Thomistic proofs for the existence of God in the light of modern science

[masterjedi747]

how does it differ? what specific examples of such behavior are there?

This is starting to move slightly beyond the range of my education (although there are certainly other people around this forum who should be able to take you through the finer details that I can’t, if you wish) but this is generally how I understand it: because everything in physics is ultimately going to be dependent upon these probabilistic quantum events, things in the macroscopic world are going to be fundamentally probabilistic. You can shoot an electron at a sheet of gold, but you cannot know ahead of time whether it is going to bounce off one of the atoms, or simply pass through. Because, unlike the absolutely deterministic universe of Newtonian physics, the precise position/spin (and other such qualities) of those subatomic particles are not determined ahead of time by the present state of those particles.

i cant think of even one non-deterministic event ever being observed on the macro scale.

Two things.

1. When making that statement, aren’t you already assuming that nature is fundamentally deterministic? Furthermore, if both models of the universe are ultimately fashioned in such a way as to successfully account for as many observable phenomenon as possible (hopefully everything, if it’s correct), then how could you ever automatically know that it’s one way or another for certain, simply by looking around?
2. I’m certainly not as rock-solid on the details of quantum mechanics as I would like to be – however, simply the fact that modern science has rejected a deterministic model of the universe – that alone, to me, is a huge indication that the reasons driving that particular philosophical switch were overwhelming and conclusive. Because huge changes in science like that don’t happen overnight – the proposed new model has to be argued for and demonstrated over and over and over again before the old model is finally declared to have been proven insufficient, and overturned. I am highly certain that, if you were to actually investigate the rationale behind the development of quantum mechanics in detail, you would find yourself being forced step-by-step to reach the exact same conclusions, whether you like them or not.

this is what my analogy is meant to address. consider the chair that you sit in. all the particles are constantly in motion, interacting with one another on the quantum level, no matter the outcome of those interactions, no matter their distribution at any point in time on the quantum level, they are, from moment to moment your chair.

I guess I’m still disagreeing with that. If there actually is a freak distribution at any point in time (however unlikely that might be), then the outcome could certainly be very different. Now in practice the chair might have so many quantum interactions happening in it at once that the average is consistently maintained, but there’s no necessity absolutely preventing a freak occurrence from taking place (although yes, the improbability increases rapidly as the object in question gets larger).

if quantum activity were indeterminate in nature, than that should be reflected in the macro, yet there is no evidence of this.

what are these things that happen that cant be deterministically explained? evidence, evidence

if there are examples of a quantum butterfly effect i would be happy to see them. but i can think of any.

You are going to require a much more intimate investigation of nature to demonstrate whether there is evidence for such things or not – and all I can tell you right now is that modern science, apparently, is certain that there is. I can’t argue much more beyond that, since that’s about the extent of my knowledge. However, as I said before, there is our general experience of nature – and that’s not worth absolutely nothing. We generally experience that many things happen for the most part, but not always. Animals frequently live long enough to grow into adults, but not always. It usually snows during the winter in this location, but not always. Photons usually bounce off of mirrors, but not always. Could it all be accounted for deterministically? Maybe it could – it’s certainly easy enough to imagine. But reality doesn’t have to conform to our expectations and imaginations. Does nature really work that way? That’s going to be a much more difficult question to answer, and the details of such an investigation extend beyond the range of my current education. All I can do for now is simply appeal to the wise/experts in their particular field of study, and present the conclusions that they seem to have determined.

 

[masterjedi747]

unfortunately none of the things listed above are quantum events. DNA mutation involves many particles, well above the quantum thresh hold, as is neural activation, and radiations effect on entire organisms, it takes many billions of radioactive collisions, to significantly alter activity at the organism level, etc

I think the point is that they don’t have to be quantum events themselves – they just have to be close enough that the indeterminacy of quantum effects can occasionally play some sort of a role, however limited that might be.

thats just it, if quantum activity is non determinate then the existence of that singularity is also** indeterminate, or non-causal. it could literally just pop into existence from nothing.**

Wait, when did we go back to “indeterminate” = “non-causal”? I thought we had already agreed that nothing that happens could ever be truly “non-causal”?

for me free will proves the imposition of the supernatural on a deterministic world

And for me, I guess, the indeterminacy that exists in nature seems to indicate/require that the supernatural (Divine Providence) necessarily plays an intimate role in guiding the development of the universe. Free will is perfectly compatible with the nature of the material world, and not something extra that we have to force upon our otherwise deterministic view of material creation.

why do we need a link between the two that allows for a physical mechanism for free will?

Well, there is the small fact that you have a physical material body, and so if the deterministic laws of nature actually govern every particle in the universe (including the ones composing your body), then things get messy for free will. Either it’s an illusion, and it doesn’t really exist at all, or our deterministic view of the universe is constantly being violated by men all of the time.

Which reminds me of another question worth asking: assuming we could trace back the causes governing the function of the brain as thoroughly as we wished, where does it stop? Don’t you have to end up finding particles behaving “indeterminately” anyway? So what’s the big problem if we actually find the same sort of indeterminacy in the rest of nature, and realize that there isn’t as much of a difference as we thought between us and the universe? Either way, don’t you ultimately have to end up accounting for indeterminacy being somehow present in the universe anyway?

 

[masterjedi747]

Please…

Would you mind giving the real Thomistic definition of substance and form with some examples?

Yikes – now I sort of wish that I hadn’t left all of my books at school during vacation!
But I’ll do what I can – probably try to start off making things as simple as possible, and then we’ll see where it goes from there.

And before we begin, one thing you might want to note that the Thomistic definitions of these things are taken pretty much 100% from Aristotle (particularly his Categories, and the first two books of his Physics).

Substances, most generally, are physical things that you can point to and say “this existing thing” [examples: water, oxygen, diamonds, plants, animals]. The genus of substance is divided into two species: natural substances (which are “most of all called substance”), and artificial substances (still called substances, but in a qualified sense). Natural substances have an internal nature that causes them to behave in a certain manner [examples: water naturally reacts with potassium, iron is naturally conductive of electricity, trees naturally grow into a certain shape], while artificial substances (although still ultimately composed out of natural substances) do not have an inherent internal nature causing them to behave in a certain manner [examples: knives don’t run around and cut things all by themselves (although their shape might be naturally disposed to cutting things), chairs don’t build themselves for being sat upon, and cars don’t assemble themselves and drive around (although again, their assembled structure might be naturally disposed to that sort of activity)]. Put even more simply, natural substances have a unique nature, while artificial substances only have natures (and are only called “substances”) accidentally, insofar as the natural substances composing them have their own natures.

Next, all substances are composed of matter and form. Matter is more or less just like what you think of when you say “material”, while form is the “account” or “what it is to be” of the substance (I know that probably doesn’t make a whole lot of sense yet, but hang in there). Matter and form are never found separately in nature – you can never have “prime matter” floating around without a form, or Plato’s “world” of pure forms existing somewhere else – you can only ever really have formed matter. But even though they can never exist separately, we still distinguish between them as two separate principles in order to account for the reality of substantial change (when one natural substance changes into another). >> Alright now, time for the example: so you take two natural substances, hydrogen and oxygen, and combine them together (by initiating a violent chemical reaction between them), producing one new natural substance, water – meanwhile, this is what has happened in regards to matter and form: the forms of hydrogen and oxygen no longer exist perfectly, while the underlying matter of the hydrogen and oxygen has survived the change, but taken on a new form – namely, having the account of water, or the what it is to be of water – in other words, having whatever those qualities and characteristics are which water requires in order to be called “water”. The form of a substance, in other words, is that by which the particular substance is called a particular kind of substance – but it’s really not (and this is important to remember) something that you can ever actually imagine existing apart from matter. Anything that you can ever think of will be formed matter, because however plain and boring you might try to make it, there will always be some sort of account or description that can be given of it, and thus it will have some particular form.

…I think that’s about it for the basics. And I don’t know exactly how much this is making sense to you right now, but please feel free to ask me to repeat or re-explain something if it’s just not making sense. It also might be helpful, if you’re confused about something, you try and re-state what I’m saying, but in your own words, so that we can more easily identify exactly what we’re having trouble expressing or understanding.

You also might want to give these articles a shot, if you get a chance:
Substance: newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm
Form: newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm

And the definitions of other possible words generally used with substance and the “proofs”?

…it might be just because I’m tired and need to go to bed , but I don’t seem to remember the terms “substance” or “form” coming up in any the 5 ways? Did you have something particularly in mind, or am I perhaps forgetting something important?

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is starting to move slightly beyond the range of my education (although there are certainly other people around this forum who should be able to take you through the finer details that I can’t, if you wish) but this is generally how I understand it: because everything in physics is ultimately going to be dependent upon these probabilistic quantum events, things in the macroscopic world are going to be fundamentally probabilistic. You can shoot an electron at a sheet of gold, but you cannot know ahead of time whether it is going to bounce off one of the atoms, or simply pass through. Because, unlike the absolutely deterministic universe of Newtonian physics, the precise position/spin (and other such qualities) of those subatomic particles are not determined ahead of time by the present state of those particles.

But the laws of probability must have some element of determinism built in surely? For instance, the fact that an electron doesn’t bounce off and instead passes through the sheet; there must be something that says that an electron will only sometimes bounce through. What is it?

I know very little about quantum physics, But i am interested. Please tell me if this following statement makes any sense…

From Indeterminacy To Determinism

As particles begin to take on mass and grow beyond the micro world, macro events become more probable because there are fewer possibilities that can be achieved within complex structures where particles are having a direct effect on each other according to forces like pull and repulsion. This is the beginning of classical physics. Pathways are redefined and fixed into particular patterns that give rise to chain reactions which grow bigger and bigger, bringing in to being new deterministic forces of behavior; expanding into what we now know as the macro world. Thus, there is “determinism” on the macro scale, with a very small element of indeterminacy. So small in fact, that it is extremely improbable that you will see a pink elephant suddenly appear on a mass scale. And thus; “order” is born on the macro scale as apposed to “chaos”. There is far too much complexity; which means there is too many forces involved and so not enough space for indeterminate behavior.
Once the macro world is in place, there is a “pulling” effect on the micro world according to the gravitational forces inherent in mass-complexity, which then gradually pulls into being more and more atoms, making the production of “atomic-structures” even more probable then before; helping to give rise to the expansion of the universe.

Micro scale particles, like electrons, lack mass and thus are indeterminate; because there is fewer forces involved like gravity; or rather, they do exist, but they are very weak. This means that, before there was any mass of any kind, they initially needed some kind of determining forces, however weak, that would convert energy to mass, having at least made it possible, however improbable, for the elements to combine or unite with one another; creating atoms, which are less indeterminate in nature.

What is that force?

Now that I have written this, I now see how quantum physics reveals an underlying logic to reality! I can see, according to this hierarchy of being, why things on the micro scale are very ghost like. Quantum physics isn’t irrational at all!!

I must warn you though, that i don’t actually know what im talking about. Im just reasoning to the best of my ability. What I have written is just my own speculative ideas; so unfortunatly for me I will have to hold my breath until you say I can breath.

What do you think?

Peace.

 

[JDaniel]

Please…

I’ve been reading different threads and “substance” is being used in different ways.

Would you mind giving the real Thomistic deffinition of substance and form with some examples? And the deffinitions of other possible words generally used with substance and the “proofs”? Thank you.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

Grannymh:

Substance has essentially two meanings as used herein: (1) As material cause. As material cause, it is the matter from which a thing is made, such as the wood, nails, metal, roofing, etc. of a new house.

(2) As necessary property. As (a) necessary property, substance is that which gives more weight, more importance and more truth to statements, thoughts and apprehensions (conceptions) of things. In this meaning, it is opposed to accidental. Thus, that Tom is a man with red hair, indicates that Tom is a man, substantially, and has red hair, accidentally.

Form is that which differentiates one thing from another. Each of the 6.45 billion people on earth are different from one another, even if two of them are identical twins. When God creates a new person, for example, He applies form to primary matter. This produces a new human soul and (simultaneously) human being.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

take you through the finer details that I can’t, if you wish)

i understand the finer details, as well as any layman can. that is why i hold these opinions.

because everything in physics is ultimately going to be dependent upon these probabilistic quantum events, things in the macroscopic world are going to be fundamentally probabilistic.

thats the problem, that ‘fundamentally probabilistic’ behavior is never reflected in the macro world. there is, to my knowledge no physical evidence of it. that means that all the interactions that lead up to the macro event, must be deterministic.

if they were truly probabilistic as opposed to deterministic we should have ample evidence, yet we dont have any at all of macro indeterminism, i am sorry, but it simply isnt there.

so my conclusion must be that the quantum events are not probabilistic after all.

You can shoot an electron at a sheet of gold, but you cannot know ahead of time whether it is going to bounce off one of the atoms, or simply pass through. Because, unlike the absolutely deterministic universe of Newtonian physics, the precise position/spin (and other such qualities) of those subatomic particles are not determined ahead of time by the present state of those particles.

the fact that we cant determine those qualities does not mean that the particle does not possess those qualities. in fact if the particle does not possess those qualities prior to an event then all events are completely random and matter would simply dissolve.

but it doesnt, it follows mathematical rules of behavior. that is evidence of the underlying determinism intrinsic to matter at all levels.

Two things.

1. When making that statement, aren’t you already assuming that nature is fundamentally deterministic?

not really, i am saying that if quantum indeterminancy results in macro indeterminancy then there should be obvious evidence.

Furthermore, if both models of the universe are ultimately fashioned in such a way as to successfully account for as many observable phenomenon as possible (hopefully everything, if it’s correct), then how could you ever automatically know that it’s one way or another for certain, simply by looking around

?

QM has many different interpretive schools of thought. all mutually exclusive, and none which perfectly reflect known phenomenon. there is no evidence at least macroscopically, that any of them are correct, because none of them can account for the macro determinism that we see, at least to my knowledge

1. I’m certainly not as rock-solid on the details of quantum mechanics as I would like to be

dont feel bad nobody really is.

however, simply the fact that modern science has rejected a deterministic model of the universe – that alone, to me, is a huge indication that the reasons driving that particular philosophical switch were overwhelming and conclusive

.

QM is not conclusive in any way, and may never be. further theories like string, m-theory, supergravity, loop quantum gravity, etc, have been unable to settle specifics for several decades now. they are nothing more than conjecture.

as the theories are not yet settled lets hold off on anything being overwhelming and conclusive.

Because huge changes in science like that don’t happen overnight – the proposed new model has to be argued for and demonstrated over and over and over again before the old model is finally declared to have been proven insufficient, and overturned.

look up something called phlogiston, science has made many mistakes only to later find out the truth. this wont even be close to the first time

I am highly certain that, if you were to actually investigate the rationale behind the development of quantum mechanics in detail, you would find yourself being forced step-by-step to reach the exact same conclusions, whether you like them or not.

i have done so, yet i have not reached the same conclusions, mainly for the listed reasons. dont hold scientists in too high a regard, most of the theories you are defending, have as their purpose the denial of a created universe, they are not on your side so to speak.

I guess I’m still disagreeing with that. If there actually is a freak distribution at any point in time (however unlikely that might be), then the outcome could certainly be very different. Now in practice the chair might have so many quantum interactions happening in it at once that the average is consistently maintained,

if the interactions were maintained to the Nth degree of 50/50 that would seem necessary to maintain the stability of matter from moment to moment. that would constitute a mathematical relationship, leading back to mathematical determinism.

why else would those interactions not vary wildly over the distributive plane? if those interactions were truly random then such a closely held average would seem to be impossible.

You are going to require a much more intimate investigation of nature to demonstrate whether there is evidence for such things or not – and all I can tell you right now is that modern science, apparently, is certain that there is.

but they aren’t certain at all, thats why there are so many competing schools of thought on the matter.

All I can do for now is simply appeal to the wise/experts in their particular field of study, and present the conclusions that they seem to have determined.

i would suggest that you explore these things yourself, the wise and/or experts in the field are no more intelligent then you, you have access to all the same data they do

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think the point is that they don’t have to be quantum events themselves – they just have to be close enough that the indeterminacy of quantum effects can occasionally play some sort of a role, however limited that might be.

thats a whole lot of maybe there, generally all those processes are wel above the quantum level, or the chemistry wouldnt work, though its possible, it would be the mathematical equivalent of winning the lottery several times a second, the odds are awful bad

Wait, when did we go back to “indeterminate” = “non-causal”? I thought we had already agreed that nothing that happens could ever be truly “non-causal”?

i am just explaining the tact that non-theists would take

And for me, I guess, the indeterminacy that exists in nature seems to indicate/require that the supernatural (Divine Providence) necessarily plays an intimate role in guiding the development of the universe. Free will is perfectly compatible with the nature of the material world, and not something extra that we have to force upon our otherwise deterministic view of material creation.

i like how a poster catsanddogs puts it, the supernatural intersects the natural at nodal points called “men”

its not forced though, we have proof of two separate systems, and their interaction

Well, there is the small fact that you have a physical material body, and so if the deterministic laws of nature actually govern every particle in the universe (including the ones composing your body), then things get messy for free will. Either it’s an illusion, and it doesn’t really exist at all, or our deterministic view of the universe is constantly being violated by men all of the time.

i believe it is, and that the non-physical effect known as free will is the proof of the supernatural, after all if free will is an illusion it is such an exact copy as to be actual free will, is it live or is it memorex?

Which reminds me of another question worth asking: assuming we could trace back the causes governing the function of the brain as thoroughly as we wished, where does it stop? Don’t you have to end up finding particles behaving “indeterminately” anyway?

we dont stop determinism, we use it to prove the supernatural through the non-physical effect of free will. it mental aikiddo, hi yah!

So what’s the big problem if we actually find the same sort of indeterminacy in the rest of nature, and realize that there isn’t as much of a difference as we thought between us and the universe? Either way, don’t you ultimately have to end up accounting for indeterminacy being somehow present in the universe anyway?

not until we find evidence of that indeterminism, which we dont, what we think is random on the quantum level seems to be disproven by macro effects

in my model, the supernatural is proven by the effect of free will, putting us closer and closer to a independent actor, a Creator, to G-d.

determinism is our friend not our enemy.

 

[masterjedi747]

But the laws of probability must have some element of determinism built in surely? For instance, the fact that an electron doesn’t bounce off and instead passes through the sheet; there must be something that says that an electron will only sometimes bounce through. What is it?

The nature of the electron is what determines that. The nature of the electron, you might say, is such that it will tend to bounce off 90% of the time, and pass through 10% of the time. It “aims”, generally, at that particular 90/10 ratio, but the outcome of any single bounce/tunnel event is not strictly determined ahead of time, before the electron actually reaches the atom in question.

Please tell me if this following statement makes any sense…

…I will have to hold my breath until you say I can breath.

What do you think?

…I think I’m kind of scared that you’re asking me to render some sort of final/concrete judgment on your ideas.

Thus, there is “determinism” on the macro scale, with a very small element of indeterminacy. … And thus; “order” is born on the macro scale as apposed to “chaos”.

That sounds about right to me. Because the nature of the micro-scale events is to tend towards a particular end, we end up with macro-scale events also tending towards a particular end (although perhaps with a much higher probability of reaching that end).

There is far too much complexity; which means there is too many forces involved and so not enough space for indeterminate behavior.

I think indeterminate behavior is something that contributes to that complexity… we don’t need to make more “room” for it to fit in somewhere.

I was already planning on posting these links (and certain quotes from the second one) in my following posts, but I’ll stick them here too, since I think they might be helpful:

Quantum Java: The Upwards Percolation of Quantum Indeterminacy
ksu.edu/philos/documents/Glymour/Quantum_Java.pdf

Chaos (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/

    Micro scale particles, like electrons, lack mass and thus are indeterminate ... **before there was any mass of any kind, they initially needed some kind of determining forces ... that would convert energy to mass,** having at least made it possible ... for the elements to combine or unite with one another; creating atoms, which are less indeterminate in nature.

What is that force?

…the nature of the material involved, I suppose – the fact that it’s naturally inclined to convert from energy to mass under the proper conditions. (I’m not sure if that answers your question?)

When God creates a new person, for example, He applies form

to primary matter.I’m going to be a little nit-picky with that last part of the sentence, if you don’t mind. It’s not like God actually takes *prime matter *and applies a form to it – you can’t actually have just prime matter, without some any sort of form at all – rather, when the sperm and egg (both formed matter) combine, they cease to exist as sperm and egg (cease to have the form or account of sperm and egg), and God simultaneously infuses a new form (the human soul). The “account” or “what it is” (form) of the material changes, but always from one form to another – you can never start or end with “prime material” apart from form.

 

[masterjedi747]

thats the problem, that ‘fundamentally probabilistic’ behavior is never reflected in the macro world. … if they were truly probabilistic as opposed to deterministic we should have ample evidence, yet we dont have any at all of macro indeterminism … that means that all the interactions that lead up to the macro event, must be deterministic.

I still think you should really be, at the very least, cautious about making claims like that. Just because an event is fundamentally probabilistic, that doesn’t mean that the outcome has to be purely random or entirely unpredictable. A world governed by probabilistic events can still tend, for the most part, towards a particular predictable outcome – there’s just a lack of absolute necessity for events to turn out a certain way before the causes are actualized.

You had also asked about the reality of a “quantum butterfly effect” phenomenon, and so I did a tiny bit of research on that question too:

Quantum Java: The Upwards Percolation of Quantum Indeterminacy
ksu.edu/philos/documents/Glymour/Quantum_Java.pdf

Chaos (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/

…the smallest of changes in a system can result in very large differences in that system’s behavior. The so-called butterfly effect has become one of the most popular images of chaos. …The mathematical version of this property is known as sensitive dependence."
One of the exciting features of SDIC [sensitive dependence on initial conditions] is that there is no lower limit on just how small some change or perturbation can be—the smallest of effects will eventually be amplified up affecting the behavior of any system exhibiting SDIC. A number of authors have argued that chaos through SDIC opens a door for quantum mechanics to “infect” chaotic classical mechanics systems
Even if indeterminism was true at the quantum level, Smart argued that the brain remains deterministic in its operations because quantum events are insignificant by comparison. After all a single neuron is known to be excited by on the order of a thousand molecules, each molecule consisting of ten to twenty atoms. Quantum effects though substantial when focusing on single atoms are presumed negligible when focusing on systems involving large numbers of molecules. …[however,] arguments such as Smart’s do not take into consideration the possibility for amplifying quantum effects through the interplay between SDIC at the level of the macroscopic world on the one hand and quantum effects on the other.

Also, for whatever it might be worth:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Newtonian physics, taken in isolation rather than as an approximation to quantum mechanics, depicts a universe in which objects move in perfectly determinative ways. At human scale levels of interaction, Newtonian mechanics gives predictions that in many areas check out as completely perfectible, to the accuracy of measurement. …Absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet should produce absolutely reliable predictions of its path …However, knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior.

while the following position, it seems to me, is essentially what you would want to argue

Some have argued that, in addition to the conditions humans can observe and the laws we can deduce, there are hidden factors or “hidden variables” that determine absolutely in which order photons reach the detector screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically-determinative way. In actuality, they proceed in an absolutely deterministic way. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable) …Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by a minority of physicists who argued that the statistical nature of quantum mechanics indicated that quantum mechanics is “incomplete”. …Later, Bell’s theorem would prove (in the opinion of most physicists and contrary to Einstein’s assertion) that local hidden variables are impossible.

[But] even before the laws of quantum mechanics were fully developed, the phenomenon of radioactivity posed a challenge to determinism. A gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. By all tests known to science, each of these atoms is identical and indistinguishable. Yet about 12600 times a second one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. This decay does not depend on external stimulus and no extant theory of physics predicts when any given atom will decay, with realistically obtainable knowledge. …Exposure to alpha radiation can cause cancer. For this to happen, at some point a specific alpha particle must alter some chemical reaction in a cell in a way that results in a mutation. Since molecules are in constant thermal motion, the exact timing of the radioactive decay that produced the fatal alpha particle matters. If probabilistically determined events do have an impact on the macro events – such as when a person who could have been historically important dies in youth of a cancer caused by a random mutation – then the course of history is not determined from the dawn of time.

 

[masterjedi747]

the fact that we cant determine those qualities does not mean that the particle does not possess those qualities.

I don’t disagree with that. I was more arguing for the possibility that that some those qualities are are constantly changing in an unpredictable way, such that they are not necessarily determined ahead of time by the previous conditions of the particle.

in fact if the particle does not possess those qualities prior to an event then all events are completely random and matter would simply dissolve.

if those interactions were truly random then such a closely held average would seem to be impossible

Not completely random, no – you would definitely be right if they were – but in fact, the interactions are “random” only to a certain extent, and not absolutely. Any one particular event might be unpredictable, but it’s not completely unpredictable – not all outcomes are equally probable. The particular state of the particle might vary unpredictably (“randomly”) from moment to moment, but it is still tending towards a particular outcome by its very nature – an outcome which is naturally achieved for the most part – which is precisely why there still can be a closely held average in the long run.

but it doesnt, it follows mathematical rules of behavior. that is evidence of the underlying determinism intrinsic to matter at all levels.

…except that’s exactly what hasn’t been proven. And our observations actually seem to indicate that the perfect mathematical rules fall apart under extreme conditions (notably quantum mechanics and special relativity) – which in turn would support the Aristotelian/ Thomistic position that, even under “normal” conditions, nature acts towards a certain end and achieves it for the most part, rather than always and out of absolute necessity.

i am saying that if quantum indeterminancy results in macro indeterminancy then there should be obvious evidence.

And I was arguing that the evidence (in either case, deterministic or not) is not necessarily going to be obvious. For instance, if both models of reality appear to successfully account for all observable phenomenon – then proving the truth or one or the other model might have to come down to evidence taken from very not-obvious observations of nature.

QM has many different interpretive schools of thought. …there is no evidence at least macroscopically, that any of them are correct, because none of them can account for the macro determinism that we see, at least to my knowledge

They all have to be capable of accounting for at least apparent “macro determinism” – otherwise they wouldn’t seriously be considered – instead they differ (among other things) in regards to the question of whether or not QM is actually indeterministic or not. And they tend to be, at least in some respects, slightly more along the lines of different philosophical interpretations of the observed phenomenon.

For the benefit of anyone who might be curious:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
…among which the following is my favorite:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory
…while I believe warpspeedpetey would favor this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

QM is not conclusive in any way, and may never be.

they aren’t certain at all, thats why there are so many competing schools of thought on the matter.

Well, there is some certainty – they all do agree, after all, that these quantum mechanical phenomenon exist, and violate (or at the very least appear to violate) classical mechanics, and thus need to be accounted for in some manner. It’s just their individual ways of accounting for the phenomenon that differ – and even then, not all interpretations are equally reasonable (…Many-Worlds Interpretation, anyone? :whacky, so we can still have some indications as to what the correct interpretation should be.

look up something called phlogiston, science has made many mistakes only to later find out the truth. this wont even be close to the first time

I have read Lavoisier’s papers disproving phlogiston theory, actually. But two things:

1. There is still at least one important way in which quantum mechanics clearly differs from phlogiston theory – because the fact is, these “quantum mechanical phenomenon”, whatever they might be, do exist and do have to be explained – there’s absolutely no getting around that. So yes, particular interpretations of quantum mechanics might rise or fall in an instant, but the study of quantum mechanics, as a whole, isn’t going anywhere.
2. …or maybe the general overthrow of Newtonian determinism by quantum mechanics actually parallels the historical overthrow of phlogiston theory. Maybe the mistake that science initially made was in assuming the perfect mathematical predictability of nature. Maybe we’ve finally learned that nature is more dynamic than we gave it credit for, and that we were wrong to ever put such limits on it in the first place.

 

[masterjedi747]

generally all those processes are well above the quantum level, or the chemistry wouldn’t work. though its possible, it would be the mathematical equivalent of winning the lottery several times a second, the odds are awful bad

This just ties back into 2 things from the previous post: (1) the discussion of how “unpredictable” does not necessarily equate with “absolutely random”, and (2) the possibility of a “quantum butterfly effect” phenomenon.

i am just explaining the tact that non-theists would take

Yes… but that tact must necessarily fail. They can’t actually argue for the “indeterminate” = “non-causal” connection unless they actually assume that something can come from nothing, which by itself is simply absolutely absurd and impossible. So, regardless of whether or not indeterminate events do take place in nature, we can be certain that, even if they did, they couldn’t actually be used to attack the existence of God.

i like how a poster catsanddogs puts it, the supernatural intersects the natural at nodal points called “men”

I still say that that is, at best, a compromise position. I’m still nowhere near convinced that we have to surrender the intimate traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic connection between Divine Providence and the rest of nature – which, theologically speaking, still makes far more sense.

That said, I’m not sure that we can really take this portion of the conversation much further. Our disagreements obviously seem to be rooted in our differing understandings of the nature of the universe – all I can really ask is that you at least try to keep an open mind to the possibility of a traditional non-deterministic nature, even if you don’t currently hold that to be the best model to fit the observations.

its not forced though, we have proof of two separate systems, and their interaction

Something has to be being forced, if you’re actually sticking free will together with a deterministic physical universe. Surely you must, at least, understand and admit this.

Let’s take an example: I offer you the choice between “the red pill” and “the blue pill” p) – now you have to make the decision. According to your first assumption, then, you have free will – so you can freely choose to take either one pill or the other. According to the deterministic laws of the universe, however, all of the neurons firing in your brain in response to this dilemma should be absolutely predetermined – you can’t actually choose any option other than the one your brain decides upon (choice is simply an illusion); or, if you can really choose, you can’t actually prevent your brain from directing your arm to pick up the pill that your brain has decided upon (which is obviously quite contrary to our everyday personal experience of free will). The indeterminacy of free will is fundamentally opposed to the absolute determinism of the universe – so if you’re actually going to stick the two together, something has to be being forced somewhere – your free will must somehow “override” the physical laws governing the particles of your brain in order for the rest of your body to actually become subservient to your free will. (Surely this much is clear?)

i believe it is [the deterministic laws of the universe are constantly being violated by men], and that the non-physical effect known as free will is the proof of the supernatural

Alright – and I’d say the same, but based upon the ''non-physical cause of indeterminacy in nature" – including, but not limited to, the indeterminacy of free will observed in men.

we dont stop determinism, we use it to prove the supernatural through the non-physical effect of free will.

in my model, the supernatural is proven by the effect of free will

Same two things as said above: (1) you’ve got to be violating determinism, at least in some limited manner, if you’re going to hold on to free will, and (2) I can still argue to the existence of the supernatural through the indeterminacy of nature, just as effectively, but without requiring determinism. (so there. )

most of the theories you are defending, have as their purpose the denial of a created universe, they are not on your side so to speak.
…
determinism is our friend not our enemy.

…I’m slightly shocked that you actually made both of those statements, in two consecutive posts. :hypno:* Historically*, at the very least, determinism was very much our enemy – Aristotle fought against it in the philosophy of Democritus, and then the leaders of the Scientific Revolution fought for it once again against the philosophies of Aristotle and Aquinas. It was a huge philosophical threat to our faith, and not something that could easily be reconciled with things such as free will – at least, not without forcing either determinism or free will to “take a back seat”, as it were, in regard to human actions. And precisely because of that, the atheists loved determinism – many in fact still do, as can be seen by some of the ridiculous quantum mechanical interpretations they’re willing to come up with in order to maintain determinism. So although yes, a deterministic view of the universe might not necessarily conflict with the reality of our free will, it definitely can (and traditionally was) used as a huge step towards that end.

EDIT: My apologies for the mind-boggling length of some of these responses. I feel kind of bad about it, but at the same time I’m not sure if it would truly be better to speak less and leave more room for potential confusion.

 

[grannymh]

(2) I can still argue to the existence of the supernatural through the indeterminacy of nature, just as effectively, but without requiring determinism.

EDIT: My apologies for the mind-boggling length of some of these responses. I feel kind of bad about it, but at the same time I’m not sure if it would truly be better to speak less and leave more room for potential confusion.

Dear masterjedi,

One of the commandments is – a granny cannot lie on Sunday.

I did go through all these posts but I did not read every word. However, I found a lot that made sense or rather filled in the gaps of my own knowledge. And I shall return to them.

The sentence which really stands out is – " I’m still nowhere near convinced that we have to surrender the intimate traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic connection between Divine Providence and the rest of nature – which, theologically speaking, still makes far more sense." In granny wisdom, it could be added that scientifically speaking the “connection” still makes far more sense.

Point (2) in above quote really interests me. Did you do that in a previous post? Which one? If not, would you outline it in a future post?

Yikes!

I’m wishing I were back at the university as a student…there must be a commandment somewhere prohibiting nonsense on a Sunday… …

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[Logos385]

Diddi, welcome to CAF:
Nevertheless, we’ve had four more centuries to diminish the veracity of the five ways and haven’t (despite a myriad of artistic spins and modern science). As the article’s indicate, they are “proofs” only insofar as their presuppositions can and have been witnessed by people, and honest concensus was (and continues to be) achieved.
JD

We have, in fact, disproved all of St. Aquinas’s arguments, and the only one still really in use today is the argument from Design. The first three deal with an infinite regress, and use God as the terminator of that regress. This regress relies on causality, but what Aquinas doesn’t realize is that before time (before the universe was created) causality was impossible, for time didn’t exist. There was no causality because an ordered series is impossible without time. The moment of the universe’s creation is when this causality begins, yet the initial creation occurred in this causeless period. Thus, logically, we can show the universe to be the first cause, at least of the causality we are discussing, eliminating the necessity of God (which is what the first three arguments rely upon). The universe logically has to be the first cause of this series, because time didn’t exist before the universe, and the universe just as equally has to be “causeless” (I am using causeless in the same way Aquinas is: in terms of a regress, not necessarily saying that nothing contributed to the Universe’s creation), because nothing could have caused it without time.

Just as the first three held together in earlier times because no alternate explanation was known, the teleological argument (argument from design) no longer holds. This is because modern principles of evolution and natural selection eliminate the necessity of invoking God in this situation. Natural selection is the “Blind watchmaker,” or, “The blind designer,” essentially a method of creating things that look designed without there being a designer.

The last argument I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) is the argument that since we have gradations of perfection, there must exist an ultimate perfection, and this is simply ridiculous. There is not an ultimate to every character attribute that exists in our world or in the supernatural- what is the foundation for that belief? Is there an ultimate hairiness? An ultimate lust? An ultimate cuteness? Although I wish there was an ultimate cuteness, that logic simply does not hold together : ).

EDIT: I noticed you guys talking about free will, and would just like to add science into this discussion- blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an.html. This is an article about a study that is well on its way to disproving the idea of conscious decision-making (free will).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I was more arguing for the possibility that that some those qualities are are constantly changing in an unpredictable way, such that they are not necessarily determined ahead of time by the previous conditions of the particle.

since nothing is uncaused, then those changes must have a cause.

Not completely random, no – you would definitely be right if they were – but in fact, the interactions are “random” only to a certain extent, and not absolutely. …which is precisely why there still can be a closely held average in the long run.

ok, for arguments sake lets say there are five equally probable outcomes. the first interaction yields outcome 5, the second to outcome 2, the third outcome 4, etc. each interaction leads you away from the original state. changing the probabilities of the next outcome. it may be slower, but you still reach a point where all matter disintegrates if you have any more than 1 possible outcome for any particular interaction.

now the reality is that there are far more than 5 possible outcomes, there are very, very many.

if you insert any true randomness into the system then matter simply couldn’t exist as we see it.

…except that’s exactly what hasn’t been proven. And our observations actually seem to indicate that the perfect mathematical rules fall apart under extreme conditions (notably quantum mechanics and special relativity) – which in turn would support the Aristotelian/ Thomistic position that, even under “normal” conditions, nature acts towards a certain end and achieves it for the most part, rather than always and out of absolute necessity.

thats why i believe those interactions are deterministic, the macro world is deterministic as far as we can see, as we said earlier the macro and micro must be in agreement with each other.

And I was arguing that the evidence (in either case, deterministic or not) is not necessarily going to be obvious.

there is no evidence that this is true, its tested uncountable numbers of times per second with every interaction, yet in all of history there is no evidence. it should be very obvious, mostly matter simply disintegrating for no apparent reason. it should look like magical unexplainable effects. but we have never seen it.

Maybe the mistake that science initially made was in assuming the perfect mathematical predictability of nature. Maybe we’ve finally learned that nature is more dynamic than we gave it credit for, and that we were wrong to ever put such limits on it in the first place.

there is some question as to how well mathematics map to phenomenon, but that is a problem with our understanding of the universe and our ability to manipulate logical constructs as opposed to some quirks in reality where certain phenomenon fall under entirely different logic systems, at least thats my opinion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes… but that tact must necessarily fail. They can’t actually argue for the “indeterminate” = “non-causal” connection unless they actually assume that something can come from nothing, which by itself is simply absolutely absurd and impossible. So, regardless of whether or not indeterminate events do take place in nature, we can be certain that, even if they did, they couldn’t actually be used to attack the existence of God.

your preaching to the choir here but that is the attack they use, indeterminism means that it is possible for something under planck size, the supposed singularity, something can come from nothing. go figure

I still say that that is, at best, a compromise position. I’m still nowhere near convinced that we have to surrender the intimate traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic connection between Divine Providence and the rest of nature – which, theologically speaking, still makes far more sense.

if we wish to be taken seriously as Catholics we do, the average joes that we hope converts dont respect willful ignorance in the face of scientific observation, i refer you to galileo.

Something has to be being forced, if you’re actually sticking free will together with a deterministic physical universe. Surely you must, at least, understand and admit this.

Let’s take an example: I offer you the choice between “the red pill” and “the blue pill” p) – now you have to make the decision. According to your first assumption, then, you have free will – so you can freely choose to take either one pill or the other. According to the deterministic laws of the universe, however, all of the neurons firing in your brain in response to this dilemma should be absolutely predetermined – you can’t actually choose any option other than the one your brain decides upon (choice is simply an illusion); or, if you can really choose, you can’t actually prevent your brain from directing your arm to pick up the pill that your brain has decided upon (which is obviously quite contrary to our everyday personal experience of free will). The indeterminacy of free will is fundamentally opposed to the absolute determinism of the universe – so if you’re actually going to stick the two together, something has to be being forced somewhere – your free will must somehow “override” the physical laws governing the particles of your brain in order for the rest of your body to actually become subservient to your free will. (Surely this much is clear?)

i understand why you must feel this way, almost everyone else does, but i dont feel the need for a grand unification theory between the natural and the supernatural, for me it is by this supernatural influence that we are able to escape deterministic phenomenon, which goes back to my point that free will proves the existence of the supernatural. there is no physical mechanism for this. it is entirely supernatural in nature.

EDIT: My apologies for the mind-boggling length of some of these responses. I feel kind of bad about it, but at the same time I’m not sure if it would truly be better to speak less and leave more room for potential confusion.

long is fine but most of us here are well educated and will be able to keep up with the short form

 

[Leela]

Hi Logos,

We have, in fact, disproved all of St. Aquinas’s arguments, and the only one still really in use today is the argument from Design. The first three deal with an infinite regress, and use God as the terminator of that regress. This regress relies on causality, but what Aquinas doesn’t realize is that before time (before the universe was created) causality was impossible, for time didn’t exist. There was no causality because an ordered series is impossible without time. The moment of the universe’s creation is when this causality begins, yet the initial creation occurred in this causeless period. Thus, logically, we can show the universe to be the first cause, at least of the causality we are discussing, eliminating the necessity of God (which is what the first three arguments rely upon). The universe logically has to be the first cause of this series, because time didn’t exist before the universe, and the universe just as equally has to be “causeless” (I am using causeless in the same way Aquinas is: in terms of a regress, not necessarily saying that nothing contributed to the Universe’s creation), because nothing could have caused it without time.

You’ve summed up the problems with the “proofs” of God very well. I just wanted to add that I think another problem with the First Cause argument is the chain metaphor for causality–as if the universe unfolds like a series of dominoes, one knocking over the rest. Experience shows us that events don’t have a single cause but multiple causes that spread out in a web rather than narrow down to a single chain.

EDIT: I noticed you guys talking about free will, and would just like to add science into this discussion- blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an.html. This is an article about a study that is well on its way to disproving the idea of conscious decision-making (free will).

This part sounds nutty. How could science disprove conscious decision making?

Best,
Leela

 

[Logos385]

It is extremely nutty : ). Trippy, if you will!

Essentially an experiment was created in which the test subject (a human being) would have the choice to press a button with their right or their left hand. A myriad of brain sensors and other instruments were attached to the subject, measuring brain activity and neural signals. After the testing, it was found that the subject’s subconscious brain knew what hand was going to be used before the conscious mind knew. 7 seconds before on average. This seems ridiculous, yet has been verified in multiple studies. It makes my brain hurt. : ).

Essentially, a simple task of pressing a button seems to rely on innate brain function (possibly an internal rationalistic algorithm) and not conscious decision-making. Which astounds me : ). This of course, so far, has absolutely nothing to say about more complex decisions, but this avenue of research is just beginning… let’s see how free will fares in the future, eh? : ).

PS. Yes, you are completely correct in your addition to my Aquinas refutation. Thanks!

PPS. Yes, I use a ridiculous amount of text smileys. I like emoting! : D!

 

[gavanhe]

I will be doing the writing for a parish project to evangelize Catholics about the Holy Eucharist. Transubstantiation will be key. Thus, I will have to address the issue of modern science replacing Thomistic proofs in lay terms. I learned that fact on the internet.

I too am loving this conversation, though not prepared to stick my neck out too much!!
Any chance of sharing the results of your project?
Gerry

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We have, in fact, disproved all of St. Aquinas’s arguments, and the only one still really in use today is the argument from Design. The first three deal with an infinite regress, and use God as the terminator of that regress. This regress relies on causality, but what Aquinas doesn’t realize is that before time (before the universe was created) causality was impossible, for time didn’t exist. There was no causality because an ordered series is impossible without time. The moment of the universe’s creation is when this causality begins, yet the initial creation occurred in this causeless period. Thus, logically, we can show the universe to be the first cause, at least of the causality we are discussing, eliminating the necessity of God (which is what the first three arguments rely upon). The universe logically has to be the first cause of this series, because time didn’t exist before the universe, and the universe just as equally has to be “causeless” (I am using causeless in the same way Aquinas is: in terms of a regress, not necessarily saying that nothing contributed to the Universe’s creation), because nothing could have caused it without time.

this is circular reasoning.

the universe can have no cause, because time didn’t exist previous to the moment of creation? so it must have caused itself?

how can something be sufficient to cause itself? if cause is prior to effect than than the effect of creation must have a cause.

0+0=0 nothing comes from nothing

EDIT: I noticed you guys talking about free will, and would just like to add science into this discussion- blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an.html. This is an article about a study that is well on its way to disproving the idea of conscious decision-making (free will).

its a far cry between deciding which hand to use and making decisions on conceptual ideas, if free will is a fake then it is a perfect copy, making it free will itself.

 

[Logos385]

I am not at all saying the Universe has caused itself, what I am saying is that Aquinas’s regress can only go back so far as the moment of the Universe’s creation. Anything before that is outside of time, thus outside of the regress. Regresses depend on series, meaning events happening one after another, at different moments in time I articulated this in my last post.

As to the idea of the Universe’s creation, Quantum Physics does have multiple explanations, the possibility of an infinite universe is always valid, and there are multiple other explanations as well. The invocation of the supernatural to create the universe is, in the words of Dawkins, “At best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.” There is no sound reason to use the supernatural as a creator, or at least no evidence to do as such.

And the article about free will addressed this point exactly, I think it was at the bottom if you would like to investigate. This is simply the beginning of investigation: what it will say about complex decisions we do not know : ).

Thanks.