Relational Ontology of Carlo Revelli
Description
Eric Schaetzle:
" “In “Helgoland” Rovelli explains his “relational” interpretation, in which an electron, say, has properties only when it interacts with something else. When it’s not interacting, the electron is devoid of physical properties: no position, no velocity, no trajectory. Even more radical is Rovelli’s claim that the electron’s properties are real only for the object it’s interacting with and not for other objects. “The world fractures into a play of points of view that do not admit of a univocal, global vision,” Rovelli writes. Or, as he puts it, “Facts are relative.” It’s a dramatic denunciation of physics as a discipline that provides an objective, third-person description of reality. Rovelli invokes Nagarjuna, a second-century Buddhist thinker, when saying that “every perspective exists only in interdependence with something else, there is never an ultimate reality.””
In one of the final subsections of the book, with the heading "The world seen from within", Rovelli states this perspectivism most clearly: "If the world consists of relations, then every description of the world is from inside it, they are all in the first person. The externally observed world does not exist; what exists are only internal, partial perspectives on the world that reflect one another. The world is this reciprocal reflection of perspectives." (182) This brings to mind the "ethic of reciprocity" that is a central to moral systems around the world. It should not be difficult to see that before we can love our neighbor, we must be able to reflect upon their perspective. The anonymous text that is usually called the Prayer of St. Francis includes the lines "Seek not so much to be understood as to understand." The emphasis is clearly placed on seeing the world through the perspective of others, whether these are family members (past, present, and future) or more distantly related members of Creation (Francis is known for his love of nature). In prayers, meditation, and writing, understanding and exchanging perspectival positions between ourselves and others is one of the objectives. While Rovelli does not speculate on such cultural implications."
(https://pedon.blogspot.com/2021/06/relationalism.html)
Discussion
Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli's perspectivism (and consciousness)
Eric Schaetzle:
Quentin Ruyant wrote that Rovelli's RQM is "an ontology of observers”, not necessarily human observers, but any physical object, such as a measuring apparatus, would qualify. As Laura Candiotto explained, RQM is a realistic theory that assumes "objects emerge as relational “nodes” or intersections of the relevant relations. Those nodes emerge from the web of relations, not the opposite." This requires a figure-ground shift in perspective, as Fritjof Capra noted in his book "The Web of Life". Rovelli earlier proposed that the flow of time itself reflects a particular perspective on the universe, not an essential characteristic of the universe itself. "We, in every moment of our experience, are situated within time", Rovelli writes. And therefore it may be that entropy "measures something that relates to us more than to the cosmos". Only our experience produces the impression of past, present, and future. Lee Smolin had earlier proposed that the fundamental laws of nature evolve irreversibly, but evolution is perspectival as well and is therefore concordant with RQM. To review, every "thing" is a perspective or view (Candiotto's relational "nodes"), including observers and time, all of which are only partial views of a larger the web of relations. Now, let's incorporate Smolin's causal theory of views (CTV) within this context.
Smolin explained during an interview that every event has a "view" of the world, which is all the information about how it fits into the rest of the world, including all the energy and momentum was that was propagated to it. “I can hypothesize that all that exists in the world is views and a process that continually makes new views out of old views. That's what I call the causal theory of views. The universe is a collection of partial views, because each of these is just part of the universe of itself. That's all the universe is, fundamentally, in this story.” In “The Autodidactic Universe”, (access papers) Smolin and coauthors use the same metaphor as Candiotto. They wrote: "The simplest mathematical model of a fully relational system is a graph; we can think of a graph as a representation of a universe of relations: it is a closed system, defined only by the patterns of links, each defining an elementary relation between the two nodes at its ends. Each node of a graph has its view of the universe, which is characterized by how it is connected." In “Temporal relationalism”, Smolin wrote: "Two nearby objects have similar views of the rest of the universe. Here by 'view' I mean, informally, what you see when you look around, i.e. the sky from your point of view. Think of the pattern of stars seen on the sky from a particular event’s perspective, i.e. the pattern of incoming radiation on the sphere which is the space of directions on your backwards light cone. What if distance in spacetime is only a proxy for difference of views? What if the locality that matters fundamentally is the distance in the space of views? This means that two events are more likely to interact when their views are similar." In "The place of qualia in a relational universe" Smolin wrote, "Conscious perceptions are aspects of some views. A physically based selection principle selects which views have experiential aspects."
The connection between RQM or CTV and consciousness is very tempting to make. Earlier this year James Ladyman asked Rovelli, "Carlo, you think that there are ethical and political implications for how we live from this relational way of thinking, is that right?" He responded, "For me it definitely resonates. If we think in terms of relations that build societies instead of as individuals, groups, nations, or continents that compete, everything would work much better." And elsewhere, "I could never separate physics and philosophy from our actual attitudinal stance toward life, because when we believe something it just immediately affects what we are. We cannot separate things." Philip Goff, the well known panpsychist, recently invited an interdisciplinary conversation between himself and others. Among the participants were Anil Seth, Carlo Rovelli, and Lee Smolin. Rovelli's essay, "Relations and Panpsychism", is not yet available to read, however we do have Goff's response to it. Goff wrote: "As Rovelli says, his favoured interpretation of quantum mechanics is essentially ‘perspectival.’ Having a ‘perspective’ seems to imply having experience, or something on the way towards it. But this is just a reflection of ambiguity in the word ‘perspective’. We sometimes say that something ‘has a perspective’ to mean that there is something that it’s like to be it, that it experiences. But when in relational quantum mechanics (RQM) we say that a system ‘has a perspective’, we mean something quite different: that the theory cannot be applied to systems in isolation but only in relation to each other. Accepting that physical systems ‘have perspectives’ in the RQM sense is totally consistent with physical systems not ‘having perspectives’ in the experiential sense. ...even if RQM could close the ‘subjectivity gap’ – the gap between the processes of physical science and the having of experience – this would still leave the ‘qualitativity gap’ – the gap between the quantitative features of physical science and the qualities of experience – as wide as ever."
Goff was apparently unable to make the conceptual leap that a relational understanding of reality implies. Toward the end of Helgoland, in the subsection "The world seen from within", Rovelli explains: "In order to understand the relation between our mental life and the physical world, it is essential to take into account the fact that we describe the physical world from the outside, while our mental activity is experienced in the first person, from within. But the rethinking of the world suggested by quantum physics, it seems to me, changes the terms of the question. If the world consists of relations, then no description is from outside it. Our perspectives on the world, our points of view, are all from inside. They are all in the first person. The external point of view is a point of view that does not exist; what exists are only internal perspectives on the world which are partial and reflect one another. If the qualities of an object are born from the interaction with something else, then the distinction between mental and physical phenomena fades considerably. Subjectivity is not a qualitative leap, but a growth in complexity. The relational perspective distances us from subject/object and matter/spirit dualisms, and from the apparent irreducibility of the reality/thought or brain/consciousness dualism." Seth's article, "The real problem(s) with panpsychism" supports this view: "It could be that a richer picture of matter itself might further deepen the resources of materialism. For example, the ‘relational’ interpretation of quantum mechanics argues that the fundamental nature of matter is in the form of interactions. It is conceivable, though by no means guaranteed, that adopting such a perspective may in the long run change one’s views about the possibilities of materialist explanations – not only of consciousness, but of many other phenomena too." And Lee Smolin, in his response titled "Physics, time and qualia" with coauthor Clelia Verde describe "a phenomenology of present events. Nothing exists or persists, things only happen. The universe is indefinite and under-determined. What we mean by becoming or “to happen” is for something indefinite to become definite. This is what we call an event. The quantities that become definite at an event are called the view of the event. The views are real." Earlier Smolin stated: "The universe consists of a dynamically evolving collection of partial views of itself." (A slightly more concise phrasing than the original one sentence summary in the concluding chapter of his 2019 book "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution".) Lee Smolin is perhaps the most Taoist physicist, moreso than Bohr or Capra. As Brook Ziporyn wrote: "There are three intertwined themes at the heart of Zhuangzi's project: transformation, dependence, and perspective. A being is simply a perspective, and the way perspectives transform into other perspectives is the heart of the matter. The Dao is the ceaseless generation of new perspectives.” Depending on how we interpret this, that could be a fair summary of both Smolin and Zhuangzi. There are many other interdisciplinary links that may be made. A physiosemiotic interpretation of Smolin's causal theory of views could provide some of the theoretical framework for understanding processes of self reflective awareness, transformation, and regulation of attention, enabling us to identify, select, and cultivate those views with the greatest developmental potential (physiological/psychological states; see L.F. Barrett below). This could help to address the "information war" described below. Howard Odum's systems ecology and science of energy quality might also be usefully reconceptualized along CTV terms. There are likely many other possible extensions of these ideas that are capable of generating new insights in existing fields of research.
During Rovelli's presentation on 6/2/21 for the annual Mike Jackson Lecture on Systems Thinking he noted that relational quantum mechanics (RQM) describes how systems manifest themselves in interactions. He was clear that this is "relational or relative (perspectivism), not subjective. It does not depend on the knowledge of a subject, it is rather about the structure of relational phenomena." As far as I am aware, no other physicist has explicitly connected QM to perspectivism. Admittedly, Rovelli is not presenting his work as that of a philosopher, and perspectivism has taken on a variety of (sometimes conflicting) interpretations, but this raises questions. If reality is fundamentally perspectivist, then the question of continuity, “What is the nature of the relationships among the diversity of perspectives?” is critical. How we define an individual, and draw a boundary around it, determines to a great degree the qualities and nature of its constitutive relations or perspective. And this perspective may be nearer or further from that of others (here Smolin's CTV may be useful as it suggests a way to measure the 'distance' between views). As these perspectives interact collectively they may form a local consensus and draw nearer, eventually forming a composite suprapersonal perspective. There appears to be a fractal nature to all these relative relations, with no discernible point of reference for where they begin or end. This illustrates how, like semiotics, several of the interpretations of QM have tried to account for, or at least gesture toward, an explanation of the agentic qualities of living organisms. Smolin makes a special effort to emphasize causality, but whether or not CTV is an improvement over RQM is unclear. It represents one attempt (accurate or not) to grapple with exactly what an “ontology of observers” might imply. Rovelli comes very near the foundational concerns of biosemiotics in regard to healing the Cartesian wound by conceptually reuniting observer/observed (terminology of physics), or mind/matter (terminology of biosemiotics). He even pointed out that a correlation between any two objects only manifests itself in relation to a third (Helgoland p96). This is a key concept within Peircean biosemiotics, where in order for meaning to "mean" anything, it minimally implies the existence of a triadic structure due to the very nature of the process by which a correlation can be recognized. The deep insight within relational explanations is that there are no isolated entities, no ‘things’, and thus no atomistic self/ego. We exist only in relation. And that realization comes with an enormous responsibility to prevent narrow, absolutist interpretations from dominating cultural interactions and redirect attention toward situationally appropriate responses. There is a risk of reifying the binary relativism/absolutism distinction, and making relativism an absolutism itself. So what is needed is an understanding of ‘relativity’, which emphasizes the value of each contextually unique contributing perspective.
Much depends on the specific role of these perspectives, the 'observer' in quantum mechanics, and how that shapes the various interpretations. In his 2019 book, Lee Smolin wrote “if relational quantum theory had a slogan, it would be ‘many partial viewpoints define a single universe’. Divide the world in two with a boundary as defining a system. What is real is always defined relative to a split of the world that defines an observer.” That was his (more or less fair) characterization of Rovelli’s RQM. Because every view implies a split, a boundary, an epistemic cut between observer and observed, there is no observational point that is not itself a part of ‘the totality of all that is’. Consequently, the ‘God’s eye view’ is impossible. This is only a problem for those desirous of perfect objectivity, a temptation that has always proved a stumbling block for the ‘left hemisphere’. Interestingly, it is important to note that boundaries, enabling constraints, and so on are concepts that are central to biosemiotics, tools employed to “call forth new strategies, behaviors, interactions and relationships within the semiosphere.” (Donald Favareau) And although they prevent perfect objectivity, these are all very useful instrumental tools for the left hemisphere, so long as the right hemisphere maintains control and sees the larger context of how each could potentially help or harm the integrity and relational dynamics of the greater whole. Through the attempt to locate mind (observer) within matter (observed), or more precisely to bring them together (Jung's 'mysterium coniunctionis'), both biosemiotics and physics seem to have found that we are neither of these per se, insofar as they are conceived as ‘things’. Rather we are the 'dynamically evolving partial views', the reciprocally reflecting relational processes that are fundamentally incomplete (referencing Deacon's Incomplete Nature). And as such we gain a trans-perspectival understanding, no longer seeing ourselves as isolated and alone, but living within the context of an interconnected web of supportive relationships (alterity) that extend outward across space and time.
When Lee Smolin said that by 'view' he meant "the pattern of incoming radiation on the sphere you see when you look around, the space of directions on your backwards light cone", it helped clarify what Carl Sagan meant when he said "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself". Other physicists have pointed out that we know the cosmos from the inside, from the standpoint of being within it. This is inescapable. Our perspective upon it is necessarily finite and limited, but we will always be held in its embrace. And though death may transform us, we are never separated. We can depend upon this actual interdependence, and perhaps for some it can be a source of comfort. There is also a potential transformation that can be a source of hope. We have the ability to unite our partial interior views, join them together with others, and gain a broader understanding. If we can do this, we can more easily direct our attention to those aspects of the world most appropriate to our needs (technically speaking, we can escape local optima for a relatively more global optima). In other words, while each perspective can at times appear ‘sufficient unto itself’ (Timaeus) and indeed this is a feature of information warfare, by the light of self reflection or an analysis from a broader trans-perspectival understanding, individual perspectives are ‘imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete’. We can call this view “wabisabi perspectivism”. The limitations of wabisabi perspectives can be transcended via a fractal multi-perspective understanding of the sort described by Rovelli, Smolin, Zhuangzi, and others. McGilchrist effectively spells out the psychological and cultural implications of this realization better than I can, and these turn many of the prevailing assumptions of contemporary culture on their head, demanding a thorough reassessment of our relationships with each other and the greater world around us. It is these ethical implications that motivate this work, and it might be possible to develop some of them further through linkages to existing scholarship within the field. The connection between our culture, philosophy, society, and environment is impossible to ignore, so any solution that addresses one but leaves the others untouched may not be sufficient. Once we have grasped the interdependence of perspectives, our work is the same as that described in chapter six of Zhuangzi: "Do not disturb the process of transformation!"
The parable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates this well. In his book "Physics and philosophy", Werner Heisenberg summarized it this way: "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Each blind man in the story has a limited, relative perspective on the elephant. It's not that their judgments are wrong, but that all of them are right "from a perspective". In some versions of the story, they later have a chance to compare observations and each experiences a transformation to a broader perspective on the elephant. "So that's what an elephant is!" they exclaim. We may ask: Do they now know the true nature of an elephant? The answer is no. If anything, they have merely gained an improved perspective. A potentially infinite number of viewpoints remain to be discovered. There is always more they can learn. And so out of necessity, people simply stop when their perspective is "good enough". For anyone to think that they have arrived at a complete understanding would be a mistake. This might lead one to conclude that, if no one observes the truth directly, then instead of arguing over what the elephant is, would it not be better to understand how each different perspective emerges from a unique context and standpoint, and how these transform as a result of interacting with each other?"
(https://pedon.blogspot.com/2021/06/relationalism.html)