Aquinas and Modern Physics

[AlNg]

Yup, crazy…right?

I like the statistical interpretation of QM. In statistics, the observer interferes with the statistical model of reality, but not reality itself. Toss a die and put a hat over it. The probability that it is an ace is 1/6, Now remove the hat and you see it is an ace. Then the probability it is an ace is 100%.Your observation has changed the statistics of the real situation but not the real situation itself.

 

[lelinator]

OK… at this point, @lelinator, I’ve gotta ask you: how do you define a “quantum field”?

Here’s a recent video that gives a very clear explanation of QM, at least as Hugh Everett interpreted it.

The tendency for you will probably be that when he gets towards the latter half of the video, and begins talking about fields, you’ll completely forget what he was talking about before that. In that the field itself is quantum mechanical. It only has a specific state when you observe it. Before that, and even after that, it exists in every possible state. It never actually changes. If it did, then Everett’s interpretation wouldn’t work, because your observation would collapse the field, and all the other branches of reality would no longer be possible.

So the field is quantum. It exists in every possible state, and the observer sees only one of those possible states. Multiple observations would subsequently reveal that the field fluctuates, although the underlying quantum field never actually changes. What you see as an observer, changes in a predictable manner, but the underlying field never changes at all.

Thus the field gives rise to everything that could ever possibly exist. And yet the field itself never changes.

Do you include consciousness, intent, free will, having no extension, and immutability as part of a quantum field?

There’s actually a way to imagine that the field does in some sense have intent, but interpreting it as consciousness might be a bit of a stretch. But I’m not saying that it isn’t possible. As for the field having extension in time and and space, it doesn’t…it simply gives rise to what we perceive as time and space.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Do you include consciousness, intent, free will, having no extension, and immutability as part of a quantum field?

There’s actually a way to imagine that the field does in some sense have intent, but interpreting it as consciousness might be a bit of a stretch. But I’m not saying that it isn’t possible. As for the field having extension in time and and space, it doesn’t…it simply gives rise to what we perceive as time and space.

It seems disingenuous to claim quantum fields have no extension across space since one can partition up a quantum field by what space it covers, but regardless, the point is either (1) you’re describing a being with the same divine attributes I hold are necessary (eternal, immutable, one, simple, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, etc…) and so are a monotheist like me, or (2) you’re defining something which has attributes incompatible with being a first cause and so is not a possible explanation as to where the buck stops. At least from my perspective as a Thomist. It must be either one or the other.

 

[Wesrock]

At least, the notion that a quantum field fits the cosmological arguments as well as a monotheistic God does misses the point, for the QF would have to have all of the divine attributes of the monotheistic God as the arguments show or not fit the bill to begin with.

 

[lelinator]

At least, the notion that a quantum field fits the cosmological arguments as well as a monotheistic God does misses the point, for the QF would have to have all of the divine attributes of the monotheistic God as the arguments show or not fit the bill to begin with.

I do believe that there’s a logical explanation for all of the issues you’ve raised, unfortunately I’m lacking one very important thing… time. You’ll need to have a bit of patience, sorry.

I will admit one thing however, you may be right, QM may simply be describing the attributes of God. It can’t actually be said that it’s disproving the existence of God at all.

 

[Gorgias]

…Patiently waiting for Freddy to get back from suspension.

umm… ok? Does he define on your behalf what a quantum field is?

It is not physical, but it is literal.

Fair enough, but that goes to my point. You’re trying to define it in physical terms… and when you’re challenged on that point, your best defense is “well… ok; not physical.”

I do believe that there’s a logical explanation for all of the issues you’ve raised, unfortunately I’m lacking one very important thing… time.

Lol! This from the guy who, when asked what a quantum field is, responds by citing a one-hour-long youtube video?!?

(To be fair, I’m still working my way through that video, hoping that there’s a workable answer there.)

 

[rom]

That’s all great stuff @rom, but it could be deduced from those nine premises that God is simply a quantum field, with no consciousness, intent, or free will.

Please show me how you made your deduction from my nine paragraphs.

A quantum field, indeed, has no consciousness, intent or free will, which is why it could not possibly be God. Besides, a quantum field is only a model of material reality, but is itself not necessarily real. God, on the contrary, is real; indeed, He is the source of everything else that is real. How you identified God with a quantum field is beyond me.

Now here is my 2 cents on the “quantum field”.

Material bodies are definitely real. And they are divisible into smaller pieces of matter. But when you get down to the atomic and sub-atomic realm, it is no longer easy to picture or see what sort of thing basic “matter” really is. So, physicists began to utilize models. In the beginning some physicists thought that matter consisted merely of particles. Well, that is one model of matter. However, later physicists discovered that particles are further divisible into smaller particles, and that they generate their own fields: gravitational field, electromagnetic field, nuclear fields (‘strong’ and ‘weak’). Thus, they developed a second model of matter that consisted, not exclusively of particles, but of particles and fields.

If you thought that the particle + field model was the final word on the subject, you would be wrong. In this model the particles were thought of as generating the fields. But new models of matter have been proposed where there are only fields, and the so-called “particles” are regarded as fluctuations of the quantum field, very much like ripples in a pond of water. This occurs, for example, due to the interaction between an electromagnetic field and the electron field.

So, is the “quantum field” something physical that we can equate with matter? I’m afraid not. Like the “field” in classical physics, the quantum field refers to the value of a particular quantity (such as force, energy, momentum, etc.) at any point in spacetime, although a quantum operator is applied to calculate this value. However, it is nothing physical like a baseball field or a pond of water. The so-called “field” is a mathematical entity. Look, for example, at the Schrödinger field, which is imagined to be spread out in space, and whose value at any point is the probability for an interaction (or electron) to occur at that point. Probability is not something physical or tangible. At first the “particles” of physics used to denote something real that make up basic matter. But matter in the new quantum mechanics has been de-materialized and largely mathematized. Notwithstanding the great success of quantum mechanics in describing and predicting physical phenomena, it is a mistake to assign an ontological status to this new model of material reality.

 

[rom]

Time and distance are both mental constructs to describe the world; if there is no 4d there is no 3d either.

Of course there is a 3D world because our world is a 3D world. Just go inside your room, and you can see its width, its length and its height. That is 3D. But in the 4D world of spacetime you cannot see the timeline. The reason is because the past no longer is; and the future is not yet. So, all you can see is one point in the timeline, and that is the present time. The time axis does not exist except in the mind. Of course, our world exists in time, at t = now. And, just as a circle is a normal cross-section of a right circular cylinder, so you can think of the present world as a “cross-section” of the imaginary spacetime world at the instant t = now.

God before time. You say Yes, then argue for not saying it, so I have no idea what you mean.

I never said “God before time” in my seventh paragraph. I said that it is ok to say that “God existed before the world,” and I quickly qualified that to mean, not before the world in time, but before the world in being or existence. It is an ontological priority, not a temporal priority.

 

[lelinator]

Lol! This from the guy who, when asked what a quantum field is, responds by citing a one-hour-long youtube video?!?

Okay, Freddy should be back in less than a week.

In the meantime, let me see if I can help you out. You’re probably envisioning a quantum field incorrectly. Which is understandable because most videos about fields show them as a 2D plane. They’re just easy to visualize that way. And it is an accurate description of the world around you. But the quantum field isn’t actually a 2D field, or even a 3D field, it’s at least a 4D field. And within that field the waves aren’t actually localized, they’re spread out across all of space and time. They’re everywhere, and every when. And the same is true for every single particle in the universe, they’re all everywhere and every when. It’s only when you observe them that they become localized. And it’s only when you observe them that that 2D picture becomes applicable.

Take a photon emitted from a source for example. It takes every possible path through space and time. Now imagine every single particle that has ever possibly existed, or ever will possibly exist doing the exact same thing, now you’ve got a more accurate picture of a quantum field. It contains everything that could ever possibly exist, all existing in the same place, at the same time.

 

[Arnold_Cummings]

If anyone ever tries to tell you that Science and religion are not compatible, do not believe them. Not only were many early Physicists Christians but also many of the founders of Quantum theory. As Werner Heisenberg the, 1932 nobel prize winner and the man who discovered the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal, said, " The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Unfortunately, many people don’t drink much of the glass. Also if you want a modern philosopher who speaks on this subject visit. He also has a book “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried Religion?” I have listened to multiple talks by him. He is smart and easy to understand and even worked at Cambridge at the same time as Stephen Hawking, whose theories he addresses in his book. God bless you.

 

[IWantGod]

Notwithstanding the great success of quantum mechanics in describing and predicting physical phenomena, it is a mistake to assign an ontological status to this new model of material reality.

If this is the case (i’m not challenging this view as i am not a scientist my self) , any idea as to why it works so well in explaining physical effects? What is it’s value causally speaking if it has no ontology?

 

[Dovekin]

John Lennox

Is this what you wanted us to visit?

 

[Gorgias]

In the meantime, let me see if I can help you out. You’re probably envisioning a quantum field incorrectly.

Nope. I think I have a handle on it that’s sufficient for this conversation.

Your description of a quantum field still limits it to the created universe. That’s not what God is: He’s not a feature of the universe.

When you hear someone say “God is everywhere”, if you misunderstand them to mean that God is only in the universe, then I guess I’d see why you claim that a quantum field is functionally equivalent to God. That perception misunderstands the nature of God, though.

 

[rom]

If this is the case ( i’m not challenging this view as i am not a scientist my self ) , any idea as to why it works so well in explaining physical effects? What is it’s value causally speaking if it has no ontology?

This is a good question. I will respond to it when I come back on the 28th. I’m going away for the holiday. Merry Christmas, everybody!!!

 

[rom]

f this is the case ( i’m not challenging this view as i am not a scientist my self ) , any idea as to why it works so well in explaining physical effects? What is it’s value causally speaking if it has no ontology?

Some sciences use real, physical models in studying behavior. For example, biology uses mice or other animals as physical models to see how humans would react under certain conditions. Other sciences, such as economics, often use mathematical models in predicting price fluctuations, capital growth, etc.

In the beginning physicists also used physical models in studying atoms and their behavior. For example, Niehls Bohr thought of the atom as a miniature solar system with planetary electrons revolving around the nucleus. However, due to the particle-wave duality of matter, physicists today lean more toward a mathematical rather than a physical model of the atom.

Physicists don’t know exactly what the electron looks like, or whether it has any shape at all. How can you choose a physical model for something like that? Also, the electron has no counterpart outside the subatomic world. In the larger world outside the atom real particles travel with a definite trajectory. But this cannot be said of the electron, which seem to be spread out in space with varying probability. Physicists don’t know where an electron is when it travels in space. All they have is a mathematical model - the Schroedinger wave equation - by which they could calculate the probability of finding an electron at any particular point in spacetime.

In 1925 Werner Heisenberg and two other physicists also developed an alternative mathematical system of “matrix mechanics,” which is formally equivalent to the Scroedinger’s equation. In either case the originally solid electron “particle” of the Bohr model has now vanished and is replaced by a cloud of probability that physicists use to predict its position, momentum, energy, and a host of other properties.

But why is quantum mechanics so successful in predicting physical effects if the elements (“particles” and “fields”) of the theory aren’t physically real? Answer: Because the math works! The mathematical underpinnings of the theory are sound.

You also asked: what is the value of quantum mechanics causally speaking if it has no ontology? Answer: There IS an ontological cause for physical effects; however, it is not the model. There is a real world inside the atom that cannot be observed directly, and that is what is causing these physical effects. The value of quantum mechanics lies in its ability to mathematically predict the effects of this unobservable real cause, but the model it uses is not the real cause.

The elements of quantum mechanics - such as the photon, the electron, the quarks, and all the elementary particles - are just mathematical models. They do not exist as real entities, but as conceptual tools for setting up the equations that describe physical phenomena. In fact, physicists recently revised their models and started thinking of their “particles” as quantized fields. This cannot be done if the models were real particles.

 

[mblet]

I completely agree with you !

 

[lelinator]

IWantGod:

I don’t think it is even possible for science to either discover or in principle conceive of a theory about the universe that would invalidate metaphysics.

I think the problem with modern criticisms of Thomism and Aristotle today is that their metaphysics is treated like an alternative scientific theory of the universe; and because God is a consequent it is perceived as a controversial subject. In other-words it is presumed to be wrong from the outset or not something to be taken seriously.

I completely agree with you !

However, one shouldn’t forget that to Aristotle metaphysics was secondary to physics, and not the other way around. Unfortunately, a number of the premises upon which metaphysicists base their arguments are simply wrong, something that Aristotle would most certainly acknowledge, but which Thomists are completely unwilling to accept.

Biases are almost impossible to overcome.

 

[STT]

However, one shouldn’t forget that to Aristotle metaphysics was secondary to physics, and not the other way around. Unfortunately, a number of the premises upon which metaphysicists base their arguments are simply wrong, something that Aristotle would most certainly acknowledge, but which Thomists are completely unwilling to accept.

Biases are almost impossible to overcome.

Could you please give an example?

 

[mblet]

It’s not quite obvious from what I read… Have you tried Ed Feser’s “Aristotle’s revenge” or “What is physics?” by Nigel Cundy, to quote the two most recent I read on that matter…
What exactly seems outdated in Aristotle’s metaphysics, exactly ?