As stated in this attached post, observing is not the same as understanding. The tree of knowledge wants to control, duplicate, and dictate. The tree of life we can only observe, yield, and cooperate.
After all of these years of research and study and technology, we still must admit that the source is not us, and must be explained as something quite “other“ than our 3 pounds of goo between our ears can comprehend.
The “How” and the “Why“ and the “Wow” are the far more important topics—than simply observing general rules and statistical likelihood that we can predict or perhaps sometimes influence, but not explain.
SystemOrEcosystem.com
__________
Martin Ciupa
It is often said that the foundations of physics have not substantially moved forward in 60-70 years.
Consider:
— “The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal” — Sabine Hossenfelder: https://lnkd.in/eQAf9Hvs
I think that is broadly right.
To be fair to the field, experimental physics has advanced spectacularly. But the deeper explanatory question — what reality is actually doing — remains unresolved. The measurement/observer problem is still live, and decoherence, while essential, does not by itself settle what counts as a definite outcome.
Feynman set the tone in 1964 (lecture 1965 article) with characteristic clarity. After helping build quantum electrodynamics, he said in The Character of Physical Law:
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
Source: The Character of Physical Law, Chapter 6
https://lnkd.in/enu4SrJK
So what gives?
The blockage is not merely technical. It is metaphysical.
Physics still carries assumptions such as:
observer-independent definiteness, single-history realism, passive measurement, separability, and local causal closure.
Quantum theory does not comfortably fit these assertions. Its unresolved incompatibility with general relativity is also an embarrassment. Hint: both theories are deeply observer-centred, yet we still lack a unified account of the observer, measurement, spacetime, and record formation.
That is why we can calculate in some respects with astonishing accuracy, yet still lack a settled account of what the calculation is about.
By and large, the mathematics works operationally — with known tensions, such as the vacuum energy problem. Dark matter and dark energy remain open mysteries.
The metaphysics has not caught up.
It is time to admit that a more radical shift may be required — not just in our equations, but in the assumptions we bring to them.
We start by admitting that our foundations are wrong — and that new thinking is needed.
