Quantum Physics and the Argument from Contingency

[mschrank]

Is there a connection between the argument from contingency and Quantum Physics- namely, that the cause of all things cannot be found in matter itself?

In my limited knowledge of the subject, I can see that Newtonian Physics was supposed to put God out of a job- perhaps he created the universe, but at some point, he slept and the world just rolled on due to the inevitable clockwork of the universe.

Now usually the argument from contingency is applied to the beginning of the universe- in keeping with the idea that since then, there is a strict interplay of cause and inevitable effect.

Yet if we know that the atom itself is as contingent and indeterminate as the Big Bang, in keeping with the Copenhagen Interpretation and the uncertainty principle, might the argument from contingency be applied to normal existance itself? St. Thomas Aquinas writes (summarized by G. Joyce, SJ):

“…where the light of the candle is dependent on the candle’s continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant”

Now, AFAIK, the Copenhagen Interpretation states that an outcome might have several different possibilites, but the actual decision on which outcome actually take place is not inherent in matter itself. This seems to very strongly resemble Aquinas’s “in esse” argument.

This is not a thread to debate the existance of God, there are plenty. I would just like some feedback on the coherence of my idea from those that are familiar with the subject (Thomism and Quantum Theory). Am I conflating things here or making logical fallacies?

 

[ateista]

The trouble is that we try and “translate” the subatomic “things” and events into macro-world categories, and this “translation” simply does not work.

In the times when Niels Bohr presented his model for the hydrogen atom he tried to “visualize” the atom as a miniature solar system, the nucleus being the equivalent of the star, the electron playing the role of a planet. It seemed like a good analogy, for a short while, and then physicists found problems with it. Today the atoms are not “visualized” as mini solar systems. They are not visualized at all.

The equations of quantum physics describe and predict how certain events will take place in a Wilson-chamber. These equations work pretty well. There is no need to “interpret” them in any way.

Sure, humans are very visual beings, and we like to “see” how things work. Unfortunately it is not always possible with the existing catergories.

When the problem of light was first presented, there was a huge debate, whether light is a particle or a wave? There were experiments which showed that light is a particle and others which proved that light is a wave. Eventually the “dilemma” was solved. The differentiation between particles and waves was found to be an artifical distinction. Light is neither wave, nor particle, it is both.

Reality does not always fit into nice little “boxes” with convenient labels attached to them.

Maybe the correct “interpretation” of quantum physics will be possible one day, maybe it will not. It does not matter. As long as the equations allow us to make good predictions, they are useful.

To try to draw philosophical conclusions from those interpretations is just another improductive waste of time.

 

[mschrank]

I’d say an improductive waste of time is writing something out that doesn’t vaguely contribute to the thread.

I already knew what you guys say on the subject, “leave it alone, it works!”. I wasn’t asking for more of the same.

 

[ateista]

I’d say an improductive waste of time is writing something out that doesn’t vaguely contribute to the thread.

I already knew what you guys say on the subject, “leave it alone, it works!”. I wasn’t asking for more of the same.

Seeing your reply it sure was a waste of time. I can only hope that others might find it useful.

 

[mschrank]

Seeing your reply it sure was a waste of time. I can only hope that others might find it useful.

This is not a thread to debate the existance of God, there are plenty. I would just like some feedback on the coherence of my idea from those that are familiar with the subject (Thomism and Quantum Theory).

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be rude, its just that I understand the radical materialist explanation of QM already, and was looking for a Thomist perspective.

 

[Hastrman]

As far as I can tell you’re not being fallacious–certainly the quantum physicist (and Thomist) Stephen Barr doesn’t think so, since he actually used an updated version of that example to explain the idea of a simultaneous cause (which is what God could be, since the universe doesn’t necessarily need a beginning).

His example was, a body’s formation and its possession of a gravitational pull, are simultaneous (technically light reaching something and the existence of a light source aren’t). Although that gravitational pull expands outward at the speed of light (like the light from the candle), at no time does the object not have such a pull. Therefore, although the body and the gravity exist simultaneously, the body is the cause of the gravity.