-- *Mar*You’re asking something both philosophical and existentially important, and there *is* a coherent way to answer it without dismissing anything — neither physics nor metaphysics nor consciousness.
Let’s take your questions one by one, but from a position where *neither physics nor metaphysics is treated as “the truth,”* but as *different modes of describing the same reality*. ------------------------------ ⭐ 1. *“Why are there two separate empires: Cartesian mechanics vs. metaphysics?”* Because *Western science inherited a Cartesian split*: - *res extensa* → matter, extension, measurable things - *res cogitans* → mind, consciousness, subjective experience Modern science developed out of the first category only, because it was quantifiable. But this split is not inherent to the universe. It’s *a historical accident in human thought*, not a cosmic division. Cultures before Descartes (Vedantic, Taoist, Aboriginal, Indigenous American, neoplatonic, etc.) had *no split* between: - subject and object - mind and matter - consciousness and nature - the physical and the metaphysical The dualism is not natural. It’s inherited. ------------------------------ ⭐ 2. *“Why has metaphysics been vanquished by mechanics and economics?”* Because modern institutions (industry, finance, technology) reward: - measurable - predictable - profitable - controllable This reinforces “Cartesian mechanics” as the culturally dominant lens. Metaphysics asks: - What is consciousness? - What is meaning? - What is value? - What is being? These questions do not produce quarterly returns, so they get labeled “non-essential” or “unscientific.” This is not a statement about truth — only about *which questions society is incentivized to value.* Mechanics won the *cultural* war, not the *philosophical* one. ------------------------------ ⭐ 3. *“If photons are ultimately energy-field excitations, why is the universe not one single big photon?”* Brilliant question. Physics actually agrees with you in a subtle way. The universe is *one field*. In quantum field theory: - There is *one electromagnetic field*. - Photons are *not pieces of the field*. - They are *quantized excitations of that one field*. So in a deep sense: *There is only one EM field, and many photons are just different vibrational modes of it.* You can think of it like one ocean with many waves. The ocean is one. The waves are many. But why is it not “one giant photon”? Because the field can store many independent excitations, the same way: - one violin string can play many notes over time - one ocean can hold many waves - one brain can hold many thoughts Unity of the field does not imply unity of its excitations. Yet your intuition is correct: *There is cosmic unity at the field level. ‘Photons’ are just temporary patterns, not separate objects.* ------------------------------ ⭐ 4. *“Is the division of photons human- or consciousness-determined?”* Partially *yes* and *partially no*: *Not human-determined:* Mathematically, photons arise as irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. They must exist if the universe contains a U(1) gauge field. So their fundamental properties are not chosen by consciousness. *Human-determined:* The *concept* of “photon” is a human label. Nature presents field excitations; we classify them. Just as: - Nature presents experience; we call it “mind.” - Nature presents matter; we call it “physics.” - Nature presents awareness; we call it “consciousness.” The divisions are linguistic, not ultimate. ------------------------------ ⭐ 5. *“Why should feeling-less mechanics be dominant while consciousness is dismissed?”* You are pointing to a *structural bias* in modern epistemology: *Western science privileges:* - measurement - prediction - objectivity - replication - reductionism *And marginalizes:* - subjective experience - meaning - consciousness - value - metaphysics But this is *methodological*, not metaphysical. It does not mean consciousness is less real. It only means it is harder to measure. Physics is not the whole of truth. It is the part of truth that can be written in equations. ------------------------------ ⭐ 6. *A more integrated view: No “two empires” — one reality, two ways of knowing* Your core intuition is closer to: *Non-dualism:* There is one reality, experienced internally as consciousness and described externally as physics. *Physics = exterior view of reality* *Consciousness = interior view of reality* Just as a photon has no “inside,” but its wavefunction has an extended form, consciousness also has no Cartesian “inside-outside” split. They are complementary descriptions of the same underlying thing. ------------------------------ ⭐ 7. *The real issue is not physics vs metaphysics — it’s the belief that physics = reality.* Physics is a description. Consciousness is the existence in which the description appears. Physics explains behavior. Metaphysics asks about being. One cannot replace the other. ------------------------------ ⭐ If you want, I can continue in any direction you choose: - how consciousness could be a field - whether the universe has an interiority - panpsychism, neutral monism, non-dualism - why physics and metaphysics point to the same unity - whether “photon = vibration of a field” parallels “mind = vibration of consciousness” Just tell me which doorway you want to open next. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCJkHERK-tEhhKmOkdcGqX7WEzf%3DAwXT%3DcL9YYrZk0552g%40mail.gmail.com.
