Philosophy: Null-A and the Catholic Church

[Truthstalker]

How locked into Aristotelian logic is the Catholic Church? I think the argument can be made that Aristotelian thinking is so basic to Catholic thought that systems such as general semantics or other null-A (non-Aristotelian) systems are inherently contradictory to it. Yet the world can be described from within null-A systems, or there may arise a null-A system that makes Aristotelian thinking antiquated.

I just successfully demonstrated to those who know what I am talking about, that I don’t know what I am talking about.

Comments?

 

[123rock]

When the Arabic copies of Aristotle and the like surfaced in Europe, Aquinas was amongst the first to oppose their philosophies.

 

[dylanschrader]

The Catholic Church through the ages has taken on elements from different cultures, etc. Nothing good and true is rejected, and, more importantly, things are not discarded but kept in the traditions of the Church.

The Church Fathers did make heavy use of Platonic thought, for instance, although it is also true that they were familiar with Aristotle’s logic. It wasn’t until more manuscripts became available through translations from Aramaic copies that Aristotle became so influential to the Scholastics.

In short, there are some philosophical formulations, tenets, etc. which cannot be reconciled with the Catholic faith. An example would be Nominalism.

If your asking about different types of logic itself, I would be careful. Any system of logic that is in reality unreasonable, that is, any system which would not uphold basic laws like causality, non-contradiction, conservation, etc. is problematic.

The Church rejects nothing true.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Any system of logic that is in reality unreasonable, that is, any system which would not uphold basic laws like causality, non-contradiction, conservation, etc. is problematic.

The Church rejects nothing true.

Hasn’t causality been demonstrated not to exist at the quantum level?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Hasn’t causality been demonstrated not to exist at the quantum level?

Kind of. When a heavy atom decays into two lighter atoms the event seems to just happen. There is no way of knowing which atom will fission and when. However the probability of the decay happening can be very accurately measured, and is the same for all atoms of that type.
However any theological conclusions are vulnerable to the underlying physical model being wrong. There obviously is something wrong because we have two fundamental physical theories - quantum mechanics and relativity - which are incompatible with each other. However you’d have to ask a physicist about their exact philosophical status.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Malcolm McLean:

Kind of. When a heavy atom decays into two lighter atoms the event seems to just happen.

Heisenberg said what about causality?
Malcolm McLean:

However any theological conclusions are vulnerable to the underlying physical model being wrong.

Not following you. Could you flesh that out a bit more please. Thank you.
Malcolm McLean:

There obviously is something wrong because we have two fundamental physical theories - quantum mechanics and relativity - which are incompatible with each other.

They are not incompatible with each other. They simply describe two distinct domains. Relativity describes the domain of the ‘large’ and quantum theory describes the domain of the ‘small’.

Therefore the underlying physical model is not necessarily ‘wrong.’ As for the theological conclusions flowing from the underlying physical model: could you flesh that out a little as well. Thank you.
Malcolm McLean:

However you’d have to ask a physicist about their exact philosophical status.

A contemporary physicist would likely not comment on a matter of philosophy.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Not following you. Could you flesh that out a bit more please. Thank you.

I am not a physicist. If you want more than the very bare basics you’ll have to ask someone who knows more than me.

They are not incompatible with each other. They simply describe two distinct domains. Relativity describes the domain of the ‘large’ and quantum theory describes the domain of the ‘small’.

Therefore the underlying physical model is not necessarily ‘wrong.’ As for the theological conclusions flowing from the underlying physical model: could you flesh that out a little as well. Thank you.

That’s an amazing thing if true. One set of laws hold at one scale, then suddenly they are replaced by another set of laws at another, with seemingly no way of determining when the transition occurs. The easiest thing to say is that there is some unifying factor that we are missing. Since we don’t have a quantum theory of gravity, there is obviously at least one thing incomplete. That unifying factor could do to quantum mechanics what Newton did to Ptolemy or Einstein did to Newton. So if you say “a particle’s postion is indeterminate therefore I draw conclusion X about God” you are vulnerable to a physicist coming along and saying “actually that idea about particles existing in indeterminate states was an artifact of deeper phenomenon Y”

A contemporary physicist would likely not comment on a matter of philosophy.

Natural philosophy is philosophy. Some scientists see human and divine subjects as nothing to do with them, but they tend to be the weaker ones.

 

[dylanschrader]

Hasn’t causality been demonstrated not to exist at the quantum level?

No. Even if quantum events are unpredictable, etc. even if it seems that electrons pop in and out of existence or other similar phenomena, things don’t happen for no reason. Even the idea that observation affects the behavior of particles upholds causality.

 

[DL82]

This is something I have struggled with myself. I think it’s fair to say that many Catholic doctrines are expressed in terms of Aristotelian logic and deductive method, particularly by those who are influenced by Thomas Aquinas. Because the two major teaching orders (Jesuits and Dominicans) tend to be Thomistic, this influence can sometimes appear to be all-pervasive.

Nonetheless, this is only the expression of the doctrine, not the doctrine itself. The Church has always possessed the fullness of Christian truth, though in some cases it was not rigorously defined until it came into conflict, either with schismatics, heretics or unbelievers. It just happens that most of the period that these conflicts took place in was dominated by scholastic and Aristotelian thought, so that’s the language that’s used.

There are other expressions of the same doctrine to be found in the Greek Fathers and in St Bonaventure, for example. Many of these are less pedantic than the Aristotelianism of the Thomists, which can seem hair-splittingly precise. Also, much recent theology, including John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, is expressed in a language that is much more in conformity with the positivism of the sciences. Be in no doubt that as time progresses, new expressions of the same eternal truths will be found through the language of scientific relativity, the social sciences and other valid systems of enquiry.

All the same, it is the same teaching, but constantly being refined in the human language used to express it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

No. Even if quantum events are unpredictable, etc. even if it seems that electrons pop in and out of existence or other similar phenomena, things don’t happen for no reason. Even the idea that observation affects the behavior of particles upholds causality.

How?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Malcolm McLean:

That’s an amazing thing if true. One set of laws hold at one scale, then suddenly they are replaced by another set of laws at another, with seemingly no way of determining when the transition occurs. The easiest thing to say is that there is some unifying factor that we are missing.

Yes and when we discover that factor we will have the Grand Unified Theory and the end of physics.
Malcolm McLean:

So if you say “a particle’s postion is indeterminate therefore I draw conclusion X about God”

A particle’s position would be indeterminate if the particle’s velocity was known.

Anyway so far I am working with metaphors. A physicist would not venture to draw an analogy between quantum mechanics and theology.
Malcolm McLean:

you are vulnerable to a physicist coming along and saying “actually that idea about particles existing in indeterminate states was an artifact of deeper phenomenon Y”

Only if thinking that particles exist in indeterminate states does not work for new observations. As long as the math adds up and accounts for current observations, everything is cool. Then some wiseguy comes along and observes something never before observed and the theoreticians have to come up with a new theory.

 

[Truthstalker]

How?

I think the causality is that the observation causes a change in the behavior of the particle, which does not do what it would have done had it not been observed.

Actually a breakdown in causality should cause no fundamental sweat, given the doctrine of providence. If everything is upheld every instant by God immediately, then He is free to change things totally independent of any thing created being the cause. He of course would continue to be the First Cause. Unless that breaks down, but how could it?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

No. Even if quantum events are unpredictable, etc. even if it seems that electrons pop in and out of existence or other similar phenomena, things don’t happen for no reason. Even the idea that observation affects the behavior of particles upholds causality.

Yes and no. Read this.

The famous double-slit experiment… a screen with two open slits faces a sheet of photographic film. When light is shone through the slits the film registers where it lands. If the light goes through both slits the film shows an “interference pattern” of light and dark bands. Such a pattern is typically produced by interfering waves - one from each slit.

With me so far?

What’s spooky is that even when a lone photon is fired at the slits it still creates a pattern of light and dark bands - as if it were two waves…

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.** But…**

…In the double-slit experiment, it has been shown time and again that if we use a photon detector to find which of the two slits the photon went through, it no longer creates an interference pattern, just a single spot on the film.

:extrahappy:

In other words, the way you look at the photon changes the nature of its journey.

Applied to the universe, this idea has an obvious implication. Just as a particle travelling from point A to point B takes every possible path in between, so too must the history of the universe. In one history, the Earth never formed. In another, Al Gore is president. And in yet another, Elvis is still - well, you get the idea. “The universe doesn’t have a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability,” Hertog says.

O my… but where is that universe in which I win the lottery? I know I left it around here somewhere.

The same thing happens in Hawking and Hertog’s universe: our observations of the cosmos today are determining the outcome - in this case, the entire history of the universe. A measurement made in the present is deciding what happened 13.7 billion years ago; by looking out at the universe, we assign ourselves a particular, concrete history.

:bounce:

If true, this is no mere curiosity; Hawking and Hertog have tossed the notion of a unique, observer-independent cosmology out the window and thrown the sacred laws of cause and effect into question.

:harp:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

I think the causality is that the observation causes a change in the behavior of the particle, which does not do what it would have done had it not been observed.

:nope: Soooooo close though.

Truthstalker:

Actually a breakdown in causality should cause no fundamental sweat, given the doctrine of providence.

The doctrine of providence?

Truthstalker:

If everything is upheld every instant by God immediately, then He is free to change things totally independent of any thing created being the cause.

Oh sooooo close. Hint: free will. :bounce:

Truthstalker:

He of course would continue to be the First Cause.

But we choose the outcome. In some sort of mysterious way which has to do with what we are able to see and I suppose what we are willing to see.

Now I am sure that Coleridge has something interesting to say about the imagination. Maybe I’ll have enough energy to look it up. Maybe not. We’ll see. And of course 1 Cor 13.

:extrahappy:

 

[Truthstalker]

:nope: Soooooo close though.

The doctrine of providence?

Oh sooooo close. Hint: free will. :bounce:

But we choose the outcome. In some sort of mysterious way which has to do with what we are able to see and I suppose what we are willing to see.

Now I am sure that Coleridge has something interesting to say about the imagination. Maybe I’ll have enough energy to look it up. Maybe not. We’ll see. And of course 1 Cor 13.

:extrahappy:

There is no smilie for “blank look on face.” This will have to do:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

There is no smilie for “blank look on face.” This will have to do:

Read the link I gave. It’s simple enough. And interesting.

 

[Truthstalker]

Read the link I gave. It’s simple enough. And interesting.

I read it, again.

They are arguing that causuality doesn’t work on the basis of causual arguments. The failure of causuality, they argue, causes causuality to fail. They can’t say that. They are reasoning that reason doesn’t work, undercutting and destroying their argument in using argument to destroy argument in general.

Their reasoning:

1. If the universe is reasonable, then A follows B
2. A did not follow B.
3. Therefore the universe is unreasonable.
4. Therefore this syllogism doesn’t make sense.

Pardon me for being a reactionary, but phooey.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I read it, again.

They are arguing that causuality doesn’t work on the basis of causual arguments. The failure of causuality, they argue, causes causuality to fail. They can’t say that. They are reasoning that reason doesn’t work, undercutting and destroying their argument in using argument to destroy argument in general.

Their reasoning:

1. If the universe is reasonable, then A follows B
2. A did not follow B.
3. Therefore the universe is unreasonable.
4. Therefore this syllogism doesn’t make sense.

Pardon me for being a reactionary, but phooey.

Um… no. That is not what they said at all. How can our readings of the same paper be so divergent?

 

[Truthstalker]

Um… no. That is not what they said at all. How can our readings of the same paper be so divergent?

Those are the implications I see.

What do you see that is different?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

Those are the implications I see. What do you see that is different?

Truthstalker:

They are arguing that causuality doesn’t work on the basis of causual arguments.

I’m not sure I follow you here. Could be we are talking apples and oranges. Could be I don’t understand what you are saying.

They are theorizing from observations which call into question our Newtonian understanding of causality.

We’re talking about quantum mechanics. So let’s be sure we understand Heisenberg’s double slit experiment.

There is a sheet with two slits in it. Light is shone through the slits. The light hits a photosensitive panel beyond the sheet. The light waves coming through the two slits interfere with each other and create a pattern of light and shadow on the panel.

That interference is predictable.

So if we only send one photon of light through then it only goes through one slit, right? And therefore we would not see a pattern of light and shadow, right? Wrong.

The same pattern of light and shadow shows up on the panel. That interference is not predictable.

Feynman explains this as the photon taking every possible route – in this case through both slits – to get to the panel.

But there is another twist. In this experimental setup, the light behaves as a wave.

As soon as you add a photon detector to the experiement to determine which of the two slits the photon goes through, no pattern of interference appears on the panel. Instead a single spot appears. In this case light is no longer behaving as a wave. It is behaving as a particle.

The weird thing is that the outcome depends on the method of observation. How can that be?

When looking at the universe one is not only looking at space but at time – because we see the universe by means of light and light travels at a constant speed so it takes a certain amount of time to get to us depending on how far away it started its journey.

We are at point B on the time continuum. But we can’t apprehend point A because that was at the Big Bang when time was actually a fourth dimension of space. There was no time at A.

So of all the possible histories, there are only some which would produce universes in which we are observing these possible universes. The history of our particular universe is a by-product of our particular observation of our particular universe.

One important thing to understand is that at the quantum level, we can’t know one thing without **not **knowing another thing. So we have to choose what to know. Newtonian physics isn’t so picky.

Truthstalker:

The failure of causuality, they argue, causes causuality to fail. They can’t say that.

I don’t know about that. I think they are saying that an infinite number of universes exist. But that there is a finite number of universes which include us as observers of the universe. And that the act of choosing a method of observing or measuring the universe determines which specific universe comes into view as the one which includes us as observers.

So causality does not fail. It is a function of the method of observation or measurement we use.

Truthstalker:

They are reasoning that reason doesn’t work, undercutting and destroying their argument in using argument to destroy argument in general.

I don’t think they are saying that reason doesn’t work.

Truthstalker:

Their reasoning:

1. If the universe is reasonable, then A follows B
2. A did not follow B.
3. Therefore the universe is unreasonable.
4. Therefore this syllogism doesn’t make sense.

No. They are saying that A is the initial point. Therefore B follows A. But A is in the Big Bang and we can never see A.

So rather than starting at A, we start at B which we can see. Moreover we don’t need to ever see A to see what lies between A and B.

This is not useful right now if we want to find out about A. But it is useful if we want to find out about what lies between A and B.

Truthstalker:

Pardon me for being a reactionary, but phooey.