What Does Schrödinger Convey in the Epilogue of What is Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonDrew
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life
AI Thread Summary
Schrödinger's "What is Life?" raises complex ideas that can be difficult to parse. The "plurality hypothesis" refers to the concept that multiple consciousnesses may contribute to a single consciousness, though its exact meaning remains unclear. Schrödinger's critique of Kant suggests a negative view of Kant's ideas, implying that Kant's philosophy may have led to misunderstandings in the context of consciousness. The statement regarding "no loss of personal existence" indicates that Schrödinger believes our consciousness is fundamentally stable, drawing on thermodynamic and quantum principles to argue that our identity persists despite the complexities of consciousness. The discussion highlights the challenges of interpreting philosophical implications within scientific frameworks, emphasizing the need for clarity in such discussions.
JonDrew
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I just read Schrödinger's "What is life?" and was very confused by some of the things he said in his epilogue, some help understanding it would be great!

What does he mean by the "plurality hypothesis"? I think he means that idea that multiple consciousnesses could make up one consciousness but I seemed to have missed what he meant by that, I think.

Was he meaning to talk negatively about Kant when he said "For this extravagance Kant is responsible."? I think he is but I really don't know.

And finally when he states "In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be." does he mean to offer a proof that we can know who we are because we are so far below the 'melting point' of the aperiodic crystals which make up our consciousness. Or in other word since our brains can be model as if they were at absolute zero we can be assured, from the laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics, that we are willful beings? I am sooooo confused by what he meant by this last line.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not trying to rain on your parade or drown your enthusiasm, but philosophy (even when espoused by famous physicists) is a strict 'no-no' in PF.
 
Curious is correct, we stopped purely philosophical discussions.
 
Thread 'RIP Chen Ning Yang (1922-2025)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Chen-Ning ( photo from http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~yang/ ) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/science/chen-ning-yang-dead.html https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxrzzk02plo https://www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk/en/press/mourning-professor-yang-chen-ning/ https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/physics/about/awards_and_prizes/_nobel_and_breakthrough_prizes/_profiles/yangc https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/physics/people/_profiles/yangc...
Thread 'In the early days of electricity, they didn't have wall plugs'
Hello scientists, engineers, etc. I have not had any questions for you recently, so have not participated here. I was scanning some material and ran across these 2 ads. I had posted them at another forum, and I thought you may be interested in them as well. History is fascinating stuff! Some houses may have had plugs, but many homes just screwed the appliance into the light socket overhead. Does anyone know when electric wall plugs were in widespread use? 1906 ad DDTJRAC Even big...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
143
Views
11K
Replies
17
Views
7K
Back
Top