The Quatum leap out of nothing

[Linusthe2nd]

When God created the world, He created it with such coherence (relationships between elements are dependably repeatable) that the phenomena that we observe can be described with mathematical equations…

 

[yppop]

Linus
Some preliminary thoughts:

1. You do appreciate that we are on the same side?
2. You do appreciate that Thomas had no scientific knowledge relative to actual substances, forms, and accidents. No knowledge of atoms, molecules, energy, cells, zygotes, qualia, etc. He was brilliant in his own time. IMO his generalities just don’t hold up against modern science.
3. I buried a very important phrase, “objective reality”, in post 80, and you may not realize that I am talking only about “objective” reality. I apologize for not being more specific.

, form ( what we might its nature), and its act of existence all at once, everything that makes a being an existing thing, a this or a that. This would naturally include all the accidents appropriate to the beings he created, their mass, quantity, interior forces, their encoded rules governing their activities and guiding them to their proper ends. Accidents in this paragraph imply material objects including the “encoded rules …” that science would argue was DNA, but how could Thomas know that.

Now whether the substances he created were something we might readily identify or whether they were some kind of primordial " soup " from which all material things evolved is immaterial. So let’s posit, for the sake of discussion, that substances created were things we could identify.

Take man for example. What we can see, feel, smell, hear, taste, or measure in some way would be what Thomas calls accidents. So what we would experience emperically he called second substances. We see a man, but we do not see his nature or form, his essence, that which makes him a man and which contains his " forces " of operation and directs him as a man. This Thomas calls ** first substance. It is that in which everything else, all his accidents inhere.**
Accidents in this paragraph imply non-material objects, often referred to as qualia. I have difficulty in seeing how these two modes of accidents, qualia and those in the previous paragraph, were created “all at once”. The zygote is formed when male and a female cells that were created previously in two separate bodies, male and female are conjoined. The individual soul is created in humans at the moment of conception when the two pre-created cells conjoin. The material and the spiritual (substances ?) were not created all at once.
Of course Thomas had no knowledge about qualia and zygotes but you do, can you explain?

It is the second substance which I think you would call " explicate " phenomena. The first substance is what I think you are calling the " implicate " level - of man, for example. But God created both at once. And this Thomas merely calls a substance. Whatever God first created, he did not divide between first and second substance or implicate being and explicate being. He simply created substances, whole and entire.

This is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I contend that reality exists at two levels , the implicate level at which God creates and the explicate level at which we experience what appears to be matter, energy, forces, etc.
When I construct objective reality I assume that its foundation is discrete space. The hydrogen atom that is composed of 4-point particles: 3-quarks forming the proton that acts as the nucleus and 1-electron that provides the dimension of the atom that is 30,000 times size of the proton nucleus. Matter is mostly empty space. Matter is formed from discrete space; the spiritual fills the emptiness of matter with a substance that has the characteristics of continuous space in that it is infinitely divisible, i.e., it cannot be separated into parts. I have built a natural duality into my model of reality that emerges when God corpusculates matter, i.e., when a corpus (the body of the cell or the body of the multi-cellular organism, including man) is formed and “captures” a particle of the spiritual that then animates the cell and/or activates the soul in man.

The discrete space forms the material component of an object both animate and inanimate and is the source of the "accidents such as their mass, quantity, interior forces, their encoded rules governing their activities and guiding them to their proper ends.
The spiritual, continuous space-like component forms the component of the mind and soul of animate objects and is the source of qualia.
yppop
–continued–

 

[yppop]

–continued–

I still think using Thomas and Aristotle would be a better approach if properly presented. How many young people understand Quantum Mechanics and the mathematics involved? I would say extremely few. So I don’t see how you could reach very many. And if you did, they would simply be accepting what you said on authority as opposed to understanding what you said.

Our fight is with materialists who wield a pretty powerful weapon in modern science, a weapon that our youth learn throughout their academic years from the point of view of the materialist. They become skeptics and cynics. Consider what is happening to the Millennial (or Y) generation that was born during the last two decades of the twentieth century.

From Wikipedia:
“Generation Y (those born in the last 2 decades of the twentieth century) has led a trend towards irreligion that has been growing since the 1990s. 32 percent of Americans born between 1983 and 1994 are irreligious, as opposed to 21 percent born between 1963 and 1982, 15 percent born between 1948 and 1962 and only 7 percent born before 1948.”

The way our society is structured this is a tough battle and it would be nice if Scholasticism, which is closer to the purity of thought than anything modern, could turn the trend around, but it has little chance because it and most religious thought has been buried under a dung heap of Liberalism. The Holy Spirit might reverse the trend, but I doubt if Scholasticism will.

IMO the only chance is something like I am doing, namely, relegate science to its own level (explicate) and describe how God creates at a deeper level of reality (the implicate). Since the model I am developing is at a level of reality divorced from science, the knowledge of QM and mathematics is not required for understanding.

yppop

 

[1AugustSon7]

There is a poster who argues that all science is entirely redundant in engineering as inventors get their ideas without ever learning any science and make the most complex devices by trail and error alone, but that seems a bit wishful.

Scientific theories are scarcely any different. They posit an idea or concept to explain (the causes of) something (e.g., gravity) then proceed to test it, at least insofar as it can be. Of course there also seems to be needed a certain ‘something’ to be explained before someone tries to explain it: a mysterious phenonemon or an earlier explanation that, when tested against known facts or occurences, proves problematic, absurd or is outright falsified as a (at least univeral) explanation.

The relationship between speculative theory and the practical or productive arts is one-sided: it is the latter, however, that causes the former to change and not the other way around (for reasons we shall soon see), though the speculative might generate attempts or new arts that try to achieve or realize the possibilities of theory. Notice though that the latter (the practical and the productive) exists independently because it already works: it is being done. We can make planes that fly and boats that float. Regardless of the theory that is supposed to explain how air conditioning works, we have air conditioners that work. It never has to change because the speculative theories have changed; but on the other hand, if the productive or practical arts achieve or accomplish something that not only could not be explained or predicted by the previous reigning theories or models -or even outright falsifies them- then again it will be the speculative science that will have to change.

Finally, you do not necessarily need to be a trained theorist to accidentally discover, observe or accomplish something that has implications for theory, though presumably of course such a person would be ignorant of the implications of their observations, discoveries or accomplishments for the theoretical field.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

1. Yes of course. But my only assess to the truth, is the Church, my common sense, and Thomas Aquinas. I am very questioning of novel ideas which have not been discussed by philosophers I trust.
2. True, Thomas’ science is no longer relevent. But his philosophy was not built on any scientific basis. It was based on ordinary observations of normally configured realities that can be sensed with or without scientific apparatus.

Based on your ideas, I don’t see how Thomas’ concept of reality consisting of beings composed of matter and substantial form and an act of existence and subject to four causes ( material, formal, efficient, and final), whose changes/movements can only be possible if they contain a principle of potency ( their matter) and a principle of act ( their form, through which they receive the act of existence) is invalid - even today.

His philosophy can easily account for all the forms of reality we or science can mention ( i.e. atoms, molecules, waves, photons, etc). Don’t know what you mean by " qualia. " You will have to define it.

1. I assumed as much.

Accidents in this paragraph imply material objects including the “encoded rules …” that science would argue was DNA, but how could Thomas know that.

Correct and Thomas wouldn’t know that. But as long as it was a physical part of a being it would be automatically included. The substantial form of the being ( an essential aspect of this would be what we call its nature ) goes deeper than that however. The DNA, for example, would be a partial manifestation of that. Other manifestations would include, for example, its various behaviors, anitomical processes, life and dependent life systems ( respiratory, blood, lymphatic, etc.).

Accidents in this paragraph imply non-material objects…

As I said in the paragraphs above, as long as any of this was in any way physical it would be counted as an accident ( but accident has two definitions in Thomas. The ones we have in mind here are things required for a particular subject to function properly and as this particular type of being and which inhere essentially in the subject. The other type would be things like color which are non-essential to this subject as such.)

Of course when we are speaking of creation, we are speaking of the first substances created, whatever they were. Perhaps those we have now evolved from what those were, perhaps not. But if we took the creation of Genesis literally, everything about them would have been created all at once. For creation means to bring into existence, all at once, whatever substance ( second substance and this always includes the underlying first substance.) is created.

Things like the zygot of course are productions from a previously existing matter ( the female egg and the male sperm). This is not a creation. It is a natural process accounted for by the four causes ( mentioned above ) at work, the unfolding of the forces contained in the natures of the female and the male.

The human soul is of course created immediately by God.

Of course Thomas had no knowledge about qualia and zygotes but you do, can you explain?

I addressed that in the paragraphs above. You will have to explain what you mean by qualia. If it is something non-material like thoughts, concepts then they would be what Thomas called conceptual beings or substances. But they could not be actual spiritual beings like the soul.

This is a misunderstanding of what I am saying…

And I disagree with your explanation. God creates whole substances, he does not create a substance with two levels of reality. Whatever the first created substances ( second substances, which includes first substances for each being) were, all the atoms, particles, waves, electrons, etc which are part of their natures were created along with the substances. I don’t comprehend the concept of " discrete space " you are trying to explain. If it is real it is matter of some type. If it is mathematical, it is not real but derived from something real.

Matter may be or it may not be mostly empty space. If you consider the human body and its physical make up, I am sure that you will find lots of " empty space." However, even that is under the control of mans nature and substantial form. It is a part of him.

Empty space is not filled by spiritual reality of any kind. Spiritual means non-material. A spiritual being cannot be contained, it does not occupy a space. You are attempting to explain the interaction between the body and the soul. That is a problem modern philosophers mind have been trying to do for over a hundred years. I’m not saying you don’t have a solution but it is definitely at the speculative level. I don’t see how anyone can give a reasonable explanation.

The discrete space forms the material component of an object both animate and inanimate and is the source of the "accidents such as their mass, quantity, interior forces, their encoded rules governing their activities and guiding them to their proper ends.

Sounds good as long as you can give a solid definition of " discrete space." That does not mean I agree with what you are saying, I just say it sounds good.

The spiritual, continuous space-like component forms the component of the mind and soul of animate objects and is the source of qualia.

No, no, no! The soul is not part of any space. It does fill and animate the body, O.K., but you go to far. O.K. now you need to define what you mean by " qualia. " If you are thinking of life force, thoughts, concepts, memory, I might possibly agree. Depends.

No spirit, not even the human soul has " particles. " Forget that idea.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

The human soul is of course created immediately by God.

Linus2nd

Well, that at the very least puts a very big hole in your idea that God only created once from nothing.

In that case you shouldn’t have a problem with the idea of particles popping in and out of existence, at least not from a logical point of view…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

–continued–

Our fight is with materialists who wield a pretty powerful weapon in modern science, a weapon that our youth learn throughout their academic years from the point of view of the materialist. They become skeptics and cynics. Consider what is happening to the Millennial (or Y) generation that was born during the last two decades of the twentieth century.

From Wikipedia:
“Generation Y (those born in the last 2 decades of the twentieth century) has led a trend towards irreligion that has been growing since the 1990s. 32 percent of Americans born between 1983 and 1994 are irreligious, as opposed to 21 percent born between 1963 and 1982, 15 percent born between 1948 and 1962 and only 7 percent born before 1948.”

The way our society is structured this is a tough battle and it would be nice if Scholasticism, which is closer to the purity of thought than anything modern, could turn the trend around, but it has little chance because it and most religious thought has been buried under a dung heap of Liberalism. The Holy Spirit might reverse the trend, but I doubt if Scholasticism will.

IMO the only chance is something like I am doing, namely, relegate science to its own level (explicate) and describe how God creates at a deeper level of reality (the implicate). Since the model I am developing is at a level of reality divorced from science, the knowledge of QM and mathematics is not required for understanding.

yppop

And I wish you well but be sure to define all your terms carefully. Let me know when you are finished. You can post it on a web site somewhere and let us all know. I will be sure to have some friendly criticisms .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, that at the very least puts a very big hole in your idea that God only created once from nothing.

I don’t see how. Did you read my response.

In that case you shouldn’t have a problem with the idea of particles popping in and out of existence, at least not from a logical point of view…

Not as long as it is God who is causing the " poping. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

And I wish you well but be sure to define all your terms carefully. Let me know when you are finished. You can post it on a web site somewhere and let us all know. I will be sure to have some friendly critiiscms .

Linus2nd