BK. Ripple in field not particles. Particle is metaphor

Ah, yes — this is straight in Kastrup’s territory. Let me frame it clearly in his style of thinking:

1. 

Quantum Field

• In physics, a quantum field is the fundamental “substrate” — particles are seen as excitations or localized ripples in a field (e.g., electrons in the electron field, photons in the electromagnetic field).
• Kastrup reinterprets this within his analytic idealism: what physics calls “fields” are patterns of consciousness, not a mind-independent “stuff.”

2. 

Ripple vs. Things

• Ripple view:
  
• What we call “particles” or “things” are not standalone objects.
• They are temporary, localized excitations in the field — like ripples on water.
• The “field” itself is primary; the ripple has no independent existence.
• Thing view:
  
• Common-sense realism treats particles as tiny billiard balls that exist independently.
• Kastrup argues this is a misreading: physics itself undermines this view, since what we call “particles” only show up as events/manifestations, not enduring little marbles.

3. 

Kastrup’s Philosophical Move

• He uses the ripple metaphor to show how:
  
• Apparent “objects” in the world (tables, atoms, you, me) are appearances within mind’s field, not independent self-existing entities.
• Just as a ripple is nothing over and above the water’s motion, a “thing” is nothing over and above the field of consciousness taking shape.
• So, reality is not “made of things” but of processes/patterns in consciousness.

4. 

Implication

• Physics itself (quantum field theory) supports a process ontology — reality is dynamic, relational, and continuous, not a collection of solid blocks.
• Kastrup leverages this to argue for idealism:
  
• The “field” = universal consciousness (mind-at-large).
• The “ripples” = localized experiences, objects, and events.

✅ In short:

For Kastrup, quantum fields suggest that what we call “things” are really ripples — transient excitations in the underlying field of consciousness. Objects don’t exist as independent “stuff”; they are appearances of deeper mental processes.

Would you like me to sketch this out in a visual analogy (like a diagram showing field vs. ripple vs. observer) to make it easier to grasp intuitively?