Jump to content

Quantum Mechanics


Recommended Posts

There is an interesting report by Raymond Ciao in "Quantum Mechanics--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action" (Vatican Observatory Publications) on the quantum eraser/delayed choice experiments his group carried out at Berkeley. Effectively, the observer, by his choice of experimental arrangement, can go backwards in time to effect particle paths. Ciao interprets his results as "In this viewpoint, every elementary, individual quantum event... is a result of the creative act of the universal Observer, in which all properties of all particles come into existence upon their observation, in continual acts of creatio ex nihilo, which constitutes a kind of creatio continua occurring everywhere at once." He says explicitly that the results of his experiments have led him to a neo-Berkeleyan perspective and a deeper faith.

 

Here's a link to a summary of the article:

http://www.ctns.org/books.html

 

http://www.ctns.org/books.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats not science, thats just jumping to conclusions without evidence. also known as pseudoscience.

are you saying that Chiao's nice quantum eraser and delayed choice experiments aren't science? I'd disagree. If you're saying his interpretation of the results isn't "science" I'd agree, I'd call it philosophy or theology (and in his article, which I assume you haven't read) he puts those conclusions under a "philosophy" and "theology" heading. Using the term "pseudo-science" is a pejorative, loaded criticism, because it implies his science is bad. You may disagree with his philosophical and theological interpretations (I find them interesting if not totally convincing), which you're perfectly free to do, but let's be discriminating in your criticisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i say that immediately assuming something is the work of god is not science and dressing it up to look liek science makes it pseudo science.

 

and yes it does imply that his science is bad, it should, thats exactly what i intended it to say because he is clearly biased on the issue if he is saying it is a 'divine action' ie, the work of a super natural thing.

 

in otherwords, complete bull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats not science, thats just jumping to conclusions without evidence. also known as pseudoscience.

 

I find it very similar to, without evidence, assuming that there is a material explanation for events including the beginning of the universe and life in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very similar to, without evidence, assuming that there is a material explanation for events including the beginning of the universe and life in it.

 

Without evidence? How about meteorology, biology, chemistry, geology, and every single other field of science? All of them explained materialistically, not one explained supernaturally -- despite them all having had multiple gods to "explain" them as the predominant belief for thousands of years. Everything so far remains either unexplained or explained materialistically. Is it such a stretch to expect the rest of the unexplained ones to likewise be explained materialistically?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, I agree, you have hit the nail directly on the head, invincible ignorance fallacy is exactly what you have been using.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

 

The term "invincible ignorance" has its roots in Catholic theology, opposite of the term vincible ignorance, where it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The earliest use of the term seems to have been by Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur (1863), although discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen. When and how the term was taken by logicians to refer to the state of persons who pigheadedly refuse to attend to evidence remains unclear, but one of its first uses was in the book Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument by W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther.[2]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without evidence? How about meteorology, biology, chemistry, geology, and every single other field of science?

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse and vague? Can you be more specific? Are any of these fields of study evidence that the universe and life in it have a materialistic cause? I don't think so.

 

All of them explained materialistically, not one explained supernaturally -- despite them all having had multiple gods to "explain" them as the predominant belief for thousands of years.

 

Is it relevant that unfounded superstitions and falsehoods of the past have been easily overturned by truths count as evidence that the universe had a material cause? Of course it does not.

 

Everything so far remains either unexplained or explained materialistically. Is it such a stretch to expect the rest of the unexplained ones to likewise be explained materialistically?

 

Are we talking about stretches of the imagination or are speaking of evidence? Does science accept conjecture?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking of course of evidence, definitely not of proof. Science has never dealt with proof, because there have never been any premises from which to do proofs. Yes, inductive logic cannot ever give certain conclusions, yet it really wouldn't be very clever to think that something that has been a certain way every time we can see, would suddenly be the opposite. So it is with materialistic vs supernatural explanations, the score is hundreds + unknown for materialistic, zero + unknown for supernatural.

 

In any case, supernatural explanations hardly ever are explanations anyways. They'd only be valid explanations if they could be used to make predictions, so we'd have to know what God is going to do before he does it. Yet if we can do that, it would seem God is extra...

Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>....In any case, supernatural explanations hardly ever are explanations anyways. They'd only be valid explanations if they could be used to make predictions, so we'd have to know what God is going to do before he does it. Yet if we can do that, it would seem God is extra...

How do you define supernatural?

 

Supernatural Order

 

Without evidence? How about meteorology, biology, chemistry, geology, and every single other field of science? All of them explained materialistically, not one explained supernaturally -- despite them all having had multiple gods to "explain" them as the predominant belief for thousands of years. Everything so far remains either unexplained or explained materialistically. Is it such a stretch to expect the rest of the unexplained ones to likewise be explained materialistically?

Let me use evolution as an example and pick one branch of science.

 

Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species, no more. Chemistry does not explain the origin of the chemicals it studies, it merely describes their interactions. The origin of chemicals is explained by astrophysics and cosmology, not by chemistry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking of course of evidence, definitely not of proof.

 

Except as far as I can see no evidence was offered by you and proof was not demanded by me.

 

Science has never dealt with proof, because there have never been any premises from which to do proofs. Yes, inductive logic cannot ever give certain conclusions, yet it really wouldn't be very clever to think that something that has been a certain way every time we can see, would suddenly be the opposite.

 

And yet every time we look at the beginnings of the universe and life in it we never see any evidence to support a material cause.

 

So it is with materialistic vs supernatural explanations, the score is hundreds + unknown for materialistic, zero + unknown for supernatural.

 

You have still not described any material evidence for the events mentioned and you have not indicated how material solutions to unrelated events could somehow improve the reliability of your metaphysical conjecture.

 

In any case, supernatural explanations hardly ever are explanations anyways. They'd only be valid explanations if they could be used to make predictions, so we'd have to know what God is going to do before he does it. Yet if we can do that, it would seem God is extra...

 

You seem to misunderstand. I am not here suggesting that a supernatural explanation is superior to your metaphysical belief in materialism. I am noting that your belief is not supported by evidence and is therefore unscientific.

 

To note that your viewpoint is metaphysical as opposed to scientific is not equivelent to suggesting an alternative. It is sufficient to note that you lack evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that has a known explanation always has a materialistic explanation. But if you can't understand that, I won't go repeating myself. Maybe you should go ask Thor what we think of lightning now, or Vulcan about volcanoes, or ...

 

And I don't care that you demand proof but called it evidence, it is proof you demanded and evidence I gave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always like the quote from Einstein - there are two ways to live, one as if there are no miracles and the other is if everything is a miracle.

 

I think a tree or a car or a cloud are all miraculous and therefore supernatural (adjective) in that the 'elementary particles' that make them up are a projection from a reality beyond our 3 dimensional space.

 

Current science suggests a similar thing by positing the String Theory and 14 dimensions to describe all reality.

 

So i would see everything as supernatural. I would also make the distinction between matter behaving due to given laws (autopilot) and matter behaving through the expressed will and personal choice of God, but as we have seen in Quantum physics, at the smallest level, because of our limitations to only 3 dimensions, we cannot know for sure (in a scientific way) when the second has trumped the first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that has a known explanation always has a materialistic explanation. But if you can't understand that, I won't go repeating myself. Maybe you should go ask Thor what we think of lightning now, or Vulcan about volcanoes, or ...

 

Your observations are true by definition, so I understand the tautology you employ.

 

And I don't care that you demand proof but called it evidence, it is proof you demanded and evidence I gave.

 

I have read plenty of conjecture in the past and yet no evidence (facts that demonstrate with causal adequacy that a particular cause has the capability of causing a particular event) has been offered for a material cause for this universe and life in it. Let's be honest, your supposed evidence is a metaphysical argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have read plenty of conjecture in the past and yet no evidence (facts that demonstrate with causal adequacy that a particular cause has the capability of causing a particular event) has been offered for a material cause for this universe and life in it. Let's be honest, your supposed evidence is a metaphysical argument.

 

!

Moderator Note

You're moving the goalposts.

 

You originally said

I find it very similar to, without evidence, assuming that there is a material explanation for events including the beginning of the universe and life in it.

 

emphasis added

 

In your original statement, "the beginning of the universe and life in it" was a subset of the evidence you sought. You subsequently changed it to be the entirety of your argument. So let's get back on track. Can we agree that the examples given by Mr Skeptic fall into the category of "material explanation for events?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting irony. The bible sort of places humanity in a unique position in the universe, since during the seven days of creation of the universe, man appears. This indirectly implies that humans are the most intelligent form of life in the universe having been hand selected with the formation of the universe. Based on all the data ever collected, science has never been able to refute this last statement; humans are at the top of the food chain in the universe.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are good logical arguments to extrapolate other life and even more intelligent life, but all this logic lacks any hard data. The material perspective can not prove this theory is not true, while the philosophy of science works in favor of the Biblical theory, due to the only evidence we have places humans at the top of the universal food chain. The irony is to argue against this, without any data support, places science in the position of a religion; mythology without hard evidence. However, science has faith in what can not be seen or proven. Religion is in the place of good science, being supported by the only data, without a single hard data point that can refute this theory. It is not based on faith but on the data since humans are intelligent.

Edited by pioneer
Link to post
Share on other sites

In your original statement, "the beginning of the universe and life in it" was a subset of the evidence you sought. You subsequently changed it to be the entirety of your argument. So let's get back on track. Can we agree that the examples given by Mr Skeptic fall into the category of "material explanation for events?"

 

Instead I would suppose that you read some posts far too literally, and in doing so, often fail to comprehend what was intended by the person. Many posters, myself included do not write as precisely as you seem to think. I am sorry that I don't write exactly what I mean to say. I would suggest that you ask for clarification when you encounter what you see as inconsistencies.

 

While I have previously indicated that Mr. Skeptic has offered material explanations for uninteresting events, I noted that they are largely irrelevant to the kinds of events noted in this thread so I don't see the value in continuing to discuss them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your observations are true by definition, so I understand the tautology you employ.

 

So are you disagreeing with something you know is true?

 

Incidentally, tautologies are the only thing that can be known to be true. True by definition is the purest and only knowable form of truth.

 

I have read plenty of conjecture in the past and yet no evidence (facts that demonstrate with causal adequacy that a particular cause has the capability of causing a particular event) has been offered for a material cause for this universe and life in it. Let's be honest, your supposed evidence is a metaphysical argument.

 

Yes, choosing science as my method to determine truth is a metaphysical choice. I certainly can't prove that inductive logic is a good choice, that the world is objective rather than subjective, that the laws of physics won't randomly change, and other things assumed by choosing to employ the scientific method. So when I speak of evidence, I mean in context with the limitations of the scientific method, of which inductive logic is of necessity a part. Therefore when given the choice to believe the rule that has held true everywhere tested or an exception that has never been known to happen*, I choose to believe that the unknown bits will also follow the rule.

 

* If you think otherwise feel free to show any example of something that has been explained supernaturally. But you have to keep the same definition of "explained", that is, a theory that makes specific, testable predictions (a falsifiable theory). Or, if you have a different definition of "explained", then it has to be allowed for the materialistic explanations as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead I would suppose that you read some posts far too literally, and in doing so, often fail to comprehend what was intended by the person. Many posters, myself included do not write as precisely as you seem to think. I am sorry that I don't write exactly what I mean to say. I would suggest that you ask for clarification when you encounter what you see as inconsistencies.

 

No, I don't think that "read my mind" is a reasonable option, nor do I find it reasonable to place the blame on others for your admitted imprecision. People can only go by what you wrote. I did point out your inconsistency, and so you are now free to clarify it.

 

While I have previously indicated that Mr. Skeptic has offered material explanations for uninteresting events, I noted that they are largely irrelevant to the kinds of events noted in this thread so I don't see the value in continuing to discuss them.

 

 

I would translate this as "I don't want to discuss anything that negates my thesis." Which is an example of why you probably should want people to go by your words alone, rather than trying to decipher the intent, because then we start arguing about this rather than the original topic.

 

In any event, you are using the "no true Scotsman" gambit here, by equating explained with uninteresting and eliminating those from discussion

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would translate this as "I don't want to discuss anything that negates my thesis." Which is an example of why you probably should want people to go by your words alone, rather than trying to decipher the intent, because then we start arguing about this rather than the original topic.

 

In any event, you are using the "no true Scotsman" gambit here, by equating explained with uninteresting and eliminating those from discussion

 

I previously indicated that they are uninteresting because they are largely irrelevant to the current focus of this topic. If you and Mr. Skeptic want to offer the cause of lightning, or rough seas or the moon's luminescence as relevant to understand the apparent ability to manipulate events as described in these quantum eraser/delayed choice experiments or if you wish to extend them to the cause of this universe or life in it, then I'm not very impressed.

 

Yes, choosing science as my method to determine truth is a metaphysical choice. I certainly can't prove that inductive logic is a good choice, that the world is objective rather than subjective, that the laws of physics won't randomly change, and other things assumed by choosing to employ the scientific method. So when I speak of evidence, I mean in context with the limitations of the scientific method, of which inductive logic is of necessity a part. Therefore when given the choice to believe the rule that has held true everywhere tested or an exception that has never been known to happen*, I choose to believe that the unknown bits will also follow the rule.

 

* If you think otherwise feel free to show any example of something that has been explained supernaturally. But you have to keep the same definition of "explained", that is, a theory that makes specific, testable predictions (a falsifiable theory). Or, if you have a different definition of "explained", then it has to be allowed for the materialistic explanations as well.

 

Once again I do not advocate for what you call "supernatural", instead I focus on an alternatives to material causes. The cause of the universe and the life in it have characteristics that are unique and stand apart from your examples because they contain within them, elements and markers that are only found in events that are planned and constructed for a purpose by an intelligent agent. They are unique when set next to the events you describe as being explained by material means. These observations lead to a testable concept that objects and events in this universe that show the same characteristics will be found to have been caused by an intelligent agent as well, and no events or objects with these characteristics will ever be explained to have been caused by material processes alone. Falsification is easy if one is able to demonstrate that a known material process in operation today does in fact produce these markers of design without aid or intervention.

 

The markers of design are defined as well. Large amounts of functional information that exceeds the amount predicted by probability theory is one of the easiest markers to identify. Functional information is a specific form of shannon information that when translated and processed generates functional systems. Another example are systems that are fine tuned to produce and support functional products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you doing exactly what swansont said you're doing? All the things with a materialistic explanation don't count because they're too uninteresting now, and only the currently unexplained ones count as interesting. That's even less impressive, especially since your testable predictions aren't. As I showed in the other thread, the "functional" aspect you ignore when inconvenient and only require when convenient. So you're left with being unable to explain the very things you claim can't be explained materialistically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you doing exactly what swansont said you're doing? All the things with a materialistic explanation don't count because they're too uninteresting now, and only the currently unexplained ones count as interesting.

 

No, they are uninteresting because they are irrelevant to explaining quantum events and they are irrelevant to explaining the events that result in objects that contain markers of design. They are not the same kinds of objects and are thus straw man examples.

 

 

That's even less impressive, especially since your testable predictions aren't. As I showed in the other thread, the "functional" aspect you ignore when inconvenient and only require when convenient.

 

Functional is well defined. You offer no evidence that I ignore functional aspects.

 

So you're left with being unable to explain the very things you claim can't be explained materialistically.

 

Thus demonstrating that this is an open area of inquiry and it is improper to suggest that since simple physical phenomena has been explained by material cause, therefore we should believe that all will be explained. One of the most interesting aspects of quantum mechanics is that while the mathematics provides accurate and reliable descriptions of what happens, QM does not provide explanations for causation. QM is not able to explain why these events occur the way they do. It is a science that does not provide for comprehension of cause. the two additional examples have the same issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a way to explain the cause of quantum effects. But it runs into a religious problem connected to physics. The concept of time, has no cause. Time, like the cause of quantum effects both lack physical cause. If we can give time a cause, we can also give quantum effects a cause. However, by giving a cause for time, we will touch upon a religious reaction, since time and quantum theory are based on faith in these two things without known cause. If you give these a cause, it impacts that blind faith and you will get a religious reaction.

 

Putting that faith aside, for the time being, say we assume time is a potential. The next question is, is there a way to demonstrate time potential? My classic example, comes from photography and is called motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the shutter speed is slower than the action. There is a time difference left in the photo, which shows up in the photo as uncertainty in distance. Within a photo, time has stopped, so we can't measure time directly. But since space-time is integrated, we see the extra time potential via its impact on distance. What we have is uncertainty in distance; uncertainty principle is positive time potential.

 

motion_blur_background.jpg

 

To explain why we get quantum effects, all we also need is time potential. The next example, uses a slightly different photo effect. In this case, instead of a still photo, we will use a movie. We not only have a difference in shutter speed within the action for each frame, but we also have a frame rate, which breaks continuous time into on-off segments. Whereas the former adds time potential to each frame, the latter loses time potential via off-on.

 

If we have a slow shutter speed and get motion blur, the uncertainty in distance helps to smooth action between frame, since plus and minus time potential add and can sort of cancel. These are not quantum effects. But if we have the correct shutter speed, so there is no motion blur, the lost time potential within the frame rate will show up as quantum steps.

8BAM13.JPG

Edited by pioneer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.