Most of the time, in this thread at present, I’m only interested in talking in terms of what people are directly experiencing, and their or my best understanding of what they’re experiencing, or may be experiencing. If someone wants to dismiss people’s direct experience, including my own, then I guess I don’t have any common ground with them. In which case there’s no point “debating” or whatever.
Direct experience, combined with some reflection on it, is king, as far as I’m concerned.
However, I guess readers would like me to explain why, for example, all physicists know that the assumption that reality is made out of such things as “objects” is unworkable, unless you replace “objects” with “quantum objects”. An example of a “quantum object” is any electron, and indeed any “particle” from subatomic physics that’s as small as an electron, or smaller. The trouble is, for example, that if you ask what the location is of any electron at all, the answer is that every electron is in fact a probability field that extends throughout the entire physical universe. Strictly speaking, to call it a “particle” is only a metaphor, because it is in fact a field that is fully as large as the universe. Gary Zukav explains all this, and some other such problems with the notion of “particles” or “objects”, in his book The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, in very simple language. I’ve already referred readers of this thread to that book a few times. So you should already know that the whole concept of “object” or “particle” is, strictly speaking, inadequate for explaining physical reality.
Hence, science proves that reality ultimately isn’t made of objects, at all. Another interesting point here is that, as Zukav also explains, the concepts regarding reality underlying quantum physics are very similar to, and close to identical to, those used by Taoism. But Taoism’s concepts were developed to describe what meditation revealed reality ultimately seemed to be like.
If somebody starts off by assuming that reality is made out of objects, that’s just an assumption. From my postgraduate, professional background in philosophy I’m quite aware – as are professional philosophers generally -- that assuming that reality is made out of objects has much less effective explanatory value than assuming that reality is made out of something quite different. It’s not only in physics that such a metaphysics [i.e., such a choice of what to count as the most basic building blocks of existence] is hugely flawed and too narrow.
If you suppose that everything that’s ultimately real is an object, notice that what makes an object an object is that it’s closed off from every other object. You can’t even say that any relationship or connection or interaction is real, unless you say that it’s purely an object too, and therefore closed off too. The kind of picture of the world this inescapably leads to is a place where any coming together is, ultimately, accidental. It sets up an essential, existential state of competition between any two objects, not to mention individual people. It’s a world whose essence is alienation, anomie. Such a picture of the world is indeed what physics and science used to be based on, until quantum physics came on the scene. A significant part of the dumbing down program was to “sell” exactly such a view of reality as “the” reality – where each individual object, and hence person, is vastly powerless, in their very essence unavoidably alienated, and where entropy and randomness are the rule that governs the flow of their interactions and of most of the events around them.
I can’t really explain to you in non-technical philosophical terms why seeing the world as being made ultimately out of objects is a gigantically narrow view, compared to the alternatives. But for starters, because it’s so much narrower, it has no option other than to deny the existence of any phenomena or any reality that fails to fit into its narrow straitjacket. For example, in physics it would require the denial of all quantum phenomena. “Unfortunately”, physicists can’t do that, because it would involve denying the existence of all subatomic reality. So they’re forced to try to accommodate, or pretend to accommodate, a non-object-based metaphysics which they call “quantum theory”.