A Proof Of God Using Quantum Physics

[itinerant1]

This quantitative “determination of being” exhausts the nature of physical reality.

I didn’t know you held to a Cartesian view of matter.

 

[itinerant1]

There were good historical reasons for the difference, but the distinction is still based on historical contingencies rather than the actual facts about the subjects.

And just what are, according to you, the actual facts about the subjects?

Yes, he was wrong about quantum mechanics. We physically tested his “EPR” thought experiment, and it came out exactly the way QM said it should (which Einstein had posed as a reductio ad absurdum). And no, QM neither teaches solipsism nor the position that science is not about the world. Please at least learn a little about the subject before pontificating about it.

Do you know why Einstein asked Bohr if he really thinks the moon only exists when he looks at it? If you know the answer, then you will have grasped something of the real problem with the Copenhagen school that Einstein was concerned about.

I have studied the so-called “philosophia perennis” (which is hardly perennial, since it only refers to the Hellenic tradition and the Islamo-Christian tradition that followed from it, while the vast majority of intellectual thought - Oriental, Byzantine, and post-medieval - has rejected it), and if I am confused about the methods of philosophy and you aren’t, then PLEASE tell me how it works. That’s not a difficult challenge. I’ve been making it for four years. Nobody seems to want to tell me, and I can only think it’s because scholasticism teaches them as little about the world as it teaches me.

Your statement is problematic. You said "I have studied the so-called “philosophia perennis”. Then you say you are “confused about the methods of philosophy.” How can you claim to have studied the philosophia perennis and yet not understand the methods of philosophy?

If you know anything about “the vast majority of intellectual thought - Oriental, Byzantine, and post-medieval” as you imply, then why have you been in the dark for four years?

Is it that you did not understand what you studied? Or, is it that you do not know what is meant by the *philosophia perennis? *Or, is it something else?

Yes you did. You said that you cannot see substances, that all you can see are accidents, and that they are an occult reality underlying accidents but which in and of themselves are unknowable.

Such a stark misrepresentation of what I said. You have equated physical “seeing” with “knowing”. However, knowing includes more than what can be physically seen. We can know or understand things that cannot be seen. Secondary substance is not unknowable, even though it is something that cannot be “seen”. And I never used the ambiguous expression “occult reality”.

What I said was that substances are things, which appear to us through appearances, are observed through observables, and known through accidents (three ways of saying the same thing). You said I was using the term “substance” incorrectly. How should I have used the term?

I should have made it clearer how I was using “substance”. I mistakenly assumed that since you were using the expression “determinations of being”, that you knew something about philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

Primary substance is neither asserted OF a subject nor present IN a subject because it IS the subject. Saying that secondary substance is asserted OF a subject is Aristotle’s way of saying what I would phrase as the plurality of substantial forms.

You can say that, but you would be wrong, and difficult to understand as to what you mean.

I wouldn’t separate form and matter as the two “parts” of a substance as Aristotle did, but rather say that a substance is formed matter. Form is something we can assert of a substance (as in when we say that object A is a B, where the predicate of the sentence is a noun [a substance] rather than an adjective [an accident]).

I guess you have not read much Aristotle, as he says matter never exists un-informed.

The immortality of the soul is an article of divine revelation; that is the only reason why I believe in it.

How is it, then, that philosophers have known about the spiritual nature of the soul without Revelation?

I am more interested in his physics than his biology, obviously, but keep in mind he also said that women have more teeth than men, and a number of other silly claims.

And scientists up until Einstein believed in the aether. Einstein had no use for the concept.

I don’t completely remember the details since it was 8 years ago at the American Chesterton Society’s annual conference, but what he was given a hard time about had something to do with the empirical foundation of evolutionary theory, which he had minimized.

Then there is nothing to discuss here. You commented about Jaki, yet you cannot show that you know much at all, if anything, about his ideas. So what was your point, if you even had one?

And why is it that you said you disagree with Chesterton’s observations on evolution, which I had mentioned. Are you just gratuitously denying things you don’t know anything about? I look forward to hearing the reasons for your disagreement, even though I suspect you cannot give a reasoned and informed answer.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes, he was wrong about quantum mechanics. We physically tested his “EPR” thought experiment, and it came out exactly the way QM said it should (which Einstein had posed as a reductio ad absurdum). And no, QM neither teaches solipsism nor the position that science is not about the world. Please at least learn a little about the subject before pontificating about it.

Tell me, do you understand what “causality” is? In your view, does causality exist in the real world?

After you answer the aformentioned questions, we will move on to discuss solipsism and the Copenhagen school of QM position that science is not about the real world.

 

[Cecilianus]

The first sentence is fine, though as we will see in one of my next posts, it must be qualified, because that view, unfortunately, is not shared by all physicists.

I would ask such scientists why they bother doing what they do, if they’re not describing reality.

However, your second sentence is unsupported and unsupportable. But you are welcome to attempt a justification of your opinion. Opinion that remains without supporting evidence or argument, especially when challenged, is without merit.

I think I’ve been having trouble expressing this clearly. Regarding the subject matter, both natural philosophy and science study the same thing. Therefore they should not be separated from each other. There should not be multiple and competing sciences of the same thing, since as Aquinas says if my memory serves me correctly - might have been from his commentary on Boethius - sciences are distinguished by their matter. The fact that we have both natural philosophy and modern science is because of history - philosophy developed first, and gave a very expansive, broad “theory of everything”. When natural philosophy was formulated we did not have the mathematical tools we needed even to solve very basic problems like Zeno’s paradoxes (which calculus has disposed of quite easily). Modern science was first distinguished from natural philosophy by its mathematical approach and its more humble initial goals - to solve the problem of local motion, which is all that the English language means by “motion” now - and was carried out by different people than natural philosophy was. Hence the unfortunate divergence.

 

[Cecilianus]

I didn’t know you held to a Cartesian view of matter.

When I say “physical reality” I mean purely physical - that is, non-living - matter. And yes, I hold a very Cartesian view of dead matter, as probably do you. I am not a New Agey panpsychist.

 

[Cecilianus]

Do you know why Einstein asked Bohr if he really thinks the moon only exists when he looks at it? If you know the answer, then you will have grasped something of the real problem with the Copenhagen school that Einstein was concerned about.

This is only a problem if you think, as I explained earlier, that somehow the moon is only a packet of observations. Quantum mechanics basically says that observables are only determined when they are observed, which as shocking as it is is really a tautology. It says nothing about unobserved reality. The moon is still there.

Your statement is problematic. You said "I have studied the so-called “philosophia perennis”. Then you say you are “confused about the methods of philosophy.” How can you claim to have studied the philosophia perennis and yet not understand the methods of philosophy?

If you know anything about “the vast majority of intellectual thought - Oriental, Byzantine, and post-medieval” as you imply, then why have you been in the dark for four years?

Is it that you did not understand what you studied? Or, is it that you do not know what is meant by the *philosophia perennis? *Or, is it something else?

I said “IF I am confused about the methods of philosophy”. And studying other schools of philosophy - such as logical positivism - has not immediately helped me understand scholasticism. Actually, in all honesty, what has helped me understand Aquinas the most has been Heidegger and the Upanisads, but it will take me many years before I become comfortable with the scholastic worldview, at least so long as I am working on my own.

 

[Cecilianus]

I guess you have not read much Aristotle, as he says matter never exists un-informed.

But he DOES say that it can be conceived of as “prime matter” - which I strongly reject.

How is it, then, that philosophers have known about the spiritual nature of the soul without Revelation?

One might as well argue how did they know about the Holy Trinity without Revelation, as Plotinus did? (To be sure, it was not exactly the Christian Trinity in its Athanasian orthodoxy - but then the Platonists also thought we were ghosts in machines, so they didn’t have the body-soul relationship right either.)

I don’t know. I cannot deduce the existence of the soul from reason. Hindus reached the existence of something - atman - through obsessive inwardness, though what atman is I do not know yet. But Buddhists, who were equally inward, came to Hume’s notion of the non-existence of the self (an-atman).

Then there is nothing to discuss here. You commented about Jaki, yet you cannot show that you know much at all, if anything, about his ideas. So what was your point, if you even had one?

My point is that not all scientists would regard him as an authority.

And why is it that you said you disagree with Chesterton’s observations on evolution, which I had mentioned. Are you just gratuitously denying things you don’t know anything about? I look forward to hearing the reasons for your disagreement, even though I suspect you cannot give a reasoned and informed answer.

My disagreement with Chesterton is that he thought evolution false without thinking he needed to give a scientific argument against it.

 

[Cecilianus]

Tell me, do you understand what “causality” is? In your view, does causality exist in the real world?

After you answer the aformentioned questions, we will move on to discuss solipsism and the Copenhagen school of QM position that science is not about the real world.

I think that “efficient causality” is a very good approximation. At the quantum level, there is no efficient causality in a deterministic sense - events are probabalistic rather than mechanistic - but at the macroscopic level the wavefunctions collapse to almost perfect certitude, the effect being efficient causality. Efficient causality is when there is a 100% chance of an event occurring after another. This is not how Aristotle viewed efficient causality, but you are not questioning me on my comprehension of Aristotle’s opinions, but rather on the reality of efficient causality itself.

 

[itinerant1]

I think that “efficient causality” is a very good approximation. At the quantum level, there is no efficient causality in a deterministic sense - events are probabalistic rather than mechanistic - but at the macroscopic level the wavefunctions collapse to almost perfect certitude, the effect being efficient causality. Efficient causality is when there is a 100% chance of an event occurring after another. This is not how Aristotle viewed efficient causality, but you are not questioning me on my comprehension of Aristotle’s opinions, but rather on the reality of efficient causality itself.

Well, what is conceived as occuring at the quantum level has direct implications for the macro level. Heisenberg claimed that he had conclusively disproved the notion of causality. (Any distinction as to quantum or macro level makes no difference here.)

What cannot be measured precisely does not occur precisely, was his interpretation of quantumn events. An operational or principle was taken to imply an ontological principle.

Actually, much prior to the formulation of the uncertainty principle there was a philosophical motive for Heisenberg, et al. to disprove causality altogether. He thought he finally found it.

The Copenhagen school was very much aware of the implications of this for the macro level, both in regard to knowledge in general, and the cosmos itself.

To say that events are probabalistic at the quantum level is an observational limitation. To say that this observational limitation means the absence of causality at the ontological level is poor logic, poor philosophy, and poor science…

I will later discuss the Copenhagen school’s consequent solipsism, which necessarily follows from its philosophy of QM. The moon only collapses into reality when it is being viewed. We cannot know, acording to Neils Bohr, that it has independent existence. Einstein was very disturbed by this nonsense. And I will pull up some quotes from Bohr that are rather shocking.

 

[itinerant1]

But he DOES say that it can be conceived of as “prime matter” - which I strongly reject.

Hmm! Do you know why Aristotle distinguishes “prime matter”?

 

[itinerant1]

My disagreement with Chesterton is that he thought evolution false without thinking he needed to give a scientific argument against it.

Chesterton did not think evolution was necessarily false. Not sure where you got your info.

 

[itinerant1]

One might as well argue how did they know about the Holy Trinity without Revelation, as Plotinus did? (To be sure, it was not exactly the Christian Trinity in its Athanasian orthodoxy - but then the Platonists also thought we were ghosts in machines, so they didn’t have the body-soul relationship right either.)

I don’t know. I cannot deduce the existence of the soul from reason. Hindus reached the existence of something - atman - through obsessive inwardness, though what atman is I do not know yet. But Buddhists, who were equally inward, came to Hume’s notion of the non-existence of the self (an-atman).

That is a misreading of Plotinus.

It is not to the point that Plato was an extreme dualist, but that he knew the soul was a spiritual entity.

The spiritual nature of the soul can be demonstrated from philosophical analysis.

My point is that not all scientists would regard him as an authority.

That speaks well for Jaki. He must have done something right.

 

[itinerant1]

When I say “physical reality” I mean purely physical - that is, non-living - matter. And yes, I hold a very Cartesian view of dead matter, as probably do you. I am not a New Agey panpsychist.

No, I do not hold to the Cartesian view of matter.

 

[Cecilianus]

Well, what is conceived as occuring at the quantum level has direct implications for the macro level. Heisenberg claimed that he had conclusively disproved the notion of causality. (Any distinction as to quantum or macro level makes no difference here.)

What cannot be measured precisely does not occur precisely, was his interpretation of quantumn events. An operational or principle was taken to imply an ontological principle.

Actually, much prior to the formulation of the uncertainty principle there was a philosophical motive for Heisenberg, et al. to disprove causality altogether. He thought he finally found it.

The Copenhagen school was very much aware of the implications of this for the macro level, both in regard to knowledge in general, and the cosmos itself.

To say that events are probabalistic at the quantum level is an observational limitation. To say that this observational limitation means the absence of causality at the ontological level is poor logic, poor philosophy, and poor science…

I will later discuss the Copenhagen school’s consequent solipsism, which necessarily follows from its philosophy of QM. The moon only collapses into reality when it is being viewed. We cannot know, acording to Neils Bohr, that it has independent existence. Einstein was very disturbed by this nonsense. And I will pull up some quotes from Bohr that are rather shocking.

It is NOT an observational limitation; as I said before Bell’s Theorem definitively ruled out the ontological possibility of hidden variables, using a proof by contradiction. And solipsism is NOT a necessary consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[itinerant1]

I think I’ve been having trouble expressing this clearly. Regarding the subject matter, both natural philosophy and science study the same thing. Therefore they should not be separated from each other. There should not be multiple and competing sciences of the same thing, since as Aquinas says if my memory serves me correctly - might have been from his commentary on Boethius - sciences are distinguished by their matter. The fact that we have both natural philosophy and modern science is because of history - philosophy developed first, and gave a very expansive, broad “theory of everything”. When natural philosophy was formulated we did not have the mathematical tools we needed even to solve very basic problems like Zeno’s paradoxes (which calculus has disposed of quite easily). Modern science was first distinguished from natural philosophy by its mathematical approach and its more humble initial goals - to solve the problem of local motion, which is all that the English language means by “motion” now - and was carried out by different people than natural philosophy was. Hence the unfortunate divergence.

The fundamental consideration that is missing here is what is called the formal object of philosophy. I mentioned this earlier. Philosophy has potentially everything in the cosmos as its subject matter, or material object, so its subject matter overlaps with the natural sciences.

Philosophy, though, in regard to its formal object, the aspect under which it considers things, differs from the formal object of the natural sciences. Science studies what are called proximate causes. Philosophy studies ultimate causes.

For example philosophy treats of final causes in its explanations of nature. None of the particular sciences deal with final causes. The primary thing that gave the natural sciences their wings was its separation from philosophy and having to deal with final causality as an explanation.

Also, philosophy is characterized as general experience. Science, though, is special experience. It’s formulates hypotheses, sets up experiments to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. Philosophy does none of this.

 

[Cecilianus]

The fundamental consideration that is missing here is what is called the formal object of philosophy. I mentioned this earlier. Philosophy has potentially everything in the cosmos as its subject matter, or material object, so its subject matter overlaps with the natural sciences.

Philosophy, though, in regard to its formal object, the aspect under which it considers things, differs from the formal object of the natural sciences. Science studies what are called proximate causes. Philosophy studies ultimate causes.

For example philosophy treats of final causes in its explanations of nature. None of the particular sciences deal with final causes. The primary thing that gave the natural sciences their wings was its separation from philosophy and having to deal with final causality as an explanation.

Also, philosophy is characterized as general experience. Science, though, is special experience. It’s formulates hypotheses, sets up experiments to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. Philosophy does none of this.

And the difference between you and I is I don’t believe in either any of these “final causes” or your “ultimate causes” - and scholastic philosophy meddles plenty in the discussion of “proximate causes”. There are simply no final causes in the non-living physical world, and I see no reason to believe in or intelligible content to the term “ultimate causes”.

 

[Anselm33]

The fundamental consideration that is missing here is what is called the formal object of philosophy. I mentioned this earlier. Philosophy has potentially everything in the cosmos as its subject matter, or material object, so its subject matter overlaps with the natural sciences.

thank you both, itinerant1 and cecilianus, for your thoughts on this.

 

[itinerant1]

It is NOT an observational limitation; as I said before Bell’s Theorem definitively ruled out the ontological possibility of hidden variables, using a proof by contradiction. And solipsism is NOT a necessary consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation.

This does not address the problem of the elimination of causality, not in the science per se of QM, but in the Copenhagen interpretation or philosophy of QM.

As to solipsism, we shall look at a few facts.

Historically, Einstein and few other prominent physicists deplored the “dangerous game” which the “Copenhagen people” were playing with reality. (See “Letters on Wave Mechanics: Shrodinger, Planck, Einstein, Lorentz”)

H.J. Fose, in his work “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complimentarity” makes a concerted attempt to rescue Bohr from the charge of being a sheer phenomenologist, totally unconcerned about ontological reality as existing independently of the observer. Fose was forced to conclude “Unfortunately, Bohr never makes clear in what sense we can have knowledge of the reality that causes our experiences.” As we shall see further on, Fose dramatically understated the problem.

As previously mentioned, Heisenberg claimed to have disproved the notion of causality, saying in this regard “The invalidity or at least the meaninglessness of the law of causality seems to be firmly established through recent developments in atomic physics”; and that “the resolution of the paradoxes of atomic physics can be accomplished ony by further renunciation of old and cherished ideas. Most important of these is the idea that natural phenomena obey exact laws–the principle of causality.”

Physicists who had held to either the Machist or Kantian notion of causality had no qualms about Heiseberg’s repudiation of causality in terms of the uncertainty relation. But Planck, for one sensed that the Machist notion of science threatens confidence in the reality of a causally interconnected universe.

This was the temper of the times, with Einstein maintaining a defense of reality in a debate with Max Born that carried on for three decades.

The story gets stranger as physicists like E.P. Tyron claimed that according to QM, any small system with a very small net energy can “appear from nothing” exist for a brief moment and disappear. “These ‘virtual particles’, or quantum fluctuations, are observed in the laboratory and appear spontaneously throughout space and time.”

Contrary to Tyron’s assertion, no particles insofar as they are “virutal” have ever been observed anywhere, much less emerge “spontaneously” all the time. Tyron is a good example of a physicist out of touch with reality, thanks to the elimination of causality. Tyron went on to explain, in line with his view that there is no limit to the size of quantum fluctuations, and so entire universes can create themselves.

A.H. Guth believed physics was on the road to the possibility of a man-made universe.

Oh yes, back to Neils Bohr. Bohr abolished the ontological reality of the universe itself. Bohr finally spilled the beans, saying “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
(Quoted in A. petersen, “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr,” in A.P. French and P.J. Kennedy, “Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume”; Harvard U.P.)

In other words, according to Bohr, physics is not about the real world. The logical implication of the Copenhagen philosophy of QM was followed through by Bohr --human language is deprived of real objects and thus communicable meaning. In other words, it ends in solipsism.

Oh, the “dangerous game” which the “Copenhagen people” played with reality.

QED

 

[itinerant1]

And the difference between you and I is I don’t believe in either any of these “final causes” or your “ultimate causes” - and scholastic philosophy meddles plenty in the discussion of “proximate causes”. There are simply no final causes in the non-living physical world, and I see no reason to believe in or intelligible content to the term “ultimate causes”.

No wonder philosophers do not talk with you. It’s called “attitude”.

Consequently, by implication of your denials, there is no “purpose” in the universe. You have stripped it of intelligibility and meaning. It’s a cold world you live in.