The Quantum World Veiw & Materialism

[jimmy85]

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

Absolutely, quantum mechanics is about probability and uncertainty and not about cause and effect.

For example quantum mechanics says that nothing is deterministic, say if u were to push yourself against a wall you could get trhough the solid wall, but the chances of taht happening on your life time are like so low that you would have to be pushing yourself against the wall for an infitine amount of time, in order to be succeesful.

In the physical world that would seem imposible but the true is that at the quantum scale things stop being deterministic.

The smaller the scale the more the determinism and the physical reality stops existing as we know it.

 

[bobzills]

Absolutely, quantum mechanics is about probability and uncertainty and not about cause and effect.

For example quantum mechanics says that nothing is deterministic, say if u were to push yourself against a wall you could get trhough the solid wall, but the chances of taht happening on your life time are like so low that you would have to be pushing yourself against the wall for an infitine amount of time, in order to be succeesful.

In the physical world that would seem imposible but the true is that at the quantum scale things stop being deterministic.

The smaller the scale the more the determinism and the physical reality stops existing as we know it.

It is simply a model for describing the world and does not imply that there is no cause and effect.

 

[jimmy85]

It is simply a model for describing the world and does not imply that there is no cause and effect.

I agree however, It is about probability and not about deterministic cause and effect.

When Einstein was confronted with this he said that God dosent play dice. that was his famous phrase, he was totaly against this concept of probability just like Schrödiger. eventualy physicsts proved that quantum mechanics is ruled by probability.

However that dosent have to do anything against religious cause and effect at all. That dosent means that in the quantum world everything is absolutely random, there is just some huge degree of uncertainty.

 

[bobzills]

I agree however, It is about probability and not about deterministic cause and effect.

When Einstein was confronted with this he said that God dosent play dice. that was his famous phrase, he was totaly against this concept of probability just like Schrödiger. eventualy physicsts proved that quantum mechanics is ruled by probability.

However that dosent have to do anything against religious cause and effect at all. That dosent means that in the quantum world everything is absolutely random, there is just some huge degree of uncertainty.

The model posed by QM inovlves the theory of probability and probability distributions. I recall that one of the best ways to describe what happens in Las Vegas at the casinos is done by a statistical model. This is a good and effiecient model to describe the processes and calculate the probability of various outcomes. Even though the statistical model gives good calculational results, I don;t see the legitmacy in leaping from that fact about the model to the assertion that reality is hugely uncertain.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The smaller the scale the more the determinism and the physical reality stops existing as we know it.

Although this theory does undermine a materialistic determinism, it appears as if the scientific world has gone head first into a paradox. How does one reconcile the macro-world and the quantum world veiw?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Although this theory does undermine a materialistic determinism, it appears as if the scientific world has gone head first into a paradox. How does one reconcile the macro-world and the quantum world veiw?

The scientific world has gone head first into a paradox. The reason is that the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics are so unbelievably accurate that most practicing physicists just turn a blind eye to the paradoxical aspects.

I’ve starting reading the papers at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on decoherence. One paper addresses the question of reconciling the macro-world and the quantum world head on. See here for a link. The second page has a nice hand-sketched cartoon of the quantum world and the classical world, with a border crossing between them guarded by Niels Bohr. The article goes on to say:

This deterministic evolution of [the wave function] has been verified in carefully controlled experiments. Moreover, there is no indication of a border between quantum and classical at which Equation (1) would fail (see cartoon on the opener to this article).

 

[MindOverMatter]

But He willed the Incarnation, which would not have been willed, had there been no original sin? So His Nature is not exactly the same as His will as you assert.

While I agree that there is a theological-philosophical problem with the Incarnation in regards to Original sin, it does not follow logically or necessarily from your argument, that because there is a problem, that therefore Gods “nature” is not the same as his “will”. The incarnation is a secondary issue that is dependent on Gods willing it, rather then a requirement or necessity. At the most this would present a challenge to the “Incarnation”–if not a refutation. However if you take on faith as I do, that God is “all-knowing”, then we must accept the proposition that Original Sin is in Gods “eternal knowledge”, and therefore it would be in Gods “perfect eternal will and love” to save humanity through the Incarnation.

On the other hand, I’m not quite sure that the Incarnation is wholly dependent on original sin; the unification of man and God through the incarnation may very well be apart of Gods eternal expression despite the chance that human beings may sin; and so the incarnation might have happened regardless; except, it would have been surrounded by different events (that’s just a personal theory of mine which is probably wrong). However, it’s more probable to be the case that the original sin and the incarnation where in some way destined to happen and cannot be removed from the events that occurred.

My arguments, concerning Gods attributes, are based on necessity. It’s what God has to be or would be if he was the Ultimate Cause of the Universe; that is the question. For example, if God is “Existence”, the Ultimate Being through which all existing entities have obtained “being”, then it is impossible that God cannot know all future events, since space/ energy and more importantly “Time”, requires “Existence” in order to “be” or “become”. Therefore there can be no future event that is not foreknown and not generated by God, since they are all subject to existence. What I mean by that is, from a “Gods Eye View” of things, all time is eternally one and present to God—there is no passing of time. In other words, time and the rest of the universe, from a “Gods eye view”, is a “static” “eternal” “extension” of Gods “creative”, “expression” and “Love”; even though from our point of view, from within the confines of time, there is a definite temporal beginning and a passing of one moment to the next.

How? Don’t ask me. It’s a matter of necessity because of the nature of the premise.

The point is, the unification of Gods will and nature is not a matter of opinion or argument; it is a necessary consequence of God’s Timeless attributes.

 

[bobzills]

What I mean by that is, from a “Gods Eye View” of things, all time is eternally one and present to God—there is no passing of time. .

If so, then why did God, in the person of His Divine Son, ask to let this cup pass?
Going on a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed, “O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not what I want but what you want.”
Matthew 26:39.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If so, then why did God, in the person of His Divine Son, ask to let this cup pass?
Going on a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed, “O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not what I want but what you want.”
Matthew 26:39.

How does this contradict what I said?

From what i can understand, Jesus Christ as a man passed through time and prayed to his Father in Heaven. In respect of Jesus’s “human nature” and his “Fathers plan” for humanity (How human beings should go about worshiping God in respect of their salvation), Jesus Christ “emptied” himself of his “Divine Authority” and did as a “human son” ought to do, and prayed to the Father so that his “human will” would be forever one with the Father in heaven. Jesus was and is the Ultimate Son and Role Model so far as his “sobordination” to God the Father is concerned. Jesus Christ’s “Divine Nature and Will” on the other hand, is “timeless” and “One” with Father and the Holy Spirit. Notice that Jesus Christs prayers are public rather then private. If his prayers where strictly private conversations between him and his Father, we would know nothing of them; they certainly wouldn’t be in the bible! His human nature, and his prayers, is not for his sake, but for ours.

In any case, what you are doing is bringing Jesus Christ’s divinity into question, not Gods timeless nature as I have expressed. Jesus Christ and the events surrounding his relationship with his Father as depicted in the bible, is a theological mystery. If I was you, I would start another thread.

 

[jimmy85]

Although this theory does undermine a materialistic determinism, it appears as if the scientific world has gone head first into a paradox. How does one reconcile the macro-world and the quantum world veiw?

That is the biggest question that physicists want to answer.
but the qunatum and the macro are the same reality, and things that affect the quantum scale affect the macro scale. However the physics of both theories break down if they need to work together.
So scientists are not able to study the things that are very huge and very small at the same time like a black hole or the big bang.

The aim of string theory is to unify these two theories that dosent get quite along:

-General Relativity the theory of gravity of the macro scale
-and Quantum Mechanics.

If it has succees then it couldd be the theory of everything that could explain both realities.

 

[bobzills]

…but the qunatum and the macro are the same reality, and things that affect the quantum scale affect the macro scale. .

I am not sure that this tis completely true.
For example, the strong force operates on quarks and is 10^36 times greater than the gravitational force. So of what consequence really is the gravitational force when you are looking at quarks? Why would you really need a quantum theory of gravity which would work on the quantum scale of quarks?

 

[jimmy85]

I am not sure that this tis completely true.
For example, the strong force operates on quarks and is 10^36 times greater than the gravitational force. So of what consequence really is the gravitational force when you are looking at quarks? Why would you really need a quantum theory of gravity which would work on the quantum scale of quarks?

Nobody can answer that for now though, at the atomic scale gravity is a mistery, physicists have not been able to find a graviton yet. but quantum effects and macroscopic effects are part of the same reality though. for example look at “Schrödiger’s cat” in which quantum effects have huge consequenses in the macroscopic scale.

whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,sid9_gci341236,00.html