Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism (Part 1)

[This is an excerpt from my recently published book, Nonduality and Mind-Only through the Prism of Reality, which is available in Kindle and paperback at Amazon and from other book sellers.]

Now to my brief consideration of Kastrup’s analytic idealism. Kastrup posits a universal mind, or unbound consciousness, as the substrate or primitive (his term) of existence. To him, matter or the physical universe is nothing more than an excitation (his term) or abstraction (his term) of mind. And in accordance with his interpretation of quantum theory, he contends that “all physical quantities are created by observation.” In his words, “Observation is the physical world—not merely a representation of the world.” Per Kastrup, “The physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced.”

And how does Kastrup view humans and other living organisms in this “mental universe”? He writes:

"We, as well as all other living organisms, are dissociated alters of this unbound consciousness. The universe we see around us is the extrinsic appearance of phenomenality surrounding—but dissociated from—our alter. The living organisms we share the world with are the extrinsic appearances of other dissociated alters."

Kastrup also applies neo-Kantian creed in his idealist paradigm to explain how humans interface with phenomenal reality. He likens humans to airplane pilots using instruments to fly in bad weather. Like the pilots, we humans cannot see (perceive) the world outside us directly, as it is, but must navigate it through the medium of our limited sense “instruments,” which enable us, like a blind man with a seeing-eye dog, to somehow function in the world.

What can you say about your idealist philosophy versus Kastrup’s?

As made clear in all our previous discussions, I, like Kastrup, hold that a universal (or all-pervading) Mind, or Consciousness, is the all-subsuming Ground of the totality of manifest existents. Beyond this common agreement, my metaphysics, epistemology, and phenomenology are fundamentally antithetical to his. In other words, my views on how this universal Mind, or ultimate Reality, manifests and interfaces with conditional reality differ diametrically from his.

Because, up until this point, our ongoing series of Mind-Only/nonduality discussions has essentially been an elaboration of my idealist paradigm, it would be a gross detour from our current discussion (which focuses on others’ paradigms) to restate my whole thesis here. Though I will be referring to aspects of it in the course of our current discussion, those not familiar with it should check it out in its entirety, so they can then intelligently compare it with other idealist paradigms that interest them.

Now, I’ll begin my brief analysis of Kastrup’s analytic idealism, which, for the most part, is built upon a spurious foundation of quantum theory that I reject. Hence, because I categorize this foundation and the conclusions that Kastrup derives from it as “quantum crapola,” my analysis of his idealism, as you shall see, is less than favorable.

In his book The Idea of the World, wherein Kastrup expounds his idealist paradigm, the primary basis for his conclusions derives from his application of renowned physicist Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics (RQM) as support for his thesis. RQM (which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics) rejects the idea that reality depends upon the presence of a conscious observer. Its point is that reality is relational and that the state of a system can be described in relation to any physical object. Because RQM has nothing to do with consciousness or conscious observers, I reject Kastrup’s application of it to support his thesis. I contacted Professor Rovelli by email, and herewith is our exchange, wherein he seconds my rejection:

Greetings Dr. Rovelli,

I just finished reading Professor Bernardo Kastrup's book The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality, and I also watched the YouTube video “Quantum Physics and the End of Reality,” which features you, Eric Weinstein, and Sabine Hossenfelder considering QM and reality. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from the video, I gather that you believe in objective reality (that the moon is still there if no one observes/ perceives it), and that you state that your RQM interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness and conscious observers, just physical systems. Kastrup, on the other hand, applies RQM to support his metaphysical idealism argument that consciousness, or mind, is the only reality, that “the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually perceived... Observation is the world - not merely a representation of the physical world... [QM] only predicts the unfolding of perception. In the absence of non-contextuality and realism, the ‘physical world’ of the relational interpretation is the contents of perception.”

From my perspective, it seems that you don’t agree with Kastrup’s argument for the “mental nature of reality,” nor with his application of RQM to support his thesis. Because I am now writing my own book on metaphysical idealism, which will include a consideration of Kastrup’s argument (which I don’t second), and cite you, I want to get clear on your view of his application of RQM to support his thesis.

I look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

L. Ron Gardner

Here is Rovelli’s reply:

"Yes, you have it exactly right.

RQM, as I understand it, has nothing to do with conscious observers, and even less with a 'mental nature of reality'.

The physicists (like me) say that 'velocity is relative,' and use a language like 'velocity is relative to an observer'.

Then they say 'the velocity of Jupiter relative to Saturn'.

But it is a misunderstanding to deduce from this language that the physicists attribute consciousness or mental states to Saturn...

This is the mistake I detect in Kastrup's reading of RQM.

It remains true that RQM questions a naive materialism with an ontology of elements of matter bearing of properties.

Physics does so. In RQM, properties are relational. But from that to a strong argument for idealism the jump seems too large to me..."

carlo

Wow! That blows a HUGE hole in Kastrup’s work, because he’s big on applying Rovelli’s RQM to support his analytic idealism. How about Kastrup’s other applications of QM to his work?

All BS. There is zero proof that any of Kastrup’s QM-based assertions that he applies to support his analytic idealism, have any validity. But because pinhead academics, such as Kastrup and his bud Donald Hoffman (next on our agenda to consider), lack the gnosis and philosophical chops to apply esoteric spirituality to their theses, they resort to the “low-hanging fruit”—quantum crapola—in their attempts to legitimize their pseudo-scientific, philosophically flawed work.