There are three (possibly four) types of object in the world, two of which are the subject of physics.
Of these three types of objects, one is a material object; another is an object of experience (like colours and sounds); and the third type of object is a quantum object.
Material objects obey the laws of material objects: they do not vanish and appear but they can be hidden and revealed.
Perceptual or experiential objects obey the laws of experience: they vanish and appear but cannot be hidden or revealed.
Quantum objects seem, or are claimed, to vanish and appear like experiential objects, yet also can be hidden and revealed like material objects. Such a juncture of object behaviours brings the quantum object close in description (perilously?) to that fourth class of objects whose members are referred to (unfortunately) as “superstitions”:
A superstitious object is an object of experience made, or switching to, a material object(mind over matter, animism, etc), or a material object made experiential (“vanishing”, miracles, etc).
But a quantum object doesn’t quite fit the bill as a superstitious object - even though the quantum object, taken to be material, appears to be affected by mind or an “observer” according to some interpretations of quantum theory.
Why isn’t the quantum object taken as a superstitious object if it behaves in the same way as the latter? The reason is that the quantum object isn’t taken to be merely “material” or “experiential”, and does not switch from one to the other. We give the quantum object some conceptual leeway in this regard. It is that class of objects that, unlike material objects, both vanish and appear and, unlike experiential objects, can be hidden and revealed. This makes quantum objects different from a superstitious object which can change its objectual status from material to experiential and vice versa.
I’m obviously not intelligent enough to understand this post. Most of it made little sense to me. However, one thing I really don’t get is how quantum objects are non-material.
If the distinction is between objects on the macro-level and objects on the quantum level, then I think this distinction is problematic. I am aware (vaguely) that the descriptions of the laws of quantum mecahnics are said to be incompatible with the current set of descriptions of how things work on the macro level (some sort of incompatibility between quantum mechanics and special relativity), but my understanding was that scientists are looking for some sort of resolution to this (like string theory). At the end of the day, macro level objects are surely composed of of micro level objects - I just don’t see how they can be considered a completely different ‘type’ of object in the sense your talking about.
As for ‘perceptual objects’ - I understand the definition and find it an intriguing way of distinguishing experience from material objects. However, I wonder to what extent colours and sounds are objects. Most people would agree that red 'is not an ‘object’ in the common sense. Note also, if the two are separated then they must still be inter-dependent. All knowledge of material objects (and quantum objects) comes to us through experience - or in your terms ‘experiential objects’.
I still don’t understand what ‘superstiotious objects’ are either. Could you possibly elaborate on how, say, animism involves ‘objects which vanish and appear but cannot be hidden or revealed’ “swtiching to” 'objects which can not vanish and appear".
In essence, the majoy problem I’m having is finding the motivation for the need for all these distinctions and funny sounding objects. What’s wrong with ‘objects’ just meaning ‘distinct things in the material world’, or something like that. Basically, I’m intrigued by your post but I could do with a more detailed explanation of whats going on.
I am reducing all objects and appearances to their behaviours, and there are only two types of behaviour - appearing and revealing. E.g. Colours appear but cannot be revealed, material objects are revealed but cannot appear. Quantum objects and superstitious objects are descriptions of further permutations on these two behaviours.
Rather than multiplying the sorts of objects in the world, I am bringing them all under one roof.
This eliminates the need we have to describe the world in terms of real and unreal, reality and imagination, superstitions and visions. This model eliminates the need to favour one sort of object over another, as all objects and appearances are treated in the same way.