[MD] David M and DMB clearly disagree -what do others think?

[David M]

Hi boys and girls

Just taking a look at John Polkinghorne's book on quantum
theory, he agrees with me that Aristotle's concept of potentia
is one worth considering when trying to make sense of
quantum theory. I also think it is conceptually useful for understanding
and describing experience too as I've explained. Polkinghorne goes on
to quote Heisenberg:

"In experiments about atomic events we have to do with things that are 
facts,
with phenomenon that are just as real as any phenomenon in daily life. But
the atoms or elementary particles are not as real; they form a world of 
potentialities
or possibilities rather than things of facts."

Interesting! Science has to deal with elementary particles but they possess 
un-actualised
properties/qualities, i.e. potentialities, this leads to confusion and doubt 
about how real
they are -even a thinker like Heisenberg (not bad company for DMB).

But Polkinghorne goes on:

"An electron does not all the time possess a definite position or momentum,
but rather it possesses the potentiality for exhibiting one or other of 
these if a measurement
turnsa one of these potentiality into an actuality. I would disagree with 
Heisenberg in
thinking that this fact makes an electron "not as real" as a table or a 
chair. The electron
simply enjoys a different kind of reality, appropriate to its nature.If we 
are to know things
as they are, we must be prepared to know them as they actually are, on their 
own terms,
so to speak. It is intelligibility rather than objectivity that is the clue 
to reality...."

This may be radical thinking. But nonsense? Are you on such firm or familiar 
ground here DMB
with your zero value certainties?
David M