The world that science uncovers got to match with the world we experience, or is the opposite true?

[shunyadragon]

An old article about the structure of water attracted my attention. Is it correct or not that even if the world as physics reveals is mighty strange, in the end, the scientific conception has to answer to our experience and need/s?

Water is a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, each molecule again linking with another through hydrogen bonding to give it a liquid and drinkable nature. Again, it has been suggested that water's weirdness makes life possible.

Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible

It was found that WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous but incredibly delicate balance of quantum forces.

Computer simulations show that quantum mechanics nearly robbed the water of these life-giving features, by destabilising the matrix forming hydrogen bonding, but fortuitously, water has two quantum effects which cancel each other out, and the hydrogen bond matrix is effectively strengthened.

The author of the article concludes "We are used to the idea that the cosmos’ physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list."

We know that as such 'fine-tuned' universe would be extremely improbable on its own. We also know that quantum mechanics has solved the fine-tuning challenge via the theory of an infinite number of parallel multi-verses, wherein a fine-tuned universe would no more be improbable.

But my enquiry is general "Does water exist to support life or it exists due to a quantum mechanical chance happening?"

Probably there can be no logical answer. But to me, the role of water, along with fire, air, and earth are primary for the support of embodied life-awareness -- for enjoying widest possible sensual experiences. In other words, in my view, the metaphysical ground for this world is experiential.

What are your views on this? ..

Simply the world we experience is the world uncovered by science.

Can you objectively demonstrate that the world we experience is different than the world the science uncovers?

I may comment nore in the future.

 

[atanu]

By the way, I am a neutral monist (and I think Upanisads have the same metaphysics). But the James quote you gave is not neutral monism.
ttps://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Neutral_Monism_A_Saner_Solution_to_the_Mind_Body_Problem
What then if the mental and the physical, quite irreconcilable when taken as independent natures, are really the common offspring of another sort of nature, something in-between the two? This something would be an essence neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and physical. Theories that propose this are called ‘neutral monist’: ‘monist’ because, unlike dualism, they envisage only one fundamental kind of stuff in the world; ‘neutral’ because this unifying nature is hypothesized to lie betwixt mentality and physicality, equidistant from each, distinct from either, and ultimately responsible for both.

So whereas the panpsychist fills quarks and electrons with conscious minds, the neutral monist constructs the universe from neither-mental-nor-physical qualities, of which colours might be said to provide the exemplar. Far from panpsychism, this is a ‘panqualityism’ (that sleek name is thanks to S.C. Pepper, via Herbert Feigl). It should be noted however that colours ultimately offer us only a conception of the kind of properties we seek. The panqualityist neutral monist is committed to them as a placeholder for the neutral properties, nothing more. That is, colours demonstrate that there could be such natures.

A more technical summary is below,
Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Within neutral monism, my views are closer to that of Nagel

A simple example of showing how this can happen. We know that quantum objects have unique properties that are neither wave-like nor particle-like in a true sense. But, depending on context, these entities are either observed as waves or as particles. A similar formulation can be thought of being true for the actual properties of the ultimate constituents of reality. Depending on context they are observed either as physical or mental or mathematical or informational.

I agree. I have read a lot on this and pondered a lot. Philosophers are of the view that neutral monism and idealism are same ultimately.

I will love to dIscuss on this more. At this stage, I will point out that the matter of deep sleep is ‘neutral’ only.

 

[atanu]

It looks to me that they measured the length of the hydrogen bond H-O vs the deuterium version of the hydrogen bond D-O.

Given the abstract, there seems to be no correlation to life being possible. And I struggle to find any connection that seems relevant.

If this is an example of 'fine tuning', then there is no 'there' there.

We have very good evidence that life on earth started in a carbon dioxide environment. Free oxygen came along much later, after organisms developed photosynthesis. Whole classes of organism make no use of oxygen to this day.

Water is a very good solvent which, crucially - at the pressures prevalent on the surface of our planet - is liquid at the temperatures at which very large, carbon-based molecules are stable. However liquid ammonia is also a very good solvent. On earth it boils at - 33C. Biochemical reactions still take place at this temperature, although they are a lot slower than at 20C. But on a planet with a denser atmosphere, one could easily have liquid ammonia at 20C, which could conceivably support some kind of alternative biochemistry. So one simply can't assume that water is a prerequisite of all life.

A fine tuning argument that hinges on the properties of water being exactly the way they are is not in itself very persuasive.

The report that I linked was just a journalist’s work and most journalistic work do not represent the scientific work accurately.

But I think that the concept is not deep. If water was gas at normal atmospheric conditions, probably we would be lucky — we would only drink undiluted ethyl alcohol.

The current reality, imo, must always be the datum.

YMMV.

 

[exchemist]

The report that I linked was just a journalist’s work and most journalistic work do not represent the scientific work accurately.

But I think that the concept is not deep. If water was gas at normal atmospheric conditions, probably we would be lucky — we would only drink undiluted ethyl alcohol.

The current reality, imo, must always be the datum.

YMMV.

Indeed.

But now, as a former chemist, I am interested in what this piece of work was actually about. Markland's group clearly works a lot in this area: Title when shared to social media sites In fact that link summarises the effect the New Scientist article fails to put across. Any effect that lengthens the covalent O-H bond weakens it but at the same time shortens and strengthens the H-bond. And the strength of the H- bond in water is what makes it liquid at RTP, determines the structure of ice and so on.

Apologies for derailing your thread with stuff of little interest to most readers, but thanks for putting me on the trail of this. Discovering things like this is one reason I come to these forums.