DOTLAN EveMaps

u'Potency and act, quantum mechanics and gravity

What are the philosophical implications of a reversion of potency and act?
When gnosiology concludes an inversion of potency and act, what does it entails for ontology?

In classical physics, as in pre-quantum mechanics, act is fundamental, and potency is derived due to ignorance. Ignorance is in the subject and it is not projected to the objective reality or World.
In quantum physics, potency is fundamental, and act is derived, at least in association with knowledge, the subject\u2019s empirical experience. Our experience is in act, and thus we, ontologically as well as gnosiologically, are in act. But act is not fundamental, potency is, and thus potency, rather than act, is projected to the objective reality or World.

Does act exists in the objective reality, rather than just being confined to the subjective knowledge? And, if act exists as part of the objective reality, how does it reconcile itself with, indeed within, an objective World which is fundamentally potency?
Given a yes to the former, the latter is the question that shall be answered by the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

If potency is fundamental and act is derived, then act is at stakes. It is a dynamically resulting ontological quality. For act to be reconciled with the fundamental potentency, act has to emerge, recognizable as such ontological quality, within quantum mechanics itself, and emerge according to the dynamics established by quantum mechanics.
The possibility of our existence, as that of beings in act, has to find its place in the emerging act.

An essential property of the act that emerges, that we experience, i.e. of physis, is the dual concept of localization-extension. The actuality of extension is at stakes as part of the general issue of act itself being at stakes.

Quantum fields are representations of the transformation groups of special relativity, particles contain in their essential mathematical description the parametric representations of those transformations. That is not yet extension, it is parameters rather than metrics. That is the tangent space, i.e. the generators space. That, also, is still potency, is not yet act.
That the act has to emerge according to quantum mechanics, now means that it has to emerge from particles interactions, as in quantum field theory the whole of quantum mechanics is particles interaction. In particular, the actuality of extension has to emerge from the potentiality of particles interactions.

From this we can express some expectations:
\u2022All interacting particles in principle contribute to the emerging extension, because their whole is the whole of quantum mechanics
\u2022Extension emerges dynamically, and thus it is itself in principle dynamic
\u2022The resulting geometry might be, or even must be, an \u201cimperfect\u201d expression of the fundamental parametric representation contained in the particles, because act can not infinitely overcome the fundamental potentiality, specifically we might expect a defect/excess between linear and angular separation, including space-time transformations. Such a discrepancy is space-time curvature for the resulting extension.

To sum up, since the actuality of extension is at stakes for quantum mechanics, we can expect that the actuality of extension is a curved geometro-dynamics determined by the whole of interacting particles. Such a phenomenon is presently known to us as gravity, as described by general relativity.

In this perspective, gravity as geometrodynamics is expected to be the emerging actuality of extension within the fundamental potentiality of quantum mechanics. Understanding gravity in such a role, in turn, is expected to be an essential part of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, with respect to the general issue of the possibility of an objective act emerging within the fundamental potency. This gravity is not a force.

The scope of this understanding is cosmological and ontological.'