I think we have a misunderstanding concerning how to interpret transcendental idealism into a scientific mind set. I think the term ‘model’ is the problem. I jump when people use it. 
I think quantum mechanics has it right, but the ones that make it into a model are wrong again. Do you grasp why?
No I don’t grasp your idea of “why” because I don’t know right off the cuff what your idea of quantum mechanics is.
That term is too broad, honestly, to just jump into any agreement or disagreement.
Quantum mechanics signifies reciprocity, instead of causality. In that sense models are right out. It signifies the fact that the way we grasp thinks makes us perceive things differently from what exists. Since space and time are a priori from thought (no phenomenon can exist outside of logical space/time) we perceive things as causal matter. This explains the switch from the ‘wave’ to the ‘photon’. Although a further analysis proves the ‘wave’ to be incorrect as well, it is also only our perception of what transpires.
This is the really short version of the proof. It relies strongly on Kant, but the fact that the most baffling experiment ever signifies this. Anyway, it boils down to the difference between the phenomenon and the noumenon, but is applied stricter than normally done to signify the difference between our causal perceptions from what transpires reciprocally.
Anyway, we are going astray from the topic. Perhaps we should give this part a rest here?
What did you think of Steenbakkers analysis btw?
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=173140#p2174210
Here’s how it seems most see causality:
However, here is causality as well.
In fact…look at this:
This isn’t linear causality, but cyclic action and reaction.
One action leads to a reaction, which leads to a reaction, which leads to a reaction, etc…
In fact, the starting action is itself a reaction.
Look at light; it is reciprocal reaction.
I don’t see a division between quantum mechanics and causality; they are the same things.
The “model” of causality is just picking a moment of time to stab in and say, “This is the action we’ll start measuring from”.
But it is like a line…truly; that is imaginary, as you can continue, and continue, and continue infinitely.
The wave to a photon…I’m not going to step into that; that’s a very long and complicated discussion.
But regardless; everything is motion, and motion is change, and change is frequency, and frequency is simply reaction.
“Reciprocal”, is nearly a tautological term when you think about it in these terms.
Steenbakkers analysis is close, from my “hunch”; keeping in mind I haven’t taken any time to truly study the issue he is addressing.
The likelihood, however, seems far more likely from what I know of the early press system and it’s layout in relation to religion as the means of printing and authorization to print, that multiple variants arose intentionally from the printer (not the writer per say) meeting demands “politically” for rights to print.
I agree about conception.
Aside from that, reciprocity isn’t apart; it is a description of the action in full reaction from component A to B back to A.
Ping>Pong > Pong>Ping.
But that is a summary; a grand total.
It’s not the base of communication; clearly.
The base is what takes place at the earliest point.
Ping>Pong.
Take away the Pong and Ping is nothing at all as there is nothing to react to it.
This is one of the reasons of which it is known that Leibniz made a few alterations (in that same transcript from which this alteration is taken btw). Will you elaborate on these rights to print? And why does it remind you of this?
Ad2:
Try to view Ping not as the cause, but as the phenomenon and the Pong’s as the phenomena. One Ping has many Pong’s. The Ping itself can be grasped as the set of Pong’s. However, what is, in causality understood as the Ping, now must become understood as a Pong. Do you see the shift in the perceptions that occur from the understanding of the difference between the phenomenon and the noumenon?
We are saying the same thing actually.
Look again at this:
This is reciprocation and it is causal.
I refer to it as reaction.
You refer to it as reciprocal.
Both are correct, but describe a slightly different zoom level of the same thing.
Like I said above with the line and division.
It is a start point that you call “ping”, but it is an artificial start point.
There’s no escaping that all of it is continually reaction, just as much as there is no escaping reciprocation.
Reciprocation describes the entire system of reaction between all components; reaction just describes the kind of activity taking place within reciprocation.
I fully agree on the ping/pong…that was more or less my point earlier.
We just use different terms because we have looked at the system at different layers.
As to the issue of printing.
For a time there, the Church was the printing press.
If you wanted something printed, then you had to go through them.
If they didn’t approve it there at the proctor, then tit’s up for you.
Also, sometimes a local proctor would sign off on something, but then another region’s political issues of theology/philosophy/science would not because of some debate… Galileo is a prime example of this.
So, it’s entirely possible that the alterations were done to continue printing in a different region.
Ok, I am satisfied…for now!!
In Spinoza’s case his Opera Posthuma was published after death for fear of the pyre. So, apparently it was (sort of) possible to bypass the church. In fact, posthumously the opera was printed by one of his friends…and the church still convicted him to the pyre! So, the fact that it was printed at all proves that the church was bypassed. It is this version that has the ‘profitentur’. Leibniz however is known to have made several changes so that it would go down easier (with the church). It is his version that contains the ‘profitemur’. It strengthens Steenbakker’s case.
Interesting point you brought up btw. It sheds a different light on the period and the printed works from that period (and probably written works from earlier periods as well). Apart from that Leibniz lived in a different region (at some court (Hannover??) at that point if I remember correctly). Leibniz is an interesting fellow really…
Perhaps this closes the case. Are there any more thoughts on the matter you would like to express?