Heisenberg On The Probability Wave Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

In his 1958 text Physics and Philosophy, Heisenberg states:

In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts ... The probability wave ... mean[s] tendency for something. It's a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle's philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, atoms and elementary particles are just as real as any phenomena in daily life, in the sense that all such phenomena are construals of experience as meaning. The probability wave, 'a world of potentialities or possibilities', identifies the range of potential construals of experience as reality.

This perspective is not quite Aristotle's concept of potentia, because, unlike Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Aristotle's philosophy did not relate potential to actual by the vector of instantiation.

From this perspective, the probability wave does not introduce 'a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality'. Instead it identifies the possibility of reality: the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, graded in terms of probability.

The Needed Perspectival Change In Physics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1045):

The spacetime singularities lying at cores of black holes are among the known (or presumed) objects in the universe about which the most profound mysteries remain — and which our present-day theories are powerless to describe. As we have seen, there are other deeply mysterious issues about which we have very little comprehension. It is quite likely that the 21st century will reveal even more wonderful insights than those that we have been blessed with in the 20th. But for this to happen, we shall need powerful new ideas, which will take us in directions significantly different from those currently being pursued. Perhaps what we mainly need is some subtle change in perspective — something that we all have missed . . . .

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the required subtle change of perspective is that confirmed by the experiments of quantum mechanics. Meaning does not transcend semiotic systems, and a construal of experience as meaning instantiates the most probable of a range of potential construals.

∞

This is the final post on The Road to Reality (Penrose 2004).

The Notions That Biology Reduces To Physics And Is Controlled By Mathematics

Penrose (2004: 1043):

Many of these developments certainly depend directly upon physics in one form or another. Moreover, the basic rules of chemistry, as understood today, are also fundamentally physical ones (in principle if not in practice) — mainly coming from the rules of quantum mechanics. Biology is a good deal further from being reducible to physical laws, but we have no reason to believe (consciousness apart) that biological behaviour is not, at root, purely dependent upon physical actions that we now basically understand. Accordingly, biology seems also to be ultimately controlled by mathematics.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, biological systems and chemical systems do not reduce to physical systems, since if they did, they would just be physical systems. Instead, physical systems are the foundation from which chemical and then biological systems emerge. A chemical system is both chemical and physical, a biological system is biological, chemical and physical. Physics models the physical level of chemical and biological systems.

In this view, biological behaviours are not "dependent" on physical actions. Instead, biological and physical are two levels of description of biological phenomena.

Moreover, mathematical models of phenomena do not "control" phenomena, biological or otherwise, any more than a map controls the territory it models.

Some Ultimate Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1033-4):

I hope that it is clear, from the discussion given in the preceding sections that our road to the understanding the nature of the real world is still a long way from its goal. Perhaps this goal will never be reached, or perhaps there will eventually emerge some ultimate theory, in terms of which what we call ‘reality’ can in principle be understood. If so, the nature of that theory must differ enormously from what we have seen in physical theories so far. The most important single insight that has emerged from our journey, of more than two and one-half millennia, is that there is a deep unity between certain areas of mathematics and the workings of the physical world, this being the ‘first mystery’ depicted in Figs. 1.3 and 34.1. If the ‘road to reality’ eventually reaches its goal, then in my view there would have to be a profoundly deep underlying simplicity about that end point. I do not see this in any of the existing proposals.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no ultimate theory, because there is no meaning outside semiotic systems to be matched by the meanings of theory. Instead, the symbolic processing of consciousness construes experience as meaning, and reconstrues such meaning as theory. Theories, as semiotic systems, are open-ended evolutionary systems with no ultimate goal, like biological systems. Moreover, each theory circumscribes its range of possibilities by its foundational epistemological assumptions.

The de-Broglie–Bohm Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1032):

As far as I can make out, the only interpretations that do not necessarily depend upon some notion of ‘conscious observer’ are that of de-Broglie–Bohm that require some fundamental change in the rules of quantum mechanics, according to which U and R are both taken to be approximations to some kind of objectively real physical evolution.

As I have stated in many places in this book, I am an adherent of this last view, where it is with gravitational phenomena that an objective R (i.e. OR) takes over from U. This gravitational OR would take place spontaneously, and requires no conscious observer to be part of the process. In usual circumstances, there would be frequent manifestations of OR occurring all the time, and these would lead to a classical world emerging on a large scale, as an excellent approximation. Accordingly, there is no need to invoke any conscious observer in order to achieve the reduction of the quantum state (R) when a measurement takes place. 

On the other hand, I envisage that the phenomenon of consciousness — which I take to be a real physical process, arising ‘out there’ in the physical world — fundamentally makes use of the actual OR process. Thus, my own position is basically the reverse of those referred to above, in which, in one way or another, it is envisaged that consciousness is responsible for the R process. In my own view, it is a physically real R process that is (partly) responsible for consciousness!

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the de-Broglie–Bohm 'pilot wave' interpretation of quantum mechanics posits two levels of reality:

a firmer ‘particle’ level of the reality of the configuration of the system, as well as a secondary ‘wave’ level of reality, defined by the wavefunction ψ, whose role is to guide the behaviour of the firmer level.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'wave' level identifies the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, and the 'particle' level constitutes an instance of those potential construals. From this perspective, both levels are intersubjectively real.

The 'taking over' of R from U — the collapse of the wavefunction — is the instantiation of potential when a conscious observer takes a measurement, and the wavefunction 'guides' the 'behaviour of the firmer level' in the sense that is delimits the range of potential that can be instantiated and grades it in terms of probability.

Consciousness, in this view, is mental and verbal symbolic processing, rather than a physical process, but it is realised by physical processes of the brain, the observation or thought of which is an instance of a construal of experience as meaning.

The Observer In Interpretations Of Quantum Mechanics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031-2):

The consistent-histories approach is also explicitly dependent upon some notion of what an ‘observer’ might be (the notion referred to as an IGUS in the Gell-Mann–Hartle scheme). The point of view suggested by Wigner that consciousness (or perhaps living systems generally) might violate U evolution is also one which makes explicit reference to the role of the mind (or whatever constitutes an ‘observer’) in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Blogger Comments;

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the conscious observer is necessary in the interpretation of quantum mechanics because it is the observer who instantiates one construal of experience as meaning from the range of potential construals identified by the wavefunction.

The Conscious Observer in The Many-Worlds Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031):

The many-worlds viewpoint is manifestly dependent upon having a proper understanding of what constitutes a ‘conscious observer’, since each perceived ‘reality’ is associated with an ‘observer state’, so we do not know what reality states (i.e. ‘worlds’) are allowed until we know what observer states are allowed. Put another way, the behaviour of the seemingly objective world that is actually perceived depends upon how one’s consciousness threads its way through the myriads of quantum-superposed alternatives. In the absence of an adequate theory of conscious observers, the many-worlds interpretation must necessarily remain fundamentally incomplete.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the many worlds interpretation misconstrues alternative potentials as actual alternative instances (many worlds). From this perspective, each 'perceived reality' is an 'observer state' because a perceived reality is a construal of experience as meaning by the observer. It is not that consciousness 'threads its way through the myriads of quantum-superposed alternatives', but that the act of observation instantiates one of superposed alternatives as an actual construal of experience as meaning.

The Environmental Decoherence Perspective Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031):

The issue of environmental decoherence also provides us with merely a stopgap position, since the inaccessibility of the information ‘lost in the environment’ does not mean that it is actually lost, in an objective sense. But for the loss to be subjective, we are again thrown back on the issue of ‘subjectively perceived — by whom?’ which returns us to the conscious-observer question. 

In any case, even with environmental decoherence, if we retain rigorous adherence to U evolution for the ‘true’ quantum description of the universe, then we are driven to the many-worlds description of reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'Environmental Decoherence' interpretation of Quantum Theory misconstrues the interdependence of potential as an entanglement of instances (states of the environment). The 'information' is inaccessible to a conscious observer because it is potential, not because it is 'lost in the environment'.

The Role Of Consciousness Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031):

There is a quite separate important role played by consciousness in many interpretations of the R part of quantum mechanics .In fact, almost all the ‘conventional’ interpretations of quantum mechanics ultimately depend upon the presence of a ‘perceiving being’, and therefore seem to require that we know what a perceiving being actually is! 

We recall that the Copenhagen interpretation takes the wavefunction not to be an objectively real physical entity but, in effect, to be something whose existence is ‘in the observer’s mind’. Moreover, at least in one of its manifestations, this interpretation requires that a measurement be an ‘observation’, which presumably means something ultimately observed by a conscious being — although at a more practical level of applicability, the measurement is something carried out by a ‘classical’ measuring apparatus. 

This dependence upon a classical apparatus is only a stopgap, however, since any actual piece of apparatus is still made of quantum constituents, and it would not actually behave classically — even approximately — if it adhered to the standard quantum U evolution. (This is simply the issue of Schrödinger’s cat). 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'perceiving being' required in quantum mechanics is a conscious being capable of construing experience as the the meanings of language.

In this view, both the wavefunction and observations are 'all in the mind' in the sense they are meanings construed by conscious processing.

In this view, it is the observation of the measuring apparatus (and the cat) that is required, and this is also a construal of experience by a 'perceiving being': the most probable construal of potential construals, in line with quantum theory.

Anthropic Reasoning Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1030):

Quite apart from the world of mentality having to be considered in conjunction with the other two worlds, in accordance with Fig. 34.1, there are several places in this book where the issue of consciousness has already played a significant role in physical theory, either implicitly or explicitly. 

One of these is in connection with the anthropic principle. Any universe that can ‘be observed’ must, as a logical necessity, be capable of supporting conscious mentality, since consciousness is precisely what plays the ultimate role of ‘observer’. This fundamental requirement could well provide constraints on the universe’s physical laws, or physical parameters, in order that conscious mentality can (and will) exist. 

Accordingly, the anthropic principle asserts that the universe that we, as conscious observers, actually do observe, must operate with laws and appropriate parameter values that are consistent with these constraints. Such constraints could manifest themselves in particular values for the fundamental (dimensionless) constants of Nature. Indeed, it has become quite commonplace to regard the values that we actually find as being the result of some kind of application of the anthropic principle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the anthropic principle confuses two types of cause, mistaking result for reason. Conscious observers are the result of material parameters, not the the reason for them.

The Platonic World As The Most Primitive Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1029):

But are mathematical notions things that really inhabit a ‘world’ of their own? If so, we seem to have found our ultimate reality to have its home within that entirely abstract world. Some people have difficulties with accepting Plato’s mathematical world as being in any sense ‘real’, and would gain no comfort from a view that physical reality itself is constructed merely from abstract notions. 

My own position on this matter is that we should certainly take Plato’s world as providing a kind of ‘reality’ to mathematical notions (and I tried to argue forcefully for this case in §1.3), but I might baulk at actually attempting to identify physical reality within the abstract reality of Plato’s world. I think that Fig. 34.1 best expresses my position on this question, where each of three worlds — Platonic-mathematical, physical, and mental — has its own kind of reality, and where each is (deeply and mysteriously) founded in the one that precedes it (the worlds being taken cyclicly). 

I like to think that, in a sense, the Platonic world may be the most primitive of the three, since mathematics is a kind of necessity, virtually conjuring its very self into existence through logic alone. Be that as it may, there is the further mystery, or paradox, of the cyclic aspect of these worlds, where each seems to be able to encompass the succeeding one in its entirety, while itself seeming to depend only upon a small part of its predecessor.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'reality' is meaning construed of experience, so the meanings of mathematics are mathematical 'reality', which does not logically entail an 'ultimate reality'.

In this view, physical reality is not constructed from abstract notions, but the the reverse: the abstract notions of mathematics are intellectually constructed from physical reality. That is, first-order physical reality, construed of experience, is reconstrued, by conscious (mental) processing, as the second-order reality of mathematics.

In this view, then, the relation between the three realities is not cyclic, and mathematical reality is the least 'primitive', since it depends first on conscious processes, then on these construing experience as physical reality, and then on these reconstruing physical reality as mathematical reality.

Physical Reality As A Reflection Of Purely Mathematical Laws Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1028-9):

It will be seen that modern physicists invariably describe things in terms of mathematical models. This is irrespective of which particular family of proposals they may happen to hold to. It is as though they seek to find ‘reality’ within the Platonic world of mathematical ideals. Such a view would seem to be a consequence of any proposed ‘theory of everything’, for then physical reality would appear merely as a reflection of purely mathematical laws. As I have been arguing in this chapter, we are certainly a long way from any such theory, and it is a matter of contention whether anything resembling a ‘theory of everything’ will ever be found. Be that as it may, it is undoubtedly the case that the more deeply we probe Nature’s secrets, the more profoundly we are driven into Plato’s world of mathematical ideals as we seek our understanding. Why is this so? At present, we can only see that as a mystery. It is the first of the three deep mysteries referred to in §1.4, and illustrated in Fig. 1.3, here redrawn and embellished somewhat as Fig. 34.1.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is a distinction between first-order 'reality' (meaning construed of experience) and second-order 'reality' (meaning construed of meaning). The data modelled by physics constitute first-order 'reality' and the physical theories that model the data constitute second-order 'reality'. Mathematical models constitute second-order quantifications of first-order 'reality'. The notion of physical reality as a reflection of purely mathematical laws equates first-order 'reality' with its second-order quantifications.

Potentially Embarrassing ‘What?’ And ‘Why?’ Questions Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1028):

Modern science would be cautious in attempting answers to ‘why?’ questions as well as ‘what?’. Yet, questions as to ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ are frequently supplied with answers. It is considered acceptable to do so provided that the questions are not asking about reality at its deepest levels. One may expect an answer to such a question as the following. ‘What is a cholesterol molecule made of?’; ‘why does a match burst into flame when dragged rapidly across a suitable rough surface?’; ‘what is an aurora?’; ‘why does the sun shine?’; ‘what are the forces which hold a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule together?’; and ‘why is a uranium nucleus unstable?’. Yet, some other questions that one might pose could cause more embarrassment, such as ‘what is an electron?’ or ‘why does space have just three dimensions?’. These questions can, however, find meaning within some more fundamental picture of physical reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, an electron is just what physics says it is. For example:

The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron's mass is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ.

From this perspective, there are three dimensions of space because this number proved functional in the construal of experience as first-order meaning, and has since proved functional in reconstruals of first-order meaning as the second-order meaning of theory. String theorists are trying to demonstrate that what they think are additional spatial dimensions would be more functional in the second-order meaning of theory.

'What Is Physical Reality?' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1028):

Indeed, we may well ask: what is physical reality? This is a question that has been posed for thousands of years, and philosophers throughout the ages have attempted various kinds of answer. Today we look back, from our vantage point of modern science, and claim to take a more sober position. Rather than attempting to answer the ‘what’ question, most modern scientists would try to evade it. They would try argue that the question has been wrongly posed: we should not try to ask what reality is; merely, how does it behave. ‘How?’ is, indeed, a fundamental question that we may consider to have been one of the main concerns of this book: how do we describe the laws that govern our universe and its contents? 

Yet, many readers will no doubt feel that this is a somewhat disappointing answer — a ‘cop-out’, no less. To know how the contents of the universe behave does not seem to tell us very much about what it is that is doing the behaving. This ‘what?’ question is intimately connected with another deep and ancient question, namely ‘why?’. Why do things in our universe behave in the particular ways that they do? But without knowing what these things are, it is hard to see why they should do one thing rather than another.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, physical reality is the construal of experience as first-order meaning: material phenomena, which include things, processes ("behaviours") and their circumstances. This is distinct from physics, which is the reconstrual of first-order meaning as the second-order meaning (metaphenomena) that realise theory. As such, the laws of physics (metaphenomena) do not "govern" the contents of the universe (phenomena) any more than a map (metaphenomenon) "governs" a territory (phenomenon).

From this perspective, 'why?' is the interrogative form of two distinct types of cause: 'reason-result' and 'purpose'. Physics does model the 'reason-result' type of cause, with earlier processes being the reasons for the resultant later processes. The 'whats' are the participants in those processes. The 'purpose' type of cause, however, only applies to beings with intentions, within the universe. The purpose of the universe is the purposes of its intentional beings.

The True ‘Road To Reality’ Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1027-8):

As the reader will gather from all this, I do not believe that we have yet found the true ‘road to reality’, despite the extraordinary progress that has been made over three and one half millennia, particularly in the last few centuries. Some fundamentally new insights are certainly needed. Yet, some readers may well still take the view that the road itself may be a mirage. True — so they might argue — we have been fortunate enough to stumble upon mathematical schemes that accord with Nature in remarkable ways, but the unity of Nature as a whole with some mathematical scheme can be no more than a ‘pipe dream’. Others might take the view that the very notion of a ‘physical reality’ with a truly objective nature, independent of how we might choose to look at it, is itself a pipe dream.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no true road to reality, but there are construals of experience as reality that may be valid or invalid with regard to theory and the assumptions on which a theory is founded.

The notion of a true road to reality assumes that reality transcends construals of experience rather than that reality is the construal of experience as meaning. The 'transcendent' assumption has been invalidated by the experiments of quantum mechanics. Reality is intersubjective, rather than objective.

The Needed New Perspective On Quantum Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1025):

It is certainly possible that there are many clues to Nature’s ways hidden in such data, even if we do not properly read them yet. Recall that Einstein’s general relativity was crucially based on his insight (the principle of equivalence) which had been implicit in observational data that had been around since (and before) the time of Galileo, but not fully appreciated. There may well be other clues hidden in the immeasurably more extensive modern observations. Perhaps there are even ‘obvious’ ones, before our very eyes, that need to be twisted round and viewed from a different angle, so that a fundamentally new perspective may be obtained concerning the nature of physical reality. 

I believe, indeed, that a new perspective is certainly needed, and that this change in viewpoint will have to address the profound issues raised by the measurement paradox of quantum mechanics and the related non-locality that is inherent in EPR effects and in the issue of ‘quanglement’. I have argued that the measurement paradox must be deeply interconnected with the principles of general relativity. Perhaps new experiments may lead the way to the needed improved understandings of quantum theory. Perhaps there will be other types of experiment shedding light on the nature of quantum gravity. Perhaps, on the other hand, it will be theoretical considerations that will take us forward.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the clues to a new perspective lie, not in the data, but in what the data invalidates: the epistemological assumption that meaning transcends semiotic systems, including the language that realises theory.

The epistemological assumption that all meaning is within semiotic systems is consistent with the dependence of experimental findings on the observations of conscious meaning-makers, and the distinction between potential and instance clarifies such construals of experience as meaning as instances of a range of 'entangled' potential construals of meaning.

A Quantum Theory That Encompasses Gravity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1013-4):

A general consensus seems indeed to have grown up that, in order for real progress to be made in our moving beyond the standard models of particle physics (and cosmology), and thereby obtaining a deeper understanding of the basic ingredients of the universe, it will be necessary to have a quantum theory that encompasses gravity in addition to the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the General Theory of Relativity construes gravity, not as a force, but as a mutual relation between mass and spacetime, whereas particle physics construes the three forces as types of particle exchange.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not necessary for quantum theory to encompass gravity because quantum theory is concerned with the instantiation of potential as particles, and general relativity is concerned with the mutual relation of particles and spacetime.

The Incompleteness Of Quantum Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Penrose (2004: 1011):

Einstein’s general relativity stands out, in my opinion, as that century’s greatest single achievement. Quantum theory (and QFT) might well be regarded by most physicists as an even greater achievement. From my own particular perspective on the matter, I do not feel able to share that view. While it is undoubtedly the case that quantum theory has explained incomparably more than general relativity, over a vastly greater range of different phenomena, I do not regard the theory as having yet achieved the necessary coherence as a theory. The problem, of course, is the measurement paradox. In my opinion, quantum theory is incomplete. When it is completed — which I would anticipate happening some time in the 21st century — it will, no doubt, represent an even greater achievement than Einstein’s general relativity.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Quantum theory has already achieved 'the necessary coherence as a theory', since the measurement paradox is made coherent by understanding the collapse of the wave function as the probabilistic instantiation of one of a range of potential construals of experience as meaning.

A Final True ‘Theory Of Everything’ Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1010, 1011):

It has been a not uncommon view among confident theoreticians that we may be ‘almost there’, and that a ‘theory of everything’ may lie not far beyond the subsequent developments of the late 20th century. … 

From my own perspective, we are much farther from a ‘final theory’ even than this. … 

It would be unwise to predict with any great confidence that even these theories are close to making the further necessary leaps that would guide us to the true road to the understanding of physical reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no final 'theory of everything' because this assumes the 'transcendent' view of meaning that Quantum experiments invalidate: that there is meaning outside semiotic systems which the meaning of physics will eventually match.

Instead, physical theories are open-ended evolving semiotic systems, that adapt to the material and semiotic environments in which they function, and 'truth' in this context, means the validity of the theorising and of the assumptions on which the theorising is founded, or founders.

Physicists' Ideas Of Space And Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 958):

Yet, some physicists would strongly argue that a far more radical overhaul of the ideas of space and time is needed, if the appropriately deeper insights are to be gained as to the nature of a ‘quantum spacetime’.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, in the General Theory of Relativity, the three dimensions of space measure the relative location and extent of phenomena, and the dimension of time measures the relative unfolding of processes.

As this blog demonstrates, in physics, phenomena in space, such as geodesic trajectories, are mistaken for space, the dimensions in which they are located and extend, and processes, such as the ticking of a clock, are mistaken for time, the dimension in which the unfolding of processes is located and extends.

The 'Correct' Quantum–Gravity Union Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 954):

As the reader will have gathered by now, I regard as a necessary feature of the correct quantum–gravity union that it must depart from standard quantum mechanics in some essential way, so that R becomes a realistic physical process (OR).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, R stands for 'reduction', which is the collapse of the wave function, and OR stands for 'objective reduction'. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the notion of objective reduction dissolves the distinction between potential and instance, which is essential for providing a coherent ontology for Quantum Theory.

The State Reduction To A Classical Configuration Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 904):

This raises the issue of the classical limit of a quantum system for large quantum numbers, and the related matter of the state reduction R to such a classical configuration. We have seen that the R issue cannot really be fully resolved within the framework of present-day quantum theory.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, 'the state reduction R to a classical configuration' is the collapse of the wave function, and from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this can be fully resolved within the framework of present-day quantum theory by understanding this as the instantiation of potential when an observation is made. The wave function constitutes the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, and its "collapse" is one instance of this potential when experience is actually construed as meaning in an observation.