God, the Observer, continually creates the universe!

[JDaniel]

I know your not speaking to me and others Anselm, but your going to love this post. you know, your right about quantum. I spoke to my brother and he told me no, he never gave up quantum maths and physics because it was useless, but because of circumstances when literature became more interesting to him. He said no quantum, no chemestry, etc. So, I really do stand corrected and am blushing at my false concept arising from a quip made by my brainy brother more that 30 years ago. My apologies to all for making such a fool of myself.

Cassini:

You’re forgiven!

But, it sounded good.

God bless you,
jd

 

[sinnerdexter]

that’s not science, that’s just jumping to conclusions without evidence. also known as pseudoscience.
Anselm33;7103856:

are you saying that Chiao’s nice quantum eraser and delayed choice experiments aren’t science? I’d disagree. If you’re saying his interpretation of the results isn’t “science” I’d agree, I’d call it philosophy or theology (and in his article, which I assume you haven’t read) he puts those conclusions under a “philosophy” and “theology” heading. Using the term “pseudo-science” is a pejorative, loaded criticism, because it implies his science is bad. You may disagree with his philosophical and theological interpretations (I find them interesting if not totally convincing), which you’re perfectly free to do, but let’s be discriminating in your criticisms.

Maybe it is similar to, without evidence, assuming that there is a material explanation for events including the beginning of the universe and life in it.

 

[Tuno]

Anselm33~ re your post #10 in this thread: Thank you. I was looking for the appropriate words; you supplied them with that link. Sometimes you sound like a non dualist, i.e. an actual Catholic.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Anselm33~ re your post #10 in this thread: Thank you. I was looking for the appropriate words; you supplied them with that link. Sometimes you sound like a non dualist, i.e. an actual Catholic.

Anselm33 have hit the nail directly on the head.

The term “invincible ignorance” has its roots in Catholic theology, opposite of the term vincible ignorance, where it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The earliest use of the term seems to have been by Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur (1863), although discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen. When and how the term was taken by logicians to refer to the state of persons who pigheadedly refuse to attend to evidence remains unclear, but one of its first uses was in the book Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument by W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther.[2]

 

[Anselm33]

I know your not speaking to me and others Anselm, but your going to love this post. you know, your right about quantum. I spoke to my brother and he told me no, he never gave up quantum maths and physics because it was useless, but because of circumstances when literature became more interesting to him. He said no quantum, no chemestry, etc. So, I really do stand corrected and am blushing at my false concept arising from a quip made by my brainy brother more that 30 years ago. My apologies to all for making such a fool of myself.

I’m not not speaking to you (if you can figure out that double negative), but I’m not going to debate with you or your fellow geocentrists/young earth advocates, for the reasons explained in the link in post #10. That being said, you’ve done a fine thing admitting your mistatement about your brother’s career. Soldier on, dude!

 

[sinnerdexter]

One of the most interesting aspects of quantum mechanics is that while the mathematics provides accurate and reliable descriptions of what happens, QM does not provide explanations for causation. QM is not able to explain why these events occur the way they do. It is a science that does not provide for comprehension of cause.

 

[Tuno]

The only adequate explanation for what we argue about and casually name “cause” is in the words of the non dualists. My favorite in terms of scholarly work is Franklin Merrell-Wolff, and in terms of stream of Consciousness both Byron Katie and Jac O’Keefe. They are all contemporary, but one can go back, say, to Sankara, or before. Or Jesus.

 

[Liinus]

There is an interesting report by Raymond Ciao in “Quantum Mechanics–Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action” (Vatican Observatory Publications) on the quantum eraser/delayed choice experiments his group carried out at Berkeley. Effectively, the observer, by his choice of experimental arrangement, can go backwards in time to effect particle paths. Ciao interprets his results as “In this viewpoint, every elementary, individual quantum event… is a result of the creative act of the universal Observer, in which all properties of all particles come into existence upon their observation, in continual acts of creatio ex nihilo, which constitutes a kind of creatio continua occurring everywhere at once.” He says explicitly that the results of his experiments have led him to a neo-Berkeleyan perspective and a deeper faith.

Sounds pretty deep. Not enough info here to make any judgements. Looks like it might be worth reading. I wonder if the publications are available to the public on line ?

 

[Liinus]

Activity and creating are not the same thing.

Miss Paula Haigh, Thomist scholar explains:
The Thomistlc relation of creation gives no support to a theory of continuous creation

St. Thomas says:

“Creation places something in the thing created according to relation only; because what is created is not made by movement or change. For what is made by movement or by change is made from something pre-existing. And this happens, indeed, in the particular productions of some beings, but cannot happen in the production of all beings by the universal cause of all things which is God. Hence God, by creation, produces things without movement. Now when movement is removed from action and passion, only relation remains. Hence, creation in the creature is only a certain relation to the Creator as to the principle of its being (its very existence). Nor is it necessary that as long as the creature is, it
should be created.” (ST, I, Q 45, a 3)

This Thomistic relation of creation, then, is nothing other than that radical and absolute dependence of every creature upon the Creator for its very existence. It is the passive aspect of that action of preservation whereby God, of necessity, “Does not preserve all things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them.” (ST, I, Q 104, a 3) And all creatures receive this gift of existence in a limited manner defined by their essence or nature. The relation of creation is analogous, in a faint manner, to the relation of the child to the parent that continues throughout time.

And so, the creation of all things in the beginning must be distinguished from the relation of creation which remains in the creature as a condition and state of radical dependence upon God and is a result of having been created, either 1) in the beginning during Creation Week, as is the case with all the corporeal kinds, or 2) at the moment of human conception when, it is assumed by most theologians today, the human soul is created directly and immediately by God in time but not in any way as a process of the temporal nature of time,

As St. Thomas asserts:

In the works of nature, creation does not enter but is presupposed. (ST, I, Q 45, a 8) The theory of “continuous creation” robs creatures of their own proper action as secondary causes or else it robs God of His proper Creative Action in the beginning, and so it is to be rejected as false.

Nice to see someone up on T.Q.

 

[Liinus]

This thread shows promise. I hope it doesn’t get bogged down chasing the red herrings , smoke bombs, and burried traps, and esoteric objections of the skeptic, the athiest, and the muddle headed. The important points to keep in mind are that God exists, He created the universe ( including purely spiritual beings), and He maintains all in existence. Futher, it is a dogma of the Faith that we can know with certainty that a personal God exists through His effects. And because not all men can see this or follow the arguements of philosophers, He has given us faith - He has revealed Himself and His Truth. And while Thomas Aquinas is a Saint, his philosophy has not been cannonized, although I hold it in high regard.

 

[Anselm33]

Sounds pretty deep. Not enough info here to make any judgements. Looks like it might be worth reading. I wonder if the publications are available to the public on line ?

Go to post #5 for a link to the abstract. The physics is pretty deep (quantum eraser and delayed choice experiments, but there are links to relatively simple explanations of those from a Google search). Not everyone agrees with Chiao’s interpretation, but that’s standard in qm. Results are precise, but interpretation is metaphysics.

 

[inocente]

Effectively, the observer, by his choice of experimental arrangement, can go backwards in time to effect particle paths. Ciao interprets his results as “In this viewpoint, every elementary, individual quantum event… is a result of the creative act of the universal Observer, in which all properties of all particles come into existence upon their observation, in continual acts of creatio ex nihilo, which constitutes a kind of creatio continua occurring everywhere at once.”

A universal observer must see all events before or at the same time as us. In my ignorance as a non-physicist, the only conclusions are either that the universal observer exists, or observation has nothing to do with anything. Up to now, I’d plump for the latter given Schrodinger’s cat, Wigner’s friend and so on. What say you?

 

[Tuno]

Again, the Rishis and the non dualists presage (heh, heh, ) physics in may of these matters. The problem with physics is that it is just starting to nibble at the edges of the impossibility of separating the observed from the observable, and this bond is where the perspective and standpoint of the non-dualists excels. It also is exceptionally useful in understanding mysticism and religiosity.

 

[Liinus]

There are a series of publications put out by the Vatican Observatory Publications and by the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, published by University of Notre Dame Press, on Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. They are the results of conferences, called by John Paul II,held at Castle Gondalfo (sp?), on various topics related to the general one cited above: (I"m quoting these from memory, so they may not be exact) “Philosophy, Theology and Physics”, “Evolution”, “Neurosciences (Brain and Soul?)”. “Quantum Cosmology”, “Quantum Mechanics”, among others. They give introductory and special papers by various experts in the field (not all of them Catholic). The one quoted in the first post is by Raymond Chiao, who was a professor of physics at U.C. Berkeley and has now moved to another University in the UC system, and was from the “Quantum Mechanics” volume.
here’s a link to a summary of the article:
ctns.org/books.html
Click on the “Quantum Mechanics” book icon, and then on the right hand frame “Chiao”
Glad you liked the post.

Found it and read it. Like Greek to me. Though going back in time seems far fetched to me. And of course I would never understand the math, theory, or experiments which Chiao provides to support it. Common sense tells me you can’t change a reality that took place prior to the present moment. Also, though I don’t understand T.Q. all that well either I would tend to agree with him that God does not engage in continual creation of existing reality. Though some how He must remain " engaged " by exercising some form of maintenance support. I don’t believe the Church has an official position, though I may be wrong.

 

[Anselm33]

A universal observer must see all events before or at the same time as us. In my ignorance as a non-physicist, the only conclusions are either that the universal observer exists, or observation has nothing to do with anything. Up to now, I’d plump for the latter given Schrodinger’s cat, Wigner’s friend and so on. What say you?

I’m not sure I take a neo-Berkeleyan interpretation of the results, although I’m not sure what other interpretation to put on them. However, I wouldn’t say that that observation has nothing to do with anything. If the only alternative is the universal Observer, then I’d opt for that. Now there is still another interpretation. Wheeler, who first proposed the delayed choice experiment as a Gedanken experiment, used this as part of a “Participatory Anthropic Principle”, that by observing into the past (for us observing, say a star one billion light years away) we created the past, That is to say the universe exists (and the past evidence of it exists) because we have observed it. And that’s about as strange as it gets.

 

[Anselm33]

Found it and read it. Like Greek to me. Though going back in time seems far fetched to me. And of course I would never understand the math, theory, or experiments which Chiao provides to support it. Common sense tells me you can’t change a reality that took place prior to the present moment. Also, though I don’t understand T.Q. all that well either I would tend to agree with him that God does not engage in continual creation of existing reality. Though some how He must remain " engaged " by exercising some form of maintenance support. I don’t believe the Church has an official position, though I may be wrong.

here’s a fairly straightforward and not-too-technical site on the double slit experiment and the quantum eraser:
homephysics.blogspot.com/2010/03/famous-double-slit-experiment-and-diy.html
There are quite a few more doing a Google search using the search term “quantum eraser”
And the Church does not have any doctrinal or dogmatic position on physics, including quantum mechanics, since nothing from the findings of physics contradicts dogma or doctrines of the Church.

 

[Liinus]

Activity and creating are not the same thing.

Miss Paula Haigh, Thomist scholar explains:
The Thomistlc relation of creation gives no support to a theory of continuous creation

St. Thomas says:

“Creation places something in the thing created according to relation only; because what is created is not made by movement or change. For what is made by movement or by change is made from something pre-existing. And this happens, indeed, in the particular productions of some beings, but cannot happen in the production of all beings by the universal cause of all things which is God. Hence God, by creation, produces things without movement. Now when movement is removed from action and passion, only relation remains. Hence, creation in the creature is only a certain relation to the Creator as to the principle of its being (its very existence). Nor is it necessary that as long as the creature is, it
should be created.” (ST, I, Q 45, a 3)

This Thomistic relation of creation, then, is nothing other than that radical and absolute dependence of every creature upon the Creator for its very existence. It is the passive aspect of that action of preservation whereby God, of necessity, “Does not preserve all things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them.” (ST, I, Q 104, a 3) And all creatures receive this gift of existence in a limited manner defined by their essence or nature. The relation of creation is analogous, in a faint manner, to the relation of the child to the parent that continues throughout time.

And so, the creation of all things in the beginning must be distinguished from the relation of creation which remains in the creature as a condition and state of radical dependence upon God and is a result of having been created, either 1) in the beginning during Creation Week, as is the case with all the corporeal kinds, or 2) at the moment of human conception when, it is assumed by most theologians today, the human soul is created directly and immediately by God in time but not in any way as a process of the temporal nature of time,

As St. Thomas asserts:

In the works of nature, creation does not enter but is presupposed. (ST, I, Q 45, a 8) The theory of “continuous creation” robs creatures of their own proper action as secondary causes or else it robs God of His proper Creative Action in the beginning, and so it is to be rejected as false.

I’m no expert on T.Q. However, St, 1, Q 45, a “…conservatio rerum a Deo non est per aliquam novam actionem sed per continuationem actionis qua dat esse…” or God does not conserve things ( in existence ) by any new action but by a continuation of that act by which he gave ( things ) their being ( their existence ). This quotation was used in support of Vatican 1’s dogmatic statement that God keeps all created things in existence. Continuing its explanation the Council said that "…if God by His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning they would fall back into nothingness immediately… " My source is Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott. I wonder why the Catholic Catechism didn’t go into more depth here and I wonder why one can’t find a copy of the proceedings of Vatican 1. I think the Church uses the term " Providence " to describe God’s continuous act of creation to distinguish the " initial " act of creation which, from God’s point of view would seem to be the same act. In other words, He creates and maintains creation by the same act. To me it doesn’t matter whether or not there are two separate actions involved or one and I’m sure all God cares about is that we praise Him for making us and the universe of things and for His providential action in keeping it all in existence and functioning.

 

[Liinus]

No. 37

Fr. John Hardon in his Catholic Catechism ( still the best Catechism in English as far as I am concerned ) has an excellent treatment of God’s creative act and His continued Providence in all of creation. See pgs 76-83. He makes clear that God’s creative act is continuous even for all the acts of the various individuals of all species. He cites Vatican 1 and various parts of Scripture and St. Augustine in support of this position.

 

[inocente]

Wheeler, who first proposed the delayed choice experiment as a Gedanken experiment, used this as part of a “Participatory Anthropic Principle”, that by observing into the past (for us observing, say a star one billion light years away) we created the past, That is to say the universe exists (and the past evidence of it exists) because we have observed it. And that’s about as strange as it gets.

That’s one of the reasons why I’d say observation has nothing to do with anything. When I learned the basics of QM, and I mean only the basics, we were taught that elementary particles are imaginary constructs used to further the math, and that wave/particle duality plus the absence of gravity from the theory pointed to some loose ends. That wasn’t to criticize QM and may have be bad teaching, but it left me with the impression that all current interpretations are more likely wrong than right.

On a different tack, there’s an entertaining one hour lecture for generalists (at an atheist conference, so keep your sense of humor) by Lawrence Krauss on cosmology (if you don’t want to watch it all, there’s an interesting aside for Catholics starting at minute 11). His conclusions are little more than turtles all the way down, preaching to his choir, but along the way he makes a reasonably convincing case that the energy in visible matter plus dark matter equals dark energy, hence the overall energy in the universe is and always has been zero. Thoughts?

 

[Tuno]

That’s one of the reasons why I’d say observation has nothing to do with anything. When I learned the basics of QM, and I mean only the basics, we were taught that elementary particles are imaginary constructs used to further the math, and that wave/particle duality plus the absence of gravity from the theory pointed to some loose ends. That wasn’t to criticize QM and may have be bad teaching, but it left me with the impression that all current interpretations are more likely wrong than right.

Science is teleological, so what it comes up with is useful insofar as it includes predictability. So if a model is constructed mathematically that can be used to predict events, it is useful to that extent, even if it is not complete in covering every instance. It just means it’s not done yet. The Universe being infinite, it is not likely that science will ever get it all on paper. It can’t, as the small container of mind can’t contain the Allness of God.

And since science deals in the subject/object quale of experience, there are areas it will never approach, except perhaps hypothetically or by inference. So while aspects of awareness play into science, Consciousness as Principle does not, with perhaps exceptions that are labeled as “energy” of different sorts, especially the cosmological constant.