"Carlo Rovelli (born 3 May 1956) is an Italian theoretical physicist [ ] Rovelli works mainly in the field of quantum gravity and is a founder of the theory of loop quantum gravity. He has also worked in the history and philosophy of science, formulating the Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the notion of Thermal Time. [ ] His popular science book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, was originally published in Italian in 2014. It has sold over a million copies worldwide. [ ]

[ ] In 1994, Rovelli introduced the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, based on the idea that the quantum state of a system must always be interpreted relative to another physical system (like the 'velocity of an object' is always relative to another object, in classical mechanics). [ ] Among other important consequences, it provides a solution of the EPR paradox that does not violate locality. [ ]"

[Click the titles below. They take you straight to my Medium essays.]

(1) 'Carlo Rovelli's Relationalism — as Defended in His Book, Helgoland (2020)'

Does Carlo Rovelli simply invert the "violent hierarchy" of objects-over-relations with that of relations-over-objects?

This essay is about Carlo Rovelli's metaphysical position of relationalism — as it's defended in his book Helgoland.

At first, Rovelli primarily applied his relationalism to quantum mechanics. However, Rovelli has gone on to apply this metaphysical position to just about every… thing.

Although the following piece is partly sympathetic to relationalism, the primary criticism which remains is that Rovelli appears to be simply inverting the (to use Derrida's words) "violent hierarchy" that has (according to Rovelli) been set up between objects (or things) and relations in both Western philosophy and in modern physics. In other words, Rovelli has now placed relations — rather than objects — at the top of the pile.

(2) 'Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics'

Carlo Rovelli is an Italian theoretical physicist. He works mainly on quantum gravity. He's also a founder of loop quantum gravity theory (along with Lee Smolin). Rovelli won the second prize in the 2013 FQXi contest 'It From Bit or Bit From It?' for his essay on relative information. His book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, has also been translated into 41 languages and has sold over a million copies worldwide.

Rovelli introduced the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1994.

Carlo Rovelli's overall position is classed as relational quantum mechanics. This is an "interpretation" of quantum mechanics in which a quantum system is seen as being "observer dependent". In terms specifically of the word "relational" in "relational quantum mechanics", this means that there's a relation between an observer and a quantum system.

In addition to the inclusion of observers into the quantum equation, we also have the many relations between physical systems and physical systems.

(3) 'Carlo Rovelli on Aristotle: Objects and Their Relations'

This Aristotelean stance on substance is a strong reason why the term "particular" came to be used. Relevantly, it was widely believed that a particular does not depend, for its existence, on any other being.

Relationalism, on the other hand, inverts this by arguing that all substances (or all particulars) are — entirely? - dependent for their existence on their relations to other beings.

This means that such ?'s can't really be substances (or particulars) at all!

So, according to Rovelli, relationality has the most being and reality. However, is Rovelli's strong stress on relations (or relationality) automatically to factor out substances, objects or particulars?

(4) 'Carlo Rovelli on the Religious Critics of Science'

The theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli writes:

"The world is full of people who say that they have The Truth. [] There is always someone with his own real Truth."

This essay is about those critics of science who yearn for (to quote Rovelli again) "some prophet dressed in white, uttering the words, 'Follow me, I am the true way'".

(5) 'Carlo Rovelli vs Panpsychism: "Each atom must be a proto-cyclist."'

"It is like saying that since a bicycle is made of atoms, then each atom must be a proto-cyclist."

— Carlo Rovelli

Basically, Rovelli is arguing against the panpsychist contention that it's highly unlikely that consciousness (or experience) could ever have arisen from that which is entirely non-conscious.

[This is sometimes called the Continuity Argument for Panpsychism. See my 'Panpsychism in 1970: Keith Campbell on the Continuity Argument for Panpsychism'.]

However, the comparison (or analogy) that Rovelli cites above may not work. In other words, is there really a parallel between the atoms which make up a bike and the bike itself, and the parts which make up a brain, and consciousness itself? In other words, is Rovelli's general argument true of all systems and their elements (or parts)?

(6) 'Relationalism/Relationism and its Violent Hierarchy: Relations vs Things'

Relationism is said to simply emphasise the relations between things: it doesn't deny that things exist.

With relationalism (i.e., with an added "al"), on the other hand, "things exist and function only as relational entities". In other words, if there were no relations, then there would be no things.

However, on analysis, the distinctions between these two isms appear to break down — at least in certain respects.

Relationalism is like ontic structural realism in that the latter eliminates things (as in "every thing must go"). Relationism, on the other hand, simply places relations in an important position in any metaphysics.

Having said all that, it's hard not to see the importance of relations — even if one also accepts the existence of things. (One can also see the vital importance of relations when it comes to — particularly — physics.) Yet, on the other hand, one can't really see how things could be entirely eliminated. (This may largely depend on how the word "thing" is defined.)

In addition, relationalism itself can be read as not actually being eliminativist (i.e., about things) at all. After all, this metaphysical position may simply have it that things aren't what's called "self-standing", which isn't in itself a denial that things exist. Alternatively, we can say that literally all a thing's properties are relational. In other words, things don't have intrinsic properties. Thus, in a weak (or even strong) sense, if all things only have relational properties (and such properties literally constitute things), then in one sense things are indeed eliminated from this metaphysical picture. To put that more simply: if a thing's relations (or relational properties) were eliminated, then it would no longer be that thing. Indeed, it would no longer even exist!