Aucune des choses de l'Univers, dès lors qu'elle est assez complexe pour être nommée, c'est à dire toute "chose", ne saurait contenir son sens dans l'instant présent.
L'état présent d'une chose n'existe pas "dans" la chose.
Aucune qualité ne peut être associée à l'état présent d'un être, et puisque l'être n'est rien de plus que son état, aucun être n'est réel, dans sa forme et dans le présent à la fois.
L'être et son état ne sont que des concepts, la réalité qui leur donne sens n'est ni dans ce "présent" ni dans aucune autre coupe de l'Univers.
Quoi qu'il nous apparaisse, l'immédiateté présente d'une pensée n'a pas son pendant physique. Il n'y a pas d'objet présent qui "contienne" la pensée ni aucun élément de sens, aucun concept.
La forme du monde n'habite pas le présent. Ce n'est pas "quelque chose".
La physique quantique et toute la science sont alors la formalisation a posteriori d'une connaissance purement empirique ?
Il est pourtant possible, par des inférences logiques au niveau formel (c'est à dire celui du sens), de prévoir de nouveaux objets et de nouvelles lois, qui ne seront validées par l'expérience que longtemps après ?
Pourquoi ne pas choisir l'option la plus économe en hypothèses a priori ?
Pourquoi ne pas inverser la question de l'intelligibilité ?
Comment se diffuse et se structure une connaissance ?
Comment donne t'elle sens au monde ?
Comment peut elle prévoir de façon si robuste son propre devenir ?
Il n'y a pas un monde physique hors la connaissance.
Ma connaissance n'est pas une petite portion du monde qui regarde le monde. Ma connaissance est le monde que je connais.
Ma connaissance n'est pas l'état de mon cerveau/matière déterminé par le monde physique. Ma connaissance n'est pas davantage quelque chose sans substance qui, depuis un éther des idées représenterait le monde substantiel.
Il n'y a pas d'un coté le monde et dans ma tête sa représentation.
Ma connaissance n'est pas non plus un foisonnement de liens immatériels qui s'étendraient à l'infini du temps et de l'espace, puisqu'en réalité il n'y a ni temps ni espace.
Il n'y a pas en réalité un en dedans et un au dehors, un vaste univers avec moi au milieu. Tout ceci est représentation.
C'est parce que la réalité est sans forme, vacante de forme, que ma connaissance peut lui donner formes
Il n'y a pas un monde qui a formes et les formes que lui donnent ma connaissance, mais une même mise en formes qui est à la fois le monde que je connais et ma connaissance.
Si nous pouvons échanger, d'un esprit à l'autre, une même vision du monde, ce n'est pas parce qu'il y a un même monde en vis à vis de nos esprits, mais parce que d'une part part les lois de la connaissance sont les mêmes pour vous et moi et d'autre part parce que nous partageons pour l'essentiel la même interdépendance au réel.
Pour comprendre ceci, un peu d'introspection.
Une idée existe tout d'abord par l'idée suivante, qu'elle détermine, qui la "contient" et l'exprime à nouveau et qui elle même n'existera que par l'idée suivante. Elle existe également par l'acte et tous les actes et toutes les situations sur lesquelles elle aura une influence.
Mais ce serait alors la pensée qui postulerait l'être comme substrat de la pensée. Autant imaginer que les points d'une droite énoncent l'axiome d'Euclide !
Ce parcours logique, est celui d'un "point de vue" lui même logique, et c'est ce changement de point de vue qui génère la représentation du changement physique.
Il pense sa théorie mathématique.
De nouvelles inférences lui viennent à l'esprit: "puisque (E) est prouvé vrai, et puisque "si (E) alors (F)" donc (F) est vrai "etc...
Si on admet que les mathématiques disent vrai, il faut admettre que l'inférence "si (E) alors (F)" et la proposition "(F) est vrai" étaient vraies avant que notre savant ne les découvre.
D'une part la réalité est En acte et ne devient pas.
D'autre part, le devenir est individué, il n'y a pour le "moi qui pense" qu'un seul devenir qui aie sens: le mien; qu'un seul Univers qui existe : le mien et ce monde devient comme je deviens.
Nothing can be both One , Real, Complex and Present .
This impossibility has imposed itself on us as soon as we have found that there can be no interaction without delay, that the concept of simultaneity denotes no reality.
Thus, all that I can name, being One and Complex, can not be both Real and Present.
All being, being One and Complex, can not be Real and Present at a time.
This restriction applies in two ways:
1- The meaning of a thing can not be attached to his present state .
None of the things of the Universe, since it is complex enough to be named, ie all " thing ", can not contain its meaning in the present moment.
The present state of a thing does not exist "in" the thing.
No quality can be associated with the present state of a being, and since being is nothing more than its state, no being is real, in its form and in the present at the same time.
Being and its state are only concepts, the reality that gives them meaning is neither in this "present" nor in any other section of the Universe.
2- The meaning itself is not a present thing.
Both the immediate sensation and the general Idea can not be attached to the present state of the brain or anything physical that would carry them.
Whatever appears to us, present immediacy of a thought does not have its physical counterpart. There is no present object that "contains" thought or any element of meaning, no concept.
This is what Relativity reveals to us:
If we can reasonably think that there is a reality, we must accept that the form, the attribute, the sensation, the meaning, the idea, the thought ..... are not the present state of any a physical thing, no more in the observed object than in the observing subject.
The form of the world does not inhabit the present. It's not "something".
This opens the box of Pandora, because if the "truth " of the state (as a formal representation) has no reference in a world in vis-a vis, so will it be for the formal results of past and future experiences.
Quantum physics and all science are then the formalization a posteriori of a purely empirical knowledge. If so, how is it possible, through logical inferences at the formal level (i.e. that of meaning), to foresee so accurately and consistently new objects and new laws, which will only be validated by experience long afterwards?
The question is then:
- since we are convinced of the efficiency of our theories, of all the logical inferences represented by formal representation,
- since we have reasons to doubt the existence of forms opposite, in the physical world.
- since the form as reality is an improvable hypothesis while the existence of the logical proposition is certain (even if the truth of its statement is not).
Why not base on what is certain?
Why not choose the most economical option in assumptions a priori?
Why not reverse the question of intelligibility?
Why not replace the question "How is the world intelligible to us?" by the questions:
How is a knowledge spread and structured?
How does it give meaning to the world?
How can it so robustly predict its own future?
The obvious answer to these questions is then:
There is not a physical world outside knowledge.
My knowledge is not a small portion of the world that looks at the world. My knowledge is the world I know.
My knowledge is not the state of my brain-matter determined by the physical world. My knowledge is not something without substance that would, from an ether of ideas represent the substantial world.
The world I know and my knowledge is one and the same thing, the same logical system.
There is not the world on one side and its representation in my head.
My knowledge is not a proliferation of immaterial links that extend to infinity of time and space, since in reality there is neither time nor space.
There is not in Reality an inside and an outside, a vast universe with me in the middle. All this is representation.
It is because the Reality is formless, vacant of form, that my knowledge can give it forms
My knowledge is not the result of an extraordinary series of chances that affected the physical world for 14 billion years to finally give birth to a conscious being.
My knowledge is the laws of chance themselves, in act, which order, with my point of view as origin, a formless and actual whole.
There are not on one side the laws of the world and on the other the laws of knowledge but one and the same law by which the world that I know takes form in my point of view.
There is not a world that has forms for itself and forms that my knowledge give to it, but a same form that is both the world I know and my knowledge.
The world is not as I understand it, the world is what I understand (comprehend) and what I understand (comprehend) is for me the world.
If the laws of the world prove to conform to our knowledge, both to our immediate sensations and to our general concepts, it is because the laws of the world are those of knowledge.
If we can anticipate and verify by infinity of experiences what seems to us to be "the laws of the world", it is because the laws of knowledge, which are also the laws of the world, are infinitely persistent, (almost) infinitely deterministic.
If we can exchange, from one spirit to another, the same vision of the world, it is not because there is one and the same world in relation to our minds, but because on the one hand the laws of knowledge are the same for you and me, and secondly because we share essentially the same interdependence with reality, the same knowledge.
The future of the world is the future of knowledge:
It is not the world (in front of me) that becomes, it is my knowledge that changes its point of view on the world.
To understand this, let’s do a little introspection.
An idea is a new door that one crosses, a little voluntarily, a lot at random, towards our Becoming.
An idea makes sense and exists through the future of knowledge that it conjectures and that happens.
An idea exists first of all by the following idea, which it determines, which "contains" it and expresses it again and which itself will exist only by the following idea. It also exists by the act and all the acts and all the situations on which it will have an influence.
Although a state of thought seems deprived of substance, it determines our future macroscopically, sometimes dramatically.
Wanting to describe thought by the state of the brain, or the sense of any physical whole, even by their dynamics, is hopeless. Even if we could describe in detail all these structures, we would ever face the same question "what is the meaning?"
To associate thought with a being postulates the reality of being.
But then thought would postulate being as a substratum of thought. As much to imagine that the points of a strait line state the axiom of
It must be understood that thought is neither a "state" nor a "change of state", the course of thought is logical, not material.
This logical course is that of a "point of view" that is itself logical, and it is this change of point of view that generates the representation of physical change.
Imagine a mathematician.
He thinks his mathematical theory.
This theory consists of theorems, themselves consisting of coherent sets of inferences.
New inferences come to mind: " since (E) is proved true, and since" if (E) then (F) " So (F) is true ".. etc.
If we admit that mathematics say truth, we must admit that inference " if (E) then (F) " and the proposition " (F) is true " were true before our scientist discovered them.
Thus, the scientist's thought is diffusing into an immutable logical truth, without a change of physical state. Nothing has physically changed in the reality observed by our scientist, and yet his representation has changed.
This change is logically irreversible: what is proved true is true forever (in principle). Thus, the logical whole that is thought increases and orders itself, not physically because time passes, but logically, because certain logical truths are close to others.
So our scientist sees time passing, while nothing changes.
It would be useless and impossible to analyze the physical state of the brain of our scientist. Not for technical reasons, but for logical reasons that touch on the essence of the quantum problem: If thought (meaning) is not a state but a becoming, then to experience it, it would be necessary to change its course, that is, to destroy (in the strict sense) this becoming.
In the ontology that we have just sketched out, to know is to become, to direct one's own becoming. The observer (as a logical whole) is what he knows and becomes by what he observes. This becoming is a diffusion in which appear singularities. These singularities are the forms represented; their birth is irreversible, just like the demonstration of a theorem.
If, therefore, the observer, by choosing the observation device, reveals to his knowledge of a physical reality such aspect (e.g. wave) rather than the complementary aspect (resp. corpuscular), it is not the reality that is affected by it but its own (logical) becoming. It irreversibly directs its knowledge towards a (logical) world where "exists" the wave form of this reality.
.
PS: it is not a "change of future" because the possibility of another future is a meaningless question:
On the one hand, reality is in action and does not become.
On the other hand, becoming is individuation, there is for the "me who thinks" only one becoming which has sense: mine; only one universe that exists: mine and this world becomes as I become becoming.