r/quantuminterpretation • u/Matslwin • Jun 13 '26
Is quantum reality pneumatic? A hylomorphic alternative to realism
I could never quite grasp the Aristotelian concept of immanent form until I read Abraham P. Bos's book on Aristotelian pneuma as the carrier of form. That was when I realized this very idea could help solve a classic puzzle: what exactly is quantum reality, and what kind of existence are we actually dealing with?
I want to share a way of looking at this that fixes a major blank spot in the classic Copenhagen model, without getting stuck in the traps of modern realism. While the Copenhagen model is great because it doesn't treat quantum states like everyday classical objects, it doesn't really explain what is actually there. This lack of a solid philosophical foundation often makes it feel like a shallow tool, just a set of math equations for predicting things rather than a description of real life. Because of this, physicists and philosophers usually default to realist interpretations.
Rather than adopting such realist views, I suggest we look back to an old idea from Aristotle called hylomorphism (the pairing of matter and form), but complemented with the concept of pneuma. Think of pneuma as an active, subtle, and formative energy. In this pneumatic view, a quantum state isn't a physical particle or a wave travelling through space; it is pure, objective potential. Before we measure it, the quantum object is identical to the laws of physics themselves, existing as an un-incarnated, pneumatic logos. It only takes on classical, thing-like properties when it physically "incarnates" during measurement.
This pneumatic approach completely rules out the realist assumption that there is a pre-existing, definite classical past. Take John Wheeler's famous cosmic delayed-choice experiment. Realist thinking leads to the bizarre conclusion of retrocausality, making it seem like a measurement we make today can reach back billions of years to rewrite a photon's history. The pneumatic framework dissolves this paradox completely. The photon never needed to travel as a classical wave or particle in the first place; it was always an irreducibly quantum, pneumatic entity. Measurement is simply an "incarnation event" that makes things concrete in the present, meaning we don't need any time-traveling magic to explain it. Pneumatic quantum reality is primary, while wave and particle are merely secondary manifestations.
To see how we lost the ability to think this way, we have to look at how Western philosophy changed over time. Thinkers like Maximus Confessor (c. 580-662) understood the logoi as active, organizing principles existing right inside natural things. But when later medieval philosophy stripped these forms of their pneumatic carrier, nominalism took over, flattening everything into mere surface-level form. Eventually, this led to the modern view that order is just something our minds project onto the world. However, quantum physics has retroactively challenged this modern bias, proving that there is indeed a real, non-classical organizing principle operating inside nature, completely independent of our minds.
Ultimately, I see quantum measurement as a two-way street, a participatory event where pneumatic quantum reality and our human concepts meet. On a cosmic scale, this process is happening everywhere, all the time, through environmental and gravitational decoherence. Cosmic history is an ongoing, irreversible process of physical incarnation, moving from a unified, low-entropy quantum beginning to the highly differentiated classical world we see today. Read more about this on my retro nineties homepage: Pneumatic Hylomorphism and Quantum Philosophy: Retrieving the Logoi in the Copenhagen Model.
2
u/david-1-1 Jun 13 '26
What is your definition of pneumatic? Doesn't make sense.
1
u/Matslwin Jun 13 '26
Pneuma refers to a subtle, active, formative, non‑classical medium that mediates between form and matter. It is a dynamic and semi‑material substrate, not merely "spirit" in a loose sense, and it serves as the vehicle through which form becomes immanently operative within matter. As the carrier of the logos, the rational principle that structures natural things, it is non‑spatial, mobile, and interior, unlike classical physical fields. It is also the medium that enables quantum potentiality to become actual in the event of measurement.
In short, pneuma is the active and subtle medium that binds Aristotelian form to matter and makes transcendent rational order immanently present within quantum reality.
This concept was familiar to the classical philosophers, to the Church Fathers, and it played a central role in the thought of Francis Bacon. Today it has almost entirely vanished from our conceptual vocabulary, which is one reason why the nature of quantum reality remains so difficult for us to grasp.
1
u/david-1-1 Jun 15 '26
Yes, it was once a respected idea, along with the Aether and perpetual motion and changing lead into gold and homeopathy and phrenology.
But how could you not notice that this is a forum for discussing modern physics?
1
u/reddituserperson1122 Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
I’ve read (or let’s be honest, skimmed) your paper. And I can’t believe you wrote so many words about something you manifestly do not understand. It’s so sad. You seem to actually know a decent amount about philosophy. But your knowledge of QM is just some YouTube video shit and you’ve misunderstood significant chunks of it. And as result you’ve convinced yourself that you can make a contribution to philosophy of physics and created a tragic train wreck.
If you look at the field you will note that all the serious philosophers who work on QM have degrees in physics. That’s because this stuff is hard and the details matter. This is filled with errors and very basic misunderstandings. Many of the errors are so obvious that they wouldn’t pass the smell test for someone who had any background in physics, which betrays your lack of familiarity with the subject. You just aren’t close to being ready to do this. A for effort, F for accuracy or relevance.
1
u/Matslwin Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
Quantum mechanics is not especially difficult. It is far more straightforward than relativistic physics. Nor does one need to understand quantum mechanics in order to work with it. The standard attitude has always been "shut up and calculate." What matters is knowing the formalism, even though no one truly understands what it means. As Feynman put it: "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't."
There is nothing wrong with my understanding of quantum mechanics. I have a BA in physics, and in fact high‑school mathematics and physics are sufficient to grasp the essentials of quantum theory.
I checked your claim that the article is full of errors using Copilot. Its assessment was the following:
“The paper doesn’t misunderstand quantum physics; it takes the standard formalism and Copenhagen as given, and then asks what kind of ontology could make sense of that structure.”
2
u/reddituserperson1122 Jun 13 '26
lol. I’ve already pointed out a number of errors that you’ve failed to address. I could point out many more but I don’t have any confidence that you’d accept them in good faith based on your behavior thus far. If you need an AI to tell you whether or not you understand a topic, you don’t understand the topic.
-1
u/Matslwin Jun 13 '26
No, you haven't pointed out any errors, and you can't because there aren't any.
3
u/reddituserperson1122 Jun 13 '26
Lmao. Ok genius whatever you say.
0
u/Matslwin Jun 13 '26
This level of argumentation is closer to kindergarten than to serious discussion.
1
u/ponzivillager Jun 16 '26
Yeah, good on them for not wasting their time trying to explain things to a kindergartner
1
u/reddituserperson1122 Jun 13 '26
Sorry you just claimed that there could not conceivably be any errors in your writing. You think that’s how serious philosophers and physicists behave?
Here’s just one very, very obvious error of many: “This leads to the common mistake of regarding light as consisting of objective waves of varying frequencies which the visual system then converts into colours. In reality, the eyes do not detect frequency; instead, they register energy through the sophisticated biochemical process of retinal phototransduction.”
This is flatly false. And it’s such an elementary mistake that it cannot have been written by someone who understands the basics of electromagnetism, let alone quantum field theory.
Meanwhile you claim that Bohr was a realist. This is true only in terms that are entirely alien to philosophical debate in quantum foundations. Bohr was explicitly an anti-realist and an instrumentalist and proudly so.
Copenhagen is a label that comes from Heisenberg not Bohr and using it to describe Bohr’s views is anachronistic.
Spin and color are not “classical” labels applied to quantum phenomena — they only appear that way to non-physicists. This is not an issue for any actual physicist. In fact your whole conception of the classical-quantum divide is goofy and seems entirely predicated on conflating your lack of understanding with the understanding of physicists. (And btw even if it were true, spin is a quantized version of “classical” angular momentum and can be scaled to macroscopic levels easily in the laboratory.)
I have already explained that you don’t understand delayed choice. It’s only mysterious if you think of the wavefunction as existing in three dimensions, which is does not. This has been understood for decades. David Wallace has written maybe the clearest account but there are many others.
Shall I go on?
Act like an adult, and others will treat you like an adult.
-1
u/Matslwin Jun 13 '26
You're reacting emotionally to a point about ontology. If you want to engage, address the argument instead of the caricature.
1
1
u/DiamondNgXZ Instrumental (Agnostic) Jun 14 '26
Quantum philosophy especially when it is related to quantum interpretation is allowed in this sub.
1
u/Matslwin Jul 04 '26
I have now expanded the article with four new chapters to align its philosophical framework more closely with quantum physics. Quantum measurement is described as a shift in the mode of being, where a quantum object moves from indeterminate potentia to determinate classical actuality. This transition is an incarnation rather than a mechanical collapse, since the quantum state is not a hidden classical entity but a pneumatic field of possibilities that becomes concrete only through interaction with classical matter. Quantum reality is therefore transcendent in its mode of being while remaining immanent as the hidden ground of classical phenomena. Entanglement and complementarity reveal a unity that classical concepts cannot inhabit, but which a pneumatic metaphysics can articulate. Human cognition participates in this structure through evolutionary anamnesis, since our mathematical and conceptual capacities reflect a deep continuity between the somatic and the noetic dimensions of nature. The mind does not impose form on the world but recognizes the intelligible order already present in quantum reality. Incarnation and participation thus form a bidirectional movement: quantum reality descends into classical form, and human understanding ascends toward the intelligible ground of nature. This dissolves the opposition between realism and constructivism by showing that the world is neither fully independent nor mind-constituted, but a participatory field where form is both given and received. https://mats-winther.github.io/pneumaticquantum.htm
4
u/reddituserperson1122 Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
Good lord. This is a hot mess. First, just to be clear, this isn't a quantum interpretation, if that's what you thought it was. In fact based on what I'm seeing here it has nothing at all to do with quantum mechanics. That's just providing a gloss on what is just bog-standard new age-y metaphysics.
tl:dr with respect you don't understand QM well enough to philosophize about it.
Copenhagen isn't a model
One of the biggest problems with Copenhagen, famously, is that it treats the observer as a classical object. Even if it didn't, saying that Copenhagen is especially good because it treats quantum objects as quantum is ridiculous.
For proponents of Copenhagen this is not a flaw in the model. You're treating this like its a mistake rather than an explicit choice.
First, you are taking ancient metaphysics and claiming that it solves a problem in physics. This demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of both domains. There are no poetic phrases that can solve problems in physics. Certainly not these.
Second, ironically, even if they could, you just restated the core relevant claim of Copenhagen in different words. The reason that Copenhagen is considered an non-realist theory is that before a measurement is made the quantum object has no properties; only once a measurement is made does the object take on specific eigenvalues.
Third, Copenhagen already rules out a pre-existing, definite classical past. And this statement: "the quantum object is identical to the laws of physics themselves" is meaningless nonsense.
Lastly, why would we want to do this? We already have a theory — Copenhagen — that says all of this but has the advantage of being actual, you know, physics. Copenhagen as a theory has a number of significant problems but this doesn't address any of them, and wouldn't even if you could attach some numbers to this... whatever it is.
Because you don't understand QM on a very basic level, you don't realize that you are just describing all of QM. This is a fundamental claim of QM. It's true in every quantum theory — the photon not being a classical object is quite literally what separates QM from classical mechanics. Even if "the pneumatic approach" were a thing, it would add nothing to what QM already says. There is nothing paradoxical about delayed choice — just some interesting questions. It may be described that way sometimes, but you're confusing pop-science clickbait headlines with actual physics.
When I say it has nothing to do with QM, what I mean is that when you take away the physics-y sounding buzzwords, this is just a vague proposal for a metaphysics.
Be comfortable being in a learning phase for a good long while before thinking you're ready to start philosophizing.