New experiments on reality

[thinkandmull]

youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

This is the video that prompted my last post on my Leverage thread. The argument for the existence of God at the end of the video, though, seems to say that God is not all-knowing, so that is not what concerns me here.

The video cites 3s tudies that present problems for some of a Catholic’s usually accepted philosophical views. I want to know more about the *methodology *of the experiments though

It was said that the study “Nonlocal Hidden-Variable Theories and Quantum Mechanics: an incompatibility theorem” by A. J. Leggett in 2003 was falsified by Anton Zeilinger in the study “An experimental test of non-local realism” in 2007. The latter says there cannot be hidden variables that explain Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”. But by “hidden variables”, this appears to mean that God (or even Hindu’s Perusa or Spinoza’s God) can be ruled out as the hidden factor. Does this effect the argument that God could be behind the huge improbability that life started on this planet (with God the improbability disappears so that there was no true randomness involved)?

Also, two new studies now claim that Kant instead of Thomas Aquinas was right about reality; that is, we cannot know anything about the true nature of reality aside from how it appears. For Aquinas, the accidents tell us something about the substance. For Kant, the phenomena tells us nothing about the noumenon. The two studies were “Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system” in 2011, and especially “Quantum erasure with causally disconnect choice” from 2012.

I’ve asked some people into physics about the method and reasoning of the 3 relevant studies involved in these questions. They just said it “was subtle”. I am hoping we can flesh out these issues on this thread.
God bless

 

[MiserableSinner]

God is Love. Not knowledge.

Life and Love show God is real. Death also shows He is real.

Humans with finite brains are doing studies on what God created, examining it and saying “I think this means God is X Y or Z.” God is infinite. What finite human mind is going to outdo Him? He said we need Faith. If He wanted us to have “scientific knowledge” of His existence, He would have made it obvious. We wouldn’t need a certain level of technology. Science will always point to His existence because He IS. Someone’s interpretation might not, but the science surely does every time (provided it is real science and not evolution or the psychiatric DSM or some other high-sounding, no-proof “widely accepted science.”) But He still requires Faith. If someone wants knowledge instead of Faith, they probably would not believe even if they saw someone raised from the dead. They want to see God face-to-face. He said we need Faith.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Also, two new studies now claim that Kant instead of Thomas Aquinas was right about reality; that is, we cannot know anything about the true nature of reality aside from how it appears. For Aquinas, the accidents tell us something about the substance. For Kant, the phenomena tells us nothing about the noumenon. The two studies were “Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system” in 2011, and especially “Quantum erasure with causally disconnect choice” from 2012.

I think it is time for you to review both St. Thomas Aquinas’ and Kant’ philosophies. For Kant, in the phenomenon we certainly put something but something comes from the noumenon. To say that we don’t know the noumenon as it is in itself does not mean that we “know” nothing of it.

 

[thinkandmull]

I think it is time for you to review both St. Thomas Aquinas’ and Kant’ philosophies. For Kant, in the phenomenon we certainly put something but something comes from the noumenon. To say that we don’t know the noumenon as it is in itself does not mean that we “know” nothing of it.

I haven’t read anything Kant had to say about what the noumenon actually is like. From what I remember when I read the Critique of Pure Reason is that he thought we can only know it exists. This fits with the two new studies I mentioned. Are you saying that Kant’s noumenon is further out behind the scientific noumenon? I was thinking about substance in the Catholic sense. Perhaps it is something separate from the scientific noumenon

 

[thinkandmull]

Thomistic concept of “substance vs accident” starts with two principles, prime matter and form. Aquinas seems to say that being is added to them as they fuse together, but to be existing principles to start with they must have had existence before they bound together.

But is saying “had existence” precise etierh? How can a principle have existence attached to it, for then there would have been nothing to attach the existence to? So it is better to say the two principles* existed*, then latter existed together as one physical object. When scholastics say something is not its own being, it seems like they are saying that there is a thing and then its existence, but that in turn seems to say that the thing and its existence are two separate things. A thing exists.

When we say God is His existence we mean He is necessary.

Now, the substance of something projects (like a movie projector I imagine) the accidents into our frame of reference. So I think perhaps the “pure potentiality” noumenon that the scientists are now talking about is an aspect of the accidents.

I want to know more, still, about Anton Zeilinger’s study “An experimental test of non-local realism” (2007). How can he know there are no NON-LOCAL hidden variables? He seems to be ruling out even God by his methodology

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I haven’t read anything Kant had to say about what the noumenon actually is like. From what I remember when I read the Critique of Pure Reason is that he thought we can only know it exists. This fits with the two new studies I mentioned. Are you saying that Kant’s noumenon is further out behind the scientific noumenon? I was thinking about substance in the Catholic sense. Perhaps it is something separate from the scientific noumenon

But what would it mean for Kant that something exists, and how would we come to “know” that it does?

What does the smell of a rose or its color tell you about its substance, according to the scholastic notion?

And if you apply an apparatus to “scientifically” “measure” the color of the rose, what does this intermediation add or remove from your cognitive capacities?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Thomistic concept of “substance vs accident” starts with two principles, prime matter and form. Aquinas seems to say that being is added to them as they fuse together, but to be existing principles to start with they must have had existence before they bound together.

But is saying “had existence” precise etierh? How can a principle have existence attached to it, for then there would have been nothing to attach the existence to? So it is better to say the two principles* existed*, then latter existed together as one physical object. When scholastics say something is not its own being, it seems like they are saying that there is a thing and then its existence, but that in turn seems to say that the thing and its existence are two separate things. A thing exists.

When we say God is His existence we mean He is necessary.

Now, the substance of something projects (like a movie projector I imagine) the accidents into our frame of reference. So I think perhaps the “pure potentiality” noumenon that the scientists are now talking about is an aspect of the accidents.

I want to know more, still, about Anton Zeilinger’s study “An experimental test of non-local realism” (2007). How can he know there are no NON-LOCAL hidden variables? He seems to be ruling out even God by his methodology

Do you know any scientist who somehow “includes” God in his methodology?

 

[thinkandmull]

1. “But what would it mean for Kant that something exists, and how would we come to ‘know’ that it does?”

In answering idealists and Hume, Kant believe the perceived existence of sensed things requires a “thing in itself” to exist causing phenomena in between it and us

1. “What does the smell of a rose or its color tell you about its substance, according to the scholastic notion?”

The substance according them them is beyond the accidents, but everything in the accidents reflects something about the substance. If we are to say that prime matter and form do not exist in the accidents of bread after consecration, than the substance alone is formed by the prime matter and form. Color and smell might come from the prime matter or the form, I do not know which. Scholastics believe two principles are required for physical objects. I don’t see any necessity for two, but anyway…

1. "And if you apply an apparatus to ‘scientifically’ ‘measure’ the color of the rose, what does this intermediation add or remove from your cognitive capacities?

It doesn’t remove anything from your capacity, but it adds to your knowledge of the substance of the rose through knowledge of the accidents.

 

[thinkandmull]

Do you know any scientist who somehow “includes” God in his methodology?

Sure I do. Intelligent Design scientists look for the fingerprints of a conscious reasoning willing force behind the start of species. For example, Dembski’s “explanatory filter”. Apologists argue that the chances that life would be on earth were so improbable that what appears to be a great unlikely random event really had God behind it. But the 2007 Anton Zeilinger study I’ve been talking about tried to have a methodology that could rule out any hidden non-local variable being behind quantum events. Since scientists now say that quantum mechanics apply to the macro level, it is a just a tiny step away for them to rule out God as the hidden non-local variable behind the apparently improbable rise of conditions for life on this planet. That is why I want to get deeper understandings of Zeilinger’s logic

 

[thinkandmull]

The discussion that prompted first my last post on my Leverage thread and then this thread was a conversation I had here:

physicsforums.com/threads/bells-inequality.847216/

That forum does not allow for debate and freedom of expression that our forum here does, I am always tentative when I post there and just ask question without drawing conclusions on those threads. The discussion in the above think has articles and posts that help bring out what I was asking about in this current thread. The articles are rather in-depth and I will have to look at them further

 

[JuanFlorencio]

1)In answering idealists and Hume, Kant believe the perceived existence of sensed things requires a “thing in itself” to exist causing phenomena in between it and us

Yeah, more or less that is the case. But then, do you see that Kant goes from the phenomena (the accidents?) to the existence of the noumena (the substance?).

The substance according them them is beyond the accidents, but everything in the accidents reflects something about the substance. If we are to say that prime matter and form do not exist in the accidents of bread after consecration, than the substance alone is formed by the prime matter and form. Color and smell might come from the prime matter or the form, I do not know which. Scholastics believe two principles are required for physical objects. I don’t see any necessity for two, but anyway…

Ah, Thinkandmull! I prefer to listen to our Lord Jesus Christ and leave aside the intents of philosophers to explain the manifestation of His great love to us. Philosophical reflection serves better other purposes.

But Aristotle existed before the incarnation of the Divine Verb, and he developed the notions that you are mentioning: Besides the existence of the substance of the rose, what else do its smell and color tell you about it? I think they tell you nothing else.

It doesn’t remove anything from your capacity, but it adds to your knowledge of the substance of the rose through knowledge of the accidents.

So, by using the apparatus you know more accidents of the substance. It is just that, isn’t it?

A very important difference between the aristotelian and the kantian epistemologies is the identification of the source of intelligibility. For Aristotle the fountain of the intelligibility of the real is the substance; for Kant, it is us. For Aristotle the principle of unity of the accidents is the substance; for Kant it is the transcendental ego. For Aristotle it is the substance which regulates our knowledge; for Kant it is us who regulate the phenomenal realm.

What do scientists say about that? Are they kantian or aristotelian just because they are scientists? It does not depend on the “scientific method”, but on the philosophical convictions of each scientist.

 

[thinkandmull]

Kant goes from phenomena (accidents) to the *existence *of the noumena (substance), but *only *to its existence. I think smell and color do relate to the substance because they are part of the things beauty. How could the substance be less beautiful? Can a rose be complete without it’s smell? no!

The two studies mentioned in the first post were “Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system” in 2011 and “Quantum erasure with causally disconnect choice” from 2012. Their argument is that we can know how things appear to us, but there is a deeper reality we can never get to because we have perception. I think that is taking the accidents “back further” so to speak, but the substance is in a different realm

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Kant goes from phenomena (accidents) to the *existence *of the noumena (substance), but *only *to its existence. I think smell and color do relate to the substance because they are part of the things beauty. How could the substance be less beautiful? Can a rose be complete without it’s smell? no!

The two studies mentioned in the first post were “Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system” in 2011 and “Quantum erasure with causally disconnect choice” from 2012. Their argument is that we can know how things appear to us, but there is a deeper reality we can never get to because we have perception. I think that is taking the accidents “back further” so to speak, but the substance is in a different realm

Let me look for an aristotelian fragment which might be interesting to you. Meanwhile it is me speaking: smell and color are the result of interactions between our body and other bodies. The smell of the rose is not something in the rose; but there is something in the rose (certain volatile chemical compounds) which interacts with your olfactory organ. If your olfactory organ is affected in such a way that it is distorted, the interaction will change, and it might be possible that the pleasant interaction is substituted by an unpleasant one. When those volatile chemical compounds arrive to your olfactory organ they are transformed and so, what you are -so to say- directly perceiving, is the transformed substance, not the original one. We could say that our act of perception affects the object, that is to say, perception is an interaction. The smell of the rose is an interaction between the rose and us, so that it does not belong to the rose in itself. This is not kantian doctrine, but it might be aristotelian.

Beauty is certain aspect of intelligibility. And some think that it belongs to the object, some think that it belongs to the subject. I say it belongs to the subject-object system.

Do your scientists say that our perception affects the object perceived, so that it remains beyond our knowledge? If so, I would say they misunderstand “knowledge”, if they think it should be associated to the object in itself.

 

[thinkandmull]

Scientists are saying that material objects don’t have actuality unless they are perceived, and some say that it must be God “seeing” the world which keeps it from mere potentiality. A smell is only there to one is smelling. Would the sound of a tree falling in the forest exist if nobody is there to hear it? The noise, no. The vibrations? Yes. I was thinking about this subject on the drive back into town today. The ability of a rose to smell as it does must come from the form (if one believes in two principles, form and prime matter). The color as well, because they are so essential to what makes a rose a rose. A rose is a beautiful thing. Now, believing with Descartes that colors strictly exists only in the mind is taking this a step further and I am not sure exactly where I stand. But he was the only philosopher I know of who usually went around with a sword hanging from his belt, so who I am to disagree with him? JK

 

[thinkandmull]

Let me look for an aristotelian fragment which might be interesting to you. Meanwhile it is me speaking: smell and color are the result of interactions between our body and other bodies. The smell of the rose is not something in the rose; but there is something in the rose (certain volatile chemical compounds) which interacts with your olfactory organ. If your olfactory organ is affected in such a way that it is distorted, the interaction will change, and it might be possible that the pleasant interaction is substituted by an unpleasant one. When those volatile chemical compounds arrive to your olfactory organ they are transformed and so, what you are -so to say- directly perceiving, is the transformed substance, not the original one. We could say that our act of perception affects the object, that is to say, perception is an interaction. The smell of the rose is an interaction between the rose and us, so that it does not belong to the rose in itself. This is not kantian doctrine, but it might be aristotelian.

Beauty is certain aspect of intelligibility. And some think that it belongs to the object, some think that it belongs to the subject. I say it belongs to the subject-object system.

Do your scientists say that our perception affects the object perceived, so that it remains beyond our knowledge? If so, I would say they misunderstand “knowledge”, if they think it should be associated to the object in itself.

What was the passage from Aristotle you were looking for??