The Quantum World Veiw & Materialism

[a_priori]

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. . .

The classic is the double-slit experiment with photons. We know because we can see where the photons hit after the fact in each case. There are many sites that explain it. After that, check out entanglement. Extremely cool stuff.

 

[JimG]

The classic is the double-slit experiment with photons. We know because we can see where the photons hit after the fact in each case. There are many sites that explain it. After that, check out entanglement. Extremely cool stuff.

Yes, I recall something about the double-slit experiment. Two slits open will give an interference pattern (light waves); a single slit will show a particulate dispersion (light particles.) But I have read of other experiments where the outcome is only “real” once it is observed. i.e., is Schrodinger’s cat dead or alive if nobody opens the box?

 

[fhansen]

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?

Well of course timeless non-existence makes no sense but timeless existence can be inferred. It seems to me that if everything we know includes or operates within the dimension of time, then everything we know must have had a beginning. But if it had a beginning, then we’re faced with the question of what other reality or existent it came from, since nothing we observe within STEM comes from nothing (we know of no spontaneously existing or self-caused thing). And if we say that something had *no *beginning, then we’ve already admitted to timeless existence. I’m saying that as a hypothesis or conjecture, the concept of eternity seems much more plausible than its alternative.

 

[Touchstone]

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.

Right, that’s precisely the definition of ‘nonexistent’ – no extension in space/time. Is it is, I cannot see any distinction between ‘eternal’ and ‘imaginary’. What principle or concept distinguishes ‘eternal’ from ‘imaginary’ or ‘nonexistent’?

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

Well of course timeless non-existence makes no sense but timeless existence can be inferred. It seems to me that if everything we know includes or operates within the dimension of time, then everything we know must have had a beginning. But if it had a beginning, then we’re faced with the question of what other reality or existent it came from, since nothing we observe within STEM comes from nothing (we know of no spontaneously existing or self-caused thing). And if we say that something had *no *beginning, then we’ve already admitted to timeless existence. I’m saying that as a hypothesis or conjecture, the concept of eternity seems much more plausible than its alternative.

‘Beginning’ and ‘cause’ are both physical concepts, and are stolen concepts from the physical reality when applied to transcendent metaphysics. For example, when we say ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause’, that’s perfectly gated to the physical world. We have no experience of the cause or non-cause of the physical universe itself. For all we know, universes do simply pop into existence, perfectly uncaused. To say otherwise is to apply our observations INSIDE the physical universe OUTSIDE of the universe, where we’ve perfectly no warrant for doing so.

Even as it is, the concept of ‘beginning’ is equivocal with regard to ex nihilo creation. In the physical universe, matter and energy are conserved, and nothing “begins” ex nihilo; in ‘creating’ something that appears “new” to us, existing matter is jsut rearranged into a new form. Precisely stated, then, the claim SHOULD be:

*Everything that has a beginning is a result of the rearrangement of existing matter.
*
When stated more precisely, it is clear that it has zero bearing on the creation of space/time/matter/energy itself. We have zero evidence and experience of how that happens.

-Touchstone

 

[JimG]

Right, that’s precisely the definition of ‘nonexistent’ – no extension in space/time. Is it is, I cannot see any distinction between ‘eternal’ and ‘imaginary’. What principle or concept distinguishes ‘eternal’ from ‘imaginary’ or ‘nonexistent’?

-Touchstone

A materialist will certainly see the classical theological or philosophical definitions of such terms as void of meaning. If you have not read any standard metaphysics or philosophy on the subject, at least try something like F.J. Sheed’s “Theology for Beginners,” not to be convinced, but merely to understand what the terms mean to those who are not strict materialists. Mortimer Adler’s writings are also useful.

For example, one of the attributes of God is given as “eternal” meaning having no extension in time. Looked at from a human perspective, that means he ‘experiences’ the entirety of his being as “now,” whereas human beings experience our being as an infinitesimal series of “now’s”, which quickly fade into past, to be replaced by another “now.” We never in this life possess the totality of our being, but only a series of slices of it at a time. That’s the difference between eternity and temporality.

I can’t convince you as an outside observer, for example, that there is any non-material aspect to my own being. However, any materialist ought to analyze his own interior thought processes. Is there a material explanation for the perception of your “self” as something which persists as a singularity throughout life, even though every atom in your body is different now than it was a decade ago? Am I the same self now as I was as a teenager? I don’t experience that what I mean by “I” has changed over the course of the years even though all of the matter in my body has changed.

Is there a material explanation for your ability to choose words which correspond to ideas, and to form ideas which are general rather than specific—i.e. concepts which contain no trace of the material? Is there a material explanation for the flow of thoughts expressed in this forum?

Or is there a material explanation for free will and personal responsibility? I have a hard time reconciling pure materialism with free-will. Materialism seems to demand determinism, even if our actions are simply determined by quantum mechanics. And if our actions are determined by material (name removed by moderator)uts, then criminal law ought to be abolished.

But I didn’t intend to turn this into a discussion of ideation and free choice. Entire books have been written on the subject.

 

[Touchstone]

A materialist will certainly see the classical theological or philosophical definitions of such terms as void of meaning. If you have not read any standard metaphysics or philosophy on the subject, at least try something like F.J. Sheed’s “Theology for Beginners,” not to be convinced, but merely to understand what the terms mean to those who are not strict materialists. Mortimer Adler’s writings are also useful.

Just by way of background, I was a devout, evangelical Protestant Christian for nearly thirty years before deciding that Protestantism was untenable, and became an atheist in the process of preparing and studying to “swim the Tiber”, to become a Catholic. Several members here can affirm this, and have seen this all unfold over the past several years at another forum we share – Sonlight Forums, for homeschoolers (sonlight-forums.com)).

I point that out just because it may help accelerate our discussion. I’ve been committed to the study of Christian theology and philosophy for a long time, now, and while it is not my profession, I’m pretty familiar and well read on many theological topics. It was the ECF and the great thinkers of Catholic history that clued me into the poverty of Protestant thought, for example.

For example, one of the attributes of God is given as “eternal” meaning having no extension in time. Looked at from a human perspective, that means he ‘experiences’ the entirety of his being as “now,” whereas human beings experience our being as an infinitesimal series of “now’s”, which quickly fade into past, to be replaced by another “now.” We never in this life possess the totality of our being, but only a series of slices of it at a time. That’s the difference between eternity and temporality.

OK, but that does NOT distinguish between “imaginary” and “eternal”. “Eternal” remains synonymous with ‘nonexistent’ or ‘imaginary’, based on what you’ve said here, thus far. If I missed the distinction, please point it out for me.

I can’t convince you as an outside observer, for example, that there is any non-material aspect to my own being. However, any materialist ought to analyze his own interior thought processes. Is there a material explanation for the perception of your “self” as something which persists as a singularity throughout life, even though every atom in your body is different now than it was a decade ago?

Sure. Materialism doesn’t depend on the persistence of the same atoms as a basis for identity, or consciousness. I think it is materialists that like to point this out! Douglas Hofstadter, for example, in his book I Am A Strange Loop, brings this out at some length, discussing the various levels of description and semantics for the “self”. The self endures as a persistent identity as atoms and molecules come and go. One carbon atom is as good as another – they’re all completely interchangeable, so a mind that preserves the same electro-chemical “brain-states” whilst it’s atoms change in and out constantly retains its “self-ness”.

Am I the same self now as I was as a teenager? I don’t experience that what I mean by “I” has changed over the course of the years even though all of the matter in my body has changed.

The self isn’t dependent on any particular atoms. Atoms of a matching kind will work just as well. If you exchanged every single atom in your body for a copy of the that same atom from somewhere else, you’d be exactly as much “you” as you were before the switch. The “self” is realized materially, but is a logical pattern, an abstraction, which means it gets decoupled from dependency on any particular atoms or base elements.

Is there a material explanation for your ability to choose words which correspond to ideas, and to form ideas which are general rather than specific—i.e. concepts which contain no trace of the material? Is there a material explanation for the flow of thoughts expressed in this forum?

Sure - the brain! There is no concept that is decoupled from a brain – the brain is the “substrate” for a concept. Even if we write down symbols that can serve as mnemonics, the concept is only a concept once it’s reified in the brain of the reader. Without a mind reading it and developing it into a concept, it’s just scribbles.

Or is there a material explanation for free will and personal responsibility? I have a hard time reconciling pure materialism with free-will. Materialism seems to demand determinism, even if our actions are simply determined by quantum mechanics. And if our actions are determined by material (name removed by moderator)uts, then criminal law ought to be abolished.

It depends on how you define free will. If free will is deterministic on some level, its so thoroughly obscured – the illusion of free will is so compelling – that in practical terms, the perception is the reality. Which is why even if we stipulate, arguendo, that actions are on some level physically determined, it doesn’t commend the abolishment of criminal law. That law, for example, may be a key factor in determining your actions, your decision to refrain from killing the man you suspect is flirting with your girlfriend. Even in terms of pure moral culpability, so long as humans are under the compelling illusion of free will (and I’m not claiming here that is an illusion) then the moral calculus obtains for law and justice.

But I didn’t intend to turn this into a discussion of ideation and free choice. Entire books have been written on the subject.

That’s fine. As a matter of quantum mechanics, though, I think the last 60 years of work on that front have been a boon for materialism. I was surprised to read that this is seen as support for theism. I’m well aware of the ideas of “quantum mysticism”, etc., but don’t suppose they hold up to much scrutiny at all.

-Touchstone

 

[ateista]

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.

As you say, the thoughts are the “activity” of the brain. But the word “refer to” is confusing here. “Walking” is the activity of the legs, it cannot be separated from the physical existence of the legs. There is no such ontological object as “walking”. The same with the thoughts and the brain states.

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.

How can you “decouple” them?

The concepts are purely immaterial in nature.

Sure, but they cannot be separated from the brains.

From your position, they would both have to be active since they are both physical.

Do not confuse the physical infrastructure and the activity of the infrastructure.

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.

Incorrect. The Big Bang is merely the starting point of this particular form of the Universe. In the singularity the concept of “time” is not defined. The hypothetical “starting point” presupposes an “absolute” time. There is no such “thing”. Space and time are the properties of the Universe.

To speak of “outside” or “before” the Universe is exactly as meaningless as speaking about the “place” which is to the north from the North Pole.

From this we can infer the existence of a non-physical, timeless, space less, reality, unless we assume the world arrived from nothing

Spaceless and timeless “reality” is an undefined concept. And we don’t assume that the world “arrived” from nothing either. The Universe simply exists.
.

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.

Kant was the first one. Of course most believers agree when they assert the necessity of faith. If God’s existence could be “proven” at least logically, there would be no need for faith.

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.

Hmmm, so you believe that the claims in Bible are not absurd, but I am pretty sure that you would deem absurd the similar claims in other “sacred scriptures”. Think about the reason for this.

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.

Of course it does, otherwise what would be the need for faith?

 

[fhansen]

Spaceless and timeless “reality” is an undefined concept. And we don’t assume that the world “arrived” from nothing either. The Universe simply exists.
.

I don’t understand this. If the universe simply exists and didn’t arrive from nothing, then it had to always exist, which implies timeless reality.

 

[ateista]

I don’t understand this. If the universe simply exists and didn’t arrive from nothing, then it had to always exist, which implies timeless reality.

No, it does not. The concept of time is undefined outside the Universe. One can construct syntactically correct propositions but they will remain meaningless. Example: “An object which is to the north from the North Pole.” It is an empty sentence.

 

[buffalo]

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?

Right, and continuuing on with frame of references it may point to God.

 

[fhansen]

No, it does not. The concept of time is undefined outside the Universe. One can construct syntactically correct propositions but they will remain meaningless. Example: “An object which is to the north from the North Pole.” It is an empty sentence.

But it still seems much more logical, based on our experience, to assume that something always existed than to believe that something came from nothing -or that objects can be located north of the North Pole.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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

The mathematics of quantum theory is powerful and wonderful, impressive and amazing.

The philosophy of quantum theory isn’t.

If you read the very best people in the philosophy of quantum theory, you will get a clear picture of what is wrong with everyone else’s interpretation, coupled with a blind eye towards the author’s own interpretation.

But I will say Roger Penrose is entertaining to read.

 

[ateista]

But it still seems much more logical, based on our experience, to assume that something always existed than to believe that something came from nothing -or that objects can be located north of the North Pole.

On the surface you are right. It “seems” logical. But this “seemingly” logical conclusion is based upon the loose usage of “always”. There is no “always” outside of time.

The old world-view in Newton’s era was the assumption of having an “absolute” space and time, and the Universe was assumed to be a giant clockwork moving from the past toward the future. The space-time was imagined like an empty room, and the Universe as large balloon inside that room.

This view had to abandoned after Einstein. One cannot speak of space and time in an absolute fashion. There is no space and there is no time if there is no matter.

Yet, the old view lingers on, especially when it comes to such questions like yours. They cannot be answered because they do not pertain to reality - reality as we currently know it. Just because a question is syntactically correct it does not mean that it is a valid question. Remember the question: “when did you stop beating your wife?”… it cannot be answered if you never beat your wife.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

There is no space and there is no time if there is no matter.

Wouldn’t mass fit better?

 

[ateista]

Wouldn’t mass fit better?

Only if you think of a “Catholic mass”. (Quickly hides under the table.)

But seriously, no. Mass is one attribute of matter/energy.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Only if you think of a “Catholic mass”. (Quickly hides under the table.)

But seriously, no. Mass is one attribute of matter/energy.

Okay, so the expansion of energy of the big bang caused a transition of some of the energy into matter which resulted in space/time?

 

[bobzills]

The mathematics of quantum theory is powerful and wonderful, impressive and amazing.

The philosophy of quantum theory isn’t…

What is wrong with the statistical intepretation of QM, where you don;t look at one particle, but at an ensemble of small particles which are then seen to follow a probability distribution.

 

[ateista]

Okay, so the expansion of energy of the big bang caused a transition of some of the energy into matter which resulted in space/time?

Not precise. Matter and energy are not separable. That is why I like to use the term STEM - which stands for space-time-energy-matter.

In the singularity the physics is unknown. We don’t have a model to describe the properties inside a singularity (to my best knowledge). Since space-time is contingent on matter, and in a singularity the density of the matter is infinite, there is no meaningful way to speak of “flow of time” there.

 

[bobzills]

Not precise. Matter and energy are not separable. That is why I like to use the term STEM - which stands for space-time-energy-matter.

In the singularity the physics is unknown. We don’t have a model to describe the properties inside a singularity (to my best knowledge). Since space-time is contingent on matter, and in a singularity the density of the matter is infinite, there is no meaningful way to speak of “flow of time” there.

There is a problem with the current understnading of dark matter.