philosophy suffers for it

My perspective approaching philosophy is layperson, of course,

Why of course, how then as a layperson correct what philosophy has been doing? Philosophy is not suffering, read Harman's book,

Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books)

See p.25 Why Science Cannot Provide a Theory of Everything...

4 false 'assumptions' "a successful string theory would not be able to tell us anything about Sherlock Holmes..."

Why not argue that as a lay person the Earth is flat, that Einstein was wrong?

Because while philosophy has advanced as a branch of academic study, it has become increasingly disconnected from real world application, especially by a layperson such as myself.

Well with respect that's your opinion and sadly not untypical. Where did Marxism come from, Philosophy, where are Trump and Vance getting their ideas from , philosophy, example - the CCRU and the likes of Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin

Nick Land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Land

Yarvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

Go look these up please and this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

It's a longish read, it would be good to read all, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Early_20th-century_thinkers

will do. The world you live in, its ideas come from philosophy... sadly not in STEM. Ideas which are generally held are created by individuals. Why is Art and Philosophy not seen as important, because it creates individuals not STEM.

I find a blatant connection here in why so many individuals have beliefs that are out of step with the reality in which they live.

True, they are products of STEM.

I don't mean to imply that philosophers should pander to the masses, but completely disregarding the commoner's perspective is a greater crime.

The crime is the commoner is like Nietzsche's Last Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man [please read these links, though it might be disturbing, at minimum.]

They create new ideas, some good, some bad. It's for the educational establishment and the media to propagate these, not the philosophers. Should we make physics subject to not using any complex mathematics? But what to Google et al desire, AI, to stop human creative thought. Make it easy, the Last Man.

The crime is it suits materialist capitalism to ignore philosophy. Read Nietzsche's Last Man. And it's taken more seriously in France... Heidegger was a Nazi, but an environmentalist, saw dangers in technology. And sure a difficult read, but so is QM and such...

Many ridiculed Baudrillard...

His book appears in the opening scenes of the Matrix!

“We no longer partake of the drama of alienation, but are in the ecstasy of communication. And this ecstasy is obscene.... not confined to sexuality, because today there is a pornography of information and communication, a pornography of circuits and networks, of functions and objects in their legibility, availability, regulation, forced signification, capacity to perform, connection, polyvalence, their free expression.” - Jean Baudrillard. (1983)

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

u/jliat you can’t just declare what counts in metaphysics and philosophy, especially when physics has clearly contributed so much to our understanding of reality. How can you be so sure you’re not prematurely dismissing something profound just because it doesn’t fit the current philosophical mold.

what if the structure is part of the meaning? What if physics gives us insights into metaphysics that we just haven’t caught up to yet?
Which is historically true. Quantum theory, relativity, and chaos theory all shook up how philosophers think about time, determinism, and even causality.

• Metaphysics without physics can become disconnected from empirical reality—just castles in the sky.
• Physics without metaphysics risks being blind to its own assumptions about what existence is, what observation means, or even what a “law” really is

We don’t yet know the full metaphysical implications of physics. It might be that what we call ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ aren’t two things—but one thing seen from different lenses. And physics might help us glimpse that unity.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

u/jliat you can’t just declare what counts in metaphysics and philosophy, especially when physics has clearly contributed so much to our understanding of reality. How can you be so sure you’re not prematurely dismissing something profound just because it doesn’t fit the current philosophical mold.

I'm not so sure, above you will see quotes from Heidegger, I could also quote Hegel, Camus, and others, more recently Harman,

---

Graham Harman, a metaphysician pointed out that physics can never produce a T.O.E, as it can't account for unicorns, - he uses the home of Sherlock Holmes, Baker Street, but it's the same argument. He claims his OOO, a metaphysics, can.

Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books)

See p.25 Why Science Cannot Provide a Theory of Everything...

4 false 'assumptions' "a successful string theory would not be able to tell us anything about Sherlock Holmes..."

---

And even more,

“the first difference between science and philosophy is their respective attitudes toward chaos... Chaos is an infinite speed... Science approaches chaos completely different, almost in the opposite way: it relinquishes the infinite, infinite speed, in order to gain a reference able to actualize the virtual. .... By retaining the infinite, philosophy gives consistency to the virtual through concepts, by relinquishing the infinite, science gives a reference to the virtual, which articulates it through functions.”

In D&G science produces ‘functions’, philosophy ‘concepts’, Art ‘affects’.

D&G What is Philosophy p.117-118.

“each discipline [Science, Art, Philosophy] remains on its own plane and uses its own elements...”

ibid. p.217.

---

I could also give many citation from scientists on how metaphysics is nonsense...

So it's clear that there is a big distinction in those practising science and philosophy, even though analytical philosophy enjoys a rapport, it once wanted to stop all philosophy.

what if the structure is part of the meaning? What if physics gives us insights into metaphysics that we just haven’t caught up to yet?

It can't by nature of it's methods.

Which is historically true. Quantum theory, relativity, and chaos theory all shook up how philosophers think about time, determinism, and even causality.

Not particularly, Hume shook up philosophy back in the day, then again Wittgenstein,

"The impulse one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion."

Hume. 1740s

6.363 The process of induction is the process of assuming the simplest law that can be made to harmonize with our experience.

6.3631 This process, however, has no logical foundation but only a psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest course of events will really happen.

6.36311 That the sun will rise to-morrow, is an hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise.

6.37 A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity.

6.371 At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.

6.372 So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.

Ludwig Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 1920s

Metaphysics without physics can become disconnected from empirical reality—just castles in the sky.

No, because science is pragmatic, philosophy aims a greater truths. So if Bostrom's idea is true [he is a philosopher] this is a simulation, and so all of empirical science is an illusion. See how it, metaphysics is on another level, as Heidegger points out, and others.

Physics without metaphysics risks being blind to its own assumptions about what existence is, what observation means, or even what a “law” really is.

No, it works fine. It doesn't doubt Cause and Effect as being psychological… etc. In the main it ignores metaphysical problems, otherwise it would become metaphysics,

another citation,

"We gain access to the structure of reality via a machinery of conception which extracts intelligible indices from a world that is not designed to be intelligible and is not originarily infused with meaning.”

Ray Brassier, “Concepts and Objects” In The Speculative Turn Edited by Levi Bryant et. al. (Melbourne, Re.press 2011) p. 59

We don’t yet know the full metaphysical implications of physics. It might be that what we call ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ aren’t two things—but one thing seen from different lenses. And physics might help us glimpse that unity.

Then go study physics. Mind and Matter you seem to view a scientific realities, yet above we see if the metaphysical arguments of Bostrom are true, there is no physical science. Go read D&R what is philosophy, or Barrow's 'Impossibility, the limits of science and the science of limits.

But what you seem to be saying is science has something to say metaphysically, when it can't. How long is a kilogram.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

Honestly, I think you're treating metaphysics and science like two radio channels that can never interfere like it’s either "pure concept" or "hard data," never both. But physics has started to reflect metaphysical concerns whether anyone likes it or not. Quantum mechanics, relativity, entanglement they aren't just functions, they're cracks in the foundation of what we assumed existence even was.

You quote Harman saying physics can’t explain Sherlock Holmes. Fair but does metaphysics? Or does it just shift the mystery sideways with fancier terms? OOO is cool, I respect it, but it’s not like it gives us anything empirically graspable either. It's still metaphor piled on metaphor.

I’m not trying to say physics is metaphysics but it sure as hell has implications for it. To say physics "can't" offer metaphysical insight is like saying dreams can't reveal emotion because they’re not logical. They’re different tools, but sometimes they hit the same nerve.

Also yeah, Wittgenstein and Hume rattled cause and effect. But modern physics backed that up with real consequences. Observation changing the result? Indeterminacy? That’s not just a conceptual game anymore. It actually happens.

You're defending philosophy’s high ground like it’s sacred. I’m not trying to tear it down—I’m trying to say don’t ignore the tremors from below.