The Quantum World Veiw & Materialism

[MindOverMatter]

Does the Quantum world veiw contradict a purely materialistic account of the universe? If so, then why?

 

[JimG]

Does the Quantum world veiw contradict a purely materialistic account of the universe? If so, then why?

I don’t see why it would. Quantum physics applies to certain aspects of matter (not spirit!). Since quantum properties are applied only to matter and energy, I don’t see how the quantum view could contradict materialism. It’s still talking about matter/energy.

 

[univac]

My thoughts are, all things God created is by reason of intention through his space of mind (internal abode.)
We are reconciled to him by him his reconciliation Jesus Christ our lord, from matter over mind to mind over matter.
The abode is God Space of Mind which we all are born in a material state of being matter over mind.
The material being is reconciled through the holy spirit to receive the reconciliation by receiving the reconciliation we are transformed from matter over mind to mind over matter becoming inone mind and body of Christ Jesus our Creator by the intention of our Father.
This is what I believe the cycle to be, from matter over mind to mind over matter. If I say as a definition from darkness comes light, the meaning of life is to exceed light within the space of gods mind.

 

[ribozyme]

What is the “quantum world view?” I do not know if it refutes “materialism,” but it does refute LaPlacian determinism.

 

[JimG]

What is the “quantum world view?” I do not know if it refutes “materialism,” but it does refute LaPlacian determinism.

That is a good question. Is it different from any other worldview proposed from a scientific basis?

 

[JimG]

This is what I believe the cycle to be, from matter over mind to mind over matter. If I say as a definition from darkness comes light, the meaning of life is to exceed light within the space of gods mind.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. By saying ‘mind over matter’ are you implying that mind is qualitatively different than matter? Philosophically I would agree with that, but I don’t think it has anything to do with quantum theory.

 

[Touchstone]

Does the Quantum world veiw contradict a purely materialistic account of the universe? If so, then why?

I don’t know what a “quantum world view” means, as a term. There are several variations of interpretations of quantum phenomena – for example, some hold to the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum mechanics – but none of the various interpretations provides an “overarching lens through which to interpret all of life’s experience”, which is what I understand a worldview to be.

If anything, quantum electrodynamics is the the crown jewel of materialism, providing robust and precise explanations and predictions so price and repeatable its just staggering. QED blows away all other scientific theories in terms of its precision, power and breadth, and itself is a major reason that materialists find basis for actually being materialists. First causes aside, QED provides a model of reality that is so detailed and God-free (allowing that one doesn’t see randomness as synonymous with God, I guess), that God is rendered superfluous as a matter of understanding physical phenomenon, even at the most infinitesimal scales.

Nothing can disprove the existence of God, of course, even in principle. But QED zaps the “mother of all gaps” where God was posited for much of man’s recorded history. God may be “behind it all” – no way to disprove that idea either – but God’s role would be a secondary one, in any case, with the universe “operating according to materialism”, once it was “wound up, and set in motion”, from the theist’s PoV.

-Touchstone

 

[MindOverMatter]

God’s role would be a secondary

Why would Gods Role be secondary?

In any case, with the universe “operating according to materialism”, once it was “wound up, and set in motion”, from the theist’s PoV.

In order for events to occur, there has to be such a thing as existence, and existence itself needn’t be one and the same thing as physical reality. If Gods being is the actual existence through which things come to exist, then Gods being is neccesary for the existence and the animation of every motion and moment that passes, and therefore is primary to the existence of any past present and future object in time.

 

[bobzills]

Does the Quantum world veiw contradict a purely materialistic account of the universe? If so, then why?

The quantum world view is based on quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, which can be seen as a mathematical model designed to increase our understanding of small particles and the subatomic world. Generally, there are two types of mathematical models: the deterministic and the probabilistic. The deterministic model is one which is uniquely determined by the previous values of the parameters contained in the set of equations describing the system at hand. Generally, the scope of the deterministic model may be limited to the extent that it may not include the very small particles, but may describe the physical features of the model taking place in ordinary daily life physics situations. In the probabilistic models, the variable states of the system are given in terms of a probability distribution and there has been discussion as to whether or not this means that certain hidden variables have been omitted from the mathematical model under consideration.
Whether or not a model is worthwhile depends on its ability to regularly extrapolate on a repeatable basis from what is known, to what is not known.
To the extent that both the classical world view and the quantum mechanical world view are represented by mathematical models based on real world situations, they would not in any way contradict a materialistic view of the universe.

 

[ateista]

In order for events to occur, there has to be such a thing as existence, and existence itself needn’t be one and the same thing as physical reality.

That is correct.

There are two “kinds” of existence we know about. One is physical existence (space-time-energy-matter or STEM) and the other one is the conceptual or abstract existence of ideas. The ideas or concepts are physical in that they exist as specific brain-states, but they refer to non-material entities.

Some of these entities refer to the physical world (scientific ideas), others refer to purely imaginary imaginary (literature, music, mythologies, etc.).

The physical existence is active, conceptual existence is passive.

Theists assume a third type of existence, non-material, yet active, which can interact with the physical world. It is a pure hypothesis, without objective evidence for it.

If Gods being is the actual existence through which things come to exist, then Gods being is neccesary for the existence and the animation of every motion and moment that passes, and therefore is primary to the existence of any past present and future object in time.

That is the big “IF”.

What supports it? Some abstract musings about “first” causes, “prime” movers - all of which have been refuted many times, an ancient book of superstitions (loaded with absurd magical tales), and some questionable personal “revelations” (unrepeatable, untestable).

Some people consider these supports sufficient, others do not.

 

[fhansen]

That is correct.

There are two “kinds” of existence we know about. One is physical existence (space-time-energy-matter or STEM) and the other one is the conceptual or abstract existence of ideas. The ideas or concepts are physical in that they exist as specific brain-states, but they refer to non-material entities.

Some of these entities refer to the physical world (scientific ideas), others refer to purely imaginary imaginary (literature, music, mythologies, etc.).

The physical existence is active, conceptual existence is passive.

Theists assume a third type of existence, non-material, yet active, which can interact with the physical world. It is a pure hypothesis, without objective evidence for it.

What keeps coming back to me is that the concept of “eternity” doesn’t fit into the STEM category but doesn’t fit comfortably in the merely conceptual category either. But sans the reality of eternity things came into existence from nothing-a non-STEM concept. Otherwise they existed eternally-also a non-STEM concept.

 

[a_priori]

There are aspects of quantum theory such as the influence of an observer on the behavior of a photon and concepts like entanglement that certainly push the limits.

 

[ateista]

What keeps coming back to me is that the concept of “eternity” doesn’t fit into the STEM category but doesn’t fit comfortably in the merely conceptual category either. But sans the reality of eternity things came into existence from nothing-a non-STEM concept. Otherwise they existed eternally-also a non-STEM concept.

I wonder what do you mean by “eternity” here? Would you clarify, please?

 

[fhansen]

I wonder what do you mean by “eternity” here? Would you clarify, please?

Existence which has no beginning or end in time.

 

[JimG]

There are aspects of quantum theory such as the influence of an observer on the behavior of a photon and concepts like entanglement that certainly push the limits.

Yes, there are some aspects of quantum theory that seem to actually require the existence of a conscious observer.

Does quantum theory ‘work’ in the absence of observers?

 

[JimG]

Existence which has no beginning or end in time.

I would phrase it somewhat differently: existence which has no extension in time (or space). But that’s a concept which any pure materialist might argue has no existence in reality.

 

[a_priori]

Does quantum theory ‘work’ in the absence of observers?

The answer appears to be yes, just differently.
The cool question is how does the photon “know” someone is looking at it?

 

[JimG]

The answer appears to be yes, just differently.
The cool question is how does the photon “know” someone is looking at it?

It acts differently when we are watching?
But how do we know how it acts when we are not watching?

I really need to study up on quantum theory. . .

 

[ateista]

Existence which has no beginning or end in time.

I would phrase it somewhat differently: existence which has no extension in time (or space). But that’s a concept which any pure materialist might argue has no existence in reality.

What does that kind of “existence” mean? To exist means to “exist” as something, as opposed to something else. To exist means as having some attributes, and lack some other attributes.

The physical existence is limited by space and time, we all can agree on that. Conceptual existence is dependent on the brain-states, but what they refer to can be material, purely imaginary or something “else”; neither material, nor purely imaginary (God or angels or demons, etc…). The purely imaginary objects exist in reality as brain-states. The concept of “God” also exists in reality as brain-states. Yet, no one expects to meet “Hamlet” as an ontological object. Is God an ontological object?

Timeless and/or spaceless existence is something we are no familiar with. As a hypothesis or conjecture it may be posited. But that fact does not make such existence a sensible proposition. How does timeless existence differ from timeless non-existence?

 

[MindOverMatter]

That is correct.

The ideas or concepts are physical in that they exist as specific brain-states, but they refer to non-material entities.

Brain states are physical, this is true and obvious, but as far as we know, they only “refer” to immaterial activity such as thought; they are not the thoughts themselves. We know that there is a physical process involved in the processing of ideas, since we are also physical objects, but the physical activity is not the concepts and ideas themselves. I am not blind atoms, for if that was the case, then I would not have any freewill, since physical states are innate until something else causes them. It seems obvious to me that I am causing brain states as much as I am being influenced by them. An ability such as this, requires me to transcend the nature of physical objects.

I do not have an orange in my brain when I think of oranges. But the “idea” of orange does exist in some sense in my mind, even if it exists only aslong as i think it. One thing is for sure; it does not exist “physically”. The concepts are purely immaterial in nature.

The physical existence is active, conceptual existence is passive.

From your position, they would both have to be active since they are both physical. The mere existence of a “thought” or ideas, works in favor of the theist, not the atheist. At best, science has only shown that certain activities apply to different parts of the brain.

Theists assume a third type of existence, non-material, yet active, which can interact with the physical world. It is a pure hypothesis, without objective evidence for it.

Unless we assume an infinite regress (which we have no reason to assume), a beginning to physical reality at some point is necessary. The big bang appears to point toward this event. From this we can infer the existence of a non-physical, timeless, space less, reality, unless we assume the world arrived from nothing
.
The existence of God explains physical reality. An infinite regress of universes or time does not; it merely removes the necessity of ultimately explaining the motion and effects of physical events, which is no explanation at all. Hence we are left with a universe which is ultimately pure effect.

When trying to explain what first caused the Universe, a non-material Eternal cause is the best explanation. When trying to explain the nature of physical reality such as the Laws, behavior, and qualities of physical objects, one has no choice but to transcend physical reality and posit a personal will, since one cannot reasonably think that physical reality itself created its own nature, behavior and laws. This would be a meaningless contradiction. In this respect, one is in a legitimate position to take the concept of God seriously. Belief is reasonable.

That is the big “IF”. What supports it? ,

The Big Bang.

[Some abstract musings about “first” causes, “prime” movers - all of which have been refuted many times,

By whom and when? A mere assertion like this might lead unsuspecting people into thinking that such arguments have in fact been refuted, when in reality they have not.

an ancient book of superstitions (loaded with absurd magical tales), and some questionable personal “revelations” (unrepeatable, untestable).

In your opinion. You have decided that such things don’t happen; however, simply disbeliving or believing does nothing to show the absurdity of any of its claims. Your supposed rationale is merely an illusion.

(unrepeatable, untestable).

God’s existence, including miracles, in case you were not aware, is beyond the reach of Science, since Science is dealing exclusively with physical reality. This however does not mean that “reason” cannot acquire knowledge of God.

Some people consider these supports sufficient, others do not.

I agree. This much is self-evident.
[/quote]