Considering the often repeated statements that quantum mechanics "isn't understandable" or "doesn't make any sense", etc., I sometimes think it worthwhile to inquire about "make sense in relation to what?"
Roughly, I guess the answer to that question is the non-classical features don't make sense in relation to our classical understanding and conditioning. And generally, at that point the inquiry stops because as most mathematicians might quickly say if they were to say anything is there is A LOT riding on the foundations of classical understandings remaining just as they are, thank you. The inquiry is as unwanted as republicans want aopen re-hash of Trump's and their January 6 2021 insurrection attack of the Capitol.
Well, maybe not that badly.
In any event, from the vantage point of reality being nested structured~duality, if we dial back to Plato, first we observe that he is invoking a skimpy model of nesting in his physical and metaphysical classifications. To my knowledge he doesn't have a rule or guide or justification for such thinking other than, perhaps invoking God and/or soul relative to physical items-- just as the common assumption or belief. He also doesn't identify why there are just the two categories: physical and metaphysical.
The second observation is that his important consideration was on the idealized forms and on the ideas of the idealized forms. Note that by invoking the word ideas, he is inserting a small but rather complete (and ill-defined) model of "consciousness" without mentioning that he is doing so.
Therefore, in his instance, he is running a nested structures model based inquiry. Not, nested structured~duality, but nested structures.
Then, however, or in among the developments, one can also observe a mathematical nested level and an idea level of structural coding emerge. So the underlying general principle is present and at work, but at sort of an unconscious level.
In any event, it's a good approximation, perhaps, even though incomplete and largely ignoring or unaware of the concurrent Eastern yin-yang-like structured~dualities. The idealized pure and abstract math ideations emerged along with the associated causal-logical relations. Establishing and conditioning all advocates thinking as to "what makes sense".
Thus the "classical physics" understanding.
Entre-vous la salle de class --- enter the classroom of the non-classical items and interactions, particularly given and guided by more newly created abstract math relations, which all ideations are formed of, and all of a sudden, educators say the new stuff doesn't make sense. They don't say, or suspect the old stuff not making the right sense. The problem allegedly is the new stuff.
Allowing that reality is nested structured~duality, it would also make sense that exploration and development would occur in somewhat of a recurrent fashion sliding from one successive approximation to a more general successive approximation -- from one trial theory to an improved trial theory, like we have experienced for the last 400 or longer years.
Thus, we find ourselves mulling these anomalies and we, or I, at least, can note that Plato's idealized forms -- the Platonic solids -- are a zero field strength subset of structured~dualities. For instance, for rod magnets align along radii of tetrahedron in five ways creating five (variable mass density multiple) states. Idealize this down to approach zero field strengths and the states persist. Idealize further and you can have the special case if you want, or if you deploy perfectionism differently, the idealization only occurs in your ideation.
Yet, and here there is room for all sorts of divergences the ordered water and carbon-nitrogen-based items making up our ontology are persistently all over in the above zero field strengths ands are "always" structured~dualities, not just the idealized forms.
A ponderous question then rolls in (again) about the internal analog math (nested structural coding in our vibrating atoms and molecules) being 100% primary and the idealized special case abstract mathematics being 100% secondary, in fact, arising from the internal analog math.
This fact might be a hard pill for mathematicians to swallow. Yet, I don't see any way around it, other than, ignoring, bullying or appealing to authority.
Do you?
Best regards,
Ralph
