Supervenience accounts for the relationship between physical and non-physical states but it can appear counterintuitive. To say that non-physical states supervene on physical states does not mean that the non-physical state causes the physical one but the opposite. However the non-physical state determines the existence of a relationship between physical entities (for example, I am related to my cousin and that relationship exists outside any directly observable and measurable phenomena).(Taylor, 2008)
This principle is largely attributed to the problem of locality in quantum physics, where it accounts for faster than speed of light causation in the measurement of spin properties of subatomic particles without having to give up special relativity.
From that example, it is easy to show how a physicalist perceives that momentum and locality are incompatible in the sense that an object cannot possibly be in two places at once. This is largely a question of our spatio-temporal reference frame that gives ontological status to those two dimensions. In the quantum reality (and as Bell proved) those two states can superimpose to form a third state. When a moving object is measured, its momentum is determined by a spatial reference frame, and at the same time its position can only be determined if there is the no momentum in the reference frame (intrinsic properties are in a ‘fixed momentum’ reference frame). In other words a position is only fixed in relation to zero momentum between two points (Teller, 1986).
While most accounts of non-locality and Bell’s experiments are rather dense, and typically get bogged down in Einsteinian “there must be a hidden variable” physical realism and quantum non-locality debates, Teller’s relational holism leads to a very simple solution that is relevant to my arguments (ibid.)
What Bell demonstrated was that if an object in motion had a statistical probability of being in any location within a spatial reference frame when it is measured for the very first time (e.g. when opening one’s eyes in a strange environment after being led there blindfolded), it is not possible to predict where any moving objects will be at the eye opening moment. This is because there can no prior frame of reference with which to predict where a moving object might be.
Next, if special relativity is true, which is to say that time slows down the faster you travel and stops once the speed of light is reached, then the reverse must also be true. This is to say that if the temporal reference frame at the speed of light is zero, then all objects in that reference frame will look like they are not moving. To say it differently, time is the way momentum is measured and if time stops, then it is not possible to measure momentum.
Since zero position in the temporal reference frame is the speed of light (according to special relativity) momentum can only be determined statistically in the same way location depends on points that appear to be not moving (which means at least 2 points moving in the same direction and speed).
So if this is true, movement is a temporal illusion.
Bell proved that both can be true, in other words, the quantum state of superposition is where both reference frames are superimposed to form a third state. Subatomic particles have properties that are in this third state, which makes it look like they can be in two places at once. This is because in human perception, an object that has more than one momentum at the same time (specifically moving and not moving, or being in absolute positions in both state vectors) would look like it was actually two separate objects.
The very idea of an object having more than one momentum simultaneously is counterintuitive because our human temporal reference frame is a non-physical supervening state. The perception of time is non-physical because it is the difference between memory states. It is, of course likely to have a memory state to represent that difference, but the simple fact is that if we did not have a memory we could not possibly understand time. Obviously without memory we would have no reference by which to compare the current state of our perceptions.
Simply, without a memory it is impossible to perceive anything as moving, the perception of movement depends on having a record of where an object was before now (a memory). In other words, there is no physical brain state for the continuously variable notion of temporality. It is an indirect relation between physical states. This is precisely what supervenience describes: without the physical brain states of memory there can be no perception of time, just as temporality creates the perception of movement. These are purely non-physical states.
For the same reasons simple statements such as ‘spatio-temporal conceptual schemes determine our reality’, or that ‘modal truths supervene on non-modal truths’ to say that value systems determine the facts, can be shown to obtain. In each case it is the abstract, non-physical concept that supervenes (the non physical relation) between physical concepts, especially when it can be shown that those very physical concepts permit the abstract concept to exist.
(For a simple explanation of Bell's Theorem, check out this article by Gary Felder.
Taylor, Raymond G (2008) Learning After the End of Knowledge: Instructional Technology in the Age of Interpretive Meaning. VDM Publishing:Saarbrucken Germany
Teller, Paul (1986) Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (Vol 37, No 1).
