Cosmology Intelligent Design Philosophy Physics

Philip Cunningham: Quantum mechanics is as weird as we thought

Spread the love

No help for materialism.

– Reflecting light off satellite backs up Wheeler’s quantum theory thought experiment – October 26, 2017 – Bob Yirka:

Excerpt: Back in the late 1970s, physicist Johan Wheeler tossed around a thought experiment in which he asked what would happen if tests allowed researchers to change parameters after a photon was fired, but before it had reached a sensor for testing—would it somehow alter its behavior mid-course? He also considered the possibilities as light from a distant quasar made its way through space, being lensed by gravity. Was it possible that the light could somehow choose to behave as a wave or a particle depending on what scientists here on Earth did in trying to measure it? …

he experiment consisted of shooting a laser beam at a beam splitter, which aimed the beam at a satellite traveling in low Earth orbit, which reflected it back to Earth. But as the light traveled back to Earth, the researchers had time to make a choice whether or not to activate a second beam splitter as the light was en route. Thus, they could test whether the light was able to sense what they were doing and respond accordingly. The team reports that the light behaved just as Wheeler had predicted—demonstrating either particle-like or wave-like behavior, depending on the behavior of those studying it.

– Extending Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment to space – Oct. 25, 2017
Excerpt: We implement Wheeler’s idea along a satellite-ground interferometer that extends for thousands of kilometers in space….

From Wheeler: “No phenomenon is a physical phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” — John Wheeler, in Robert J. Scully, The Demon and the Quantum (2007), 191.

Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: (original Thought Experiment)

Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.

The following experiment extended Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment:


The Experiment That Debunked Materialism – video – (delayed choice quantum eraser)

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained:

And here is another variation of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms instead of photons: Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015

Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?

Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.

“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.

The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.

“Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.

37 Replies to “Philip Cunningham: Quantum mechanics is as weird as we thought

  1. 1
    awstar says:

    So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.

    For a Bible believer, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Mathematics predicted the results. Proven Mathematics is obviously from God, since it even precedes the materialists’
    “big bang”. Also Mathematics is obviously a language since it comprises symbols (i.e. alphabet), grammer (i.e. words, rules), and logic. So Proven Mathematics is therefore the Word of God and equates to Truth. And because Quantum Mechanics is accurately described by the Truth of Mathematics and therefore proven to be the specific Word of God, it has no problem being eternal; i.e. outside of past, present and/or future time based behavior.

    BA77 would have explained all this, if he were still hanging around this site,

  2. 2
    J-Mac says:

    I love Phillip Cunningham!
    Every time he publishes something, he makes me doubt I know anything about QM at all…

    He may very well end up being right about his fundamental belief on “quantum soul”…

    So far, he has little evidence for it but…one never knows what PC is going to dig up… 🙂

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    Very interesting indeed, but above my pay grade.
    Welcome contributions from PC.

  4. 4
    critical rationalist says:

    The Experiment That Debunked Materialism

    Huh? I fail to see how this is the case.

    The outcome of these experiments can be explained in that the whole of physical reality is actually the multiverse, in the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, and is not limited to a single universe.

    Specifically, the photons actually take both paths and interfere with each other.

  5. 5
    J-Mac says:

    @Dionisio,

    Very interesting indeed, but above my pay grade.

    QM or even the world of QP is all about imagination… Einstein at an early age was able to thought experiment many of his ideas that later were proven by equations…

    I personally found that you can learn to only a certain degree but if you can't imagine how those things work in reality, it is of very little use…

    For example; can you imagine how space-time "adjust" to keep the speed of light constant at 1079252848.8 km/h on the car with the lights on travailing at 200 km/h?
    1079252848.8 km/h +200 km/h should = 1079253048.8 km/h

    but it is aways 1079252848.8 km/h, because specetime adjusts to keep it constant…

  6. 6
    J-Mac says:

    @critical rationalist,

    Huh? I fail to see how this is the case.

    You mean you haven’t failed to see the obvious before? Unless it happened in one of the other universes…

    The outcome of these experiments can be explained in that the whole of physical reality is actually the multiverse, in the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, and is not limited to a single universe.

    Multiverse can also explain the theory of multi-pottie reality; which states that if you have enough universes and in each one of them enough potties, sh.. is bound to appear in one of the potties…

    There is no shred of evidence for either of the theories, but IF you are able to provide one piece of such evidence, I’m willing to offer you money for it… say all $1000.

    Specifically, the photons actually take both paths and interfere with each other.

    So what?

  7. 7
    critical rationalist says:

    @J-Mac

    CR: Huh? I fail to see how this [experiment debunked materialism].

    You mean you haven’t failed to see the obvious before? Unless it happened in one of the other universes…

    Nor has this explained how this experiment debunked materialism either. Humm..

    Multiverse can also explain the theory of multi-pottie reality; which states that if you have enough universes and in each one of them enough potties, sh.. is bound to appear in one of the potties…

    Nor does this… Well, it suggests you don’t understand the theory very well. You seem to have confused the cosmological multiverse, as opposed to the multiverse of the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.

    There is no shred of evidence for either of the theories, but IF you are able to provide one piece of such evidence, I’m willing to offer you money for it… say all $1000.

    There is no evidence “for” any theory in a positive sense. Theories explain evidence, not vice versa.

    However there is evidence “of” the multiverse, which is to say there is phenomena that is explained by that particular theory. In this case, the phenomena in question is explained by the interface of the same photon in other universes that took the other path.

    Specifically, all of physical reality refers not to what we would consider classical universes, but the multiverse. What we can observe is merely a sliver of the whole of physical reality because we too are quantized.

    The multiverse is what you get when you take the wave functions of quantum mechanics seriously. In fact, you have t add something to quantum mechanics to suggest observers themselves are not quantized like everything else.

    So what?

    So, that explains why the photons in question seem to “detect” the choice of the experimenters while in transit. That’s why this doesn’t “debunk materialism”.

  8. 8
    Axel says:

    ‘but it is aways 1079252848.8 km/h, because specetime adjusts to keep it constant…’

    Well, since the speed of light is absolute, it surely isn’t intrinsic to space-time, but non-local in origin. So space-time adjusting in order to preserve the speed of light, rather than vice versa, i.e. adjusting to the particularity of its framework of reference, makes sense to me. Does my gibbering here make sense to you J-Mac?

  9. 9
    J-Mac says:

    @Axel

    Well, since the speed of light is absolute, it surely isn’t intrinsic to space-time, but non-local in origin.

    The speed of light is not absolute… Entangled particles “communicate” instantaneously; i.e. much faster than speed of light no matter what the distance…

    “So space-time adjusting in order to preserve the speed of light, rather than vice versa, i.e. adjusting to the particularity of its framework of reference, makes sense to me.

    This is very good Axel! I’ve questioned this myself many times…unfortunately unless it is proven that spacetime, or space itself is a property of something “greater”, such as dark energy, rather than the other way around, we are stuck with the experimental proof that spacedtime adjusts to accommodate the constant speed of light…

    Does my gibbering here make sense to you J-Mac?

    I’m impressed! 🙂

  10. 10
    critical rationalist says:

    The speed of light is not absolute… Entangled particles “communicate” instantaneously; i.e. much faster than speed of light no matter what the distance…

    Again, this is explained by the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, in which all possible outcomes are realized in multiple variants of what we would consider classical universes.

    Specifically, that same behavior is predicted by the many worlds theory, yet is still local. The entire idea that this somehow “debunks materialism”, whatever that means, hinges on the assumption that people are somehow immune to the wave-function, which would require adding something to quantum mechanics. So, it’s unclear how quantum mechanics “debunks materialism”

    At best, you could say “quantum mechanics + something else”, which you haven’t outlined or presented a hard to vary explanation for.

    Perhaps incredulity?

  11. 11
    J-Mac says:

    @critical rationalist,

    Nor has this explained how this experiment debunked materialism either. Humm..

    Of course it does… The experiments prove backwards causation. There are many proven experiments beyond that mentioned by PC that information in our brain, via subatomic particles, travels back in time…

    So, experiments like that falsify materialism in many different ways:

    How did the system that involves backwards causation evolved? Or we should rather ask when did it evolve? In the past or the future?

    http://quantum.webhost.uits.ar.....-backwards

    BTW: Multiverse was resurrected when IMPLICATIONS the fine-tuned acceleration of the expansion of the universe became beyond materialistic explanations…

    Of course there is no evidence for any of the theories… multiverse or potties…They are both made up. One by me, another by materialists…lol

  12. 12
    critical rationalist says:

    Of course it does… The experiments prove backwards causation. There are many proven experiments beyond that mentioned by PC that information in our brain, via subatomic particles, travels back in time…

    It does? Even if that were true, why is that a problem for “materialism?”. Please be specific.

    First, If we have backwards causation, then why do we need God?

    Second, I would again point out that, in the multiverse, what appear to be classical universes diverge from each other when all possible outcomes occur in each of them. The same thing happens in the case of, say, the path of a photon, the positions of particles inside an atom, etc. All of these possibilities are actually realized and their counterparts interfere with each other. We cannot observe them directly because we too are subject to the very same wave function.

    BTW: Multiverse was resurrected when IMPLICATIONS the fine-tuned acceleration of the expansion of the universe became beyond materialistic explanations…

    Again, you have confused the cosmological multiverse with the multiverse of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    I’ll ask yet again, what are you adding to quantum mechanics that suggests we too are not subject to the wave-function?

    See <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBomf1iiJaU&quot;?this video about the multiverse and quantum mechanics.

  13. 13
    J-Mac says:

    @critical rationalist,

    It does? Even if that were true, why is that a problem for “materialism?”. Please be specific.

    You don’t know what backwards causation is… or…more likely, you don’t understand its implications…

    So, let’s begin with backwards causation where experiments have proven, time after time, that our conscious experience (proven by MRI imaging) of emotional responses in brain activity to be up to 4 seconds before the stimuli.

    Do you understand the implications of this very fact in regards to any materialistic explanation of the emergent consciousness in regards to conscious experience? I’m not even going to mention evolution of any kind, because the mechanism of this system evolving would have to include natural selection being able to “make choices” before “knowing” what they are…

    Can you grasp the import of what this means?

    I doubt that…but I’ll give you a chance…

  14. 14
    AnimatedDust says:

    I don’t know why PC stopped contributing here as Bornagain77 but I wish he would start again.

  15. 15
    J-Mac says:

    I don’t know why PC stopped contributing here as Bornagain77 but I wish he would start again.

    I wish him well and pray for him…

  16. 16
    jdk says:

    I have just been reading about this experiment in “How the Hippies Saved Physics.” These results are certainly weird in comparison to the classical pre-quantum view of the world, and the world as we experience it macroscopically with our native senses.

    But I don’t agree that they “debunk materialism”, whatever that means. What they do is make it obvious that the physical world (aka material world) has properties that are very different than we have previously thought, and that can only be investigated (or even known about) through instruments which can “sense ” (i.e., measure) the world in ways vastly beyond our native senses.

    Our understanding of the material world has been expanded (even though there is much we don’t understand), but that doesn’t mean we have “debunked” it. Quantum mechanics studies the material world: therefore its finding are part of a materialistic understanding of the world. QM has certainly debunked, or at least added evidence toward debunking, certain previous held beliefs, but scientific investigation regularly does that.

  17. 17
    critical rationalist says:

    So, let’s begin with backwards causation where experiments have proven, time after time, that our conscious experience (proven by MRI imaging) of emotional responses in brain activity to be up to 4 seconds before the stimuli.

    It would be helpful if you referenced some sort of paper or article on this so I can understand what you mean by the above.

    I’m not even going to mention evolution of any kind, because the mechanism of this system evolving would have to include natural selection being able to “make choices” before “knowing” what they are…

    Sigh…

    Natural selection isn’t actually selecting things in the sense that we do. It is a form of criticism that occurs independent of any actual choice or knowing subject.

    This is because knowledge is independent of a knowing subject. See Popper’s third world of knowledge.

    For example, must people consciously decide to test their theories or choose between them? Sometimes they solve problems they were not even trying to solve. This is known as non-explanatory knowledge.

    if you’re starved for vitamin C, your defective vitamin-C-synthesis gene would not therefore be caused to improve – that is, unless you happen to be a genetic engineer whom’s brain contains the knowledge of what specific genes are for, including synthesizing vitamin C.

    If a tiger finds itself in a habitat in which it’s colorization stands out more, instead of less, it takes no action to change the color of its fur, nor would that change be inherited if it did. This is because nothing in a tiger “knows” what stripes are for.

    IOW, any coordinated changes were themselves due to biological adaptations based on variations that were initially random to any problem to solve. As such, they represent non-explanatory knowledge, which are simply useful rules of thumb and have limited reach. This is in contrast to explanatory knowledge, which represents explanatory that were devised to solve specific problems and have significantly more reach, such as the knowledge that having fur with slightly darker stripes would slightly improve the animal’s food supply.

    While people can create both explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge, only people can create explanatory theories.

    To elaborate, imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random *in respect to a problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve*. Yet it ended up solving a problem regardless. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the same rocks to open them.

    However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned, I could use that explanation to strike coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as shells, use this knowledge to protect myself from attacking wildlife, etc.

    So, explanatory knowledge only comes from intentional conjectures made by people and has significant reach. Non-explanatory knowledge (created by variation that is random to specific problems to solve, and selection) represent unintentional conjectures, which have limited reach.

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    J-Mac, just surmising, but I wonder if he isn’t perhaps too busy, too wrapped up, at present in enterprises such as this video – assuming its his creation – or exercising his encyclopaedic knowledge in some other, more ‘solitary’ way.

  19. 19
    J-Mac says:

    @17critical rationalist,

    It would be helpful if you referenced some sort of paper or article on this so I can understand what you mean by the above.

    Facepalm…
    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/i.....1316330080

    I did @11. The reference to the experiments are right in the first few sentences of the abstract…

    It becomes painfully obvious you don’t understand what backwards causation is…

    BTW: Your last 10-15 sentences are pointless…
    There is an inescapable element of randomness to natural selection…
    Since reading/comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strongest ability, you can listen to this interview with the world’s top geneticist W.E Loennig who spent most of his life on mutation breeding…
    He analyzed over 2.5 million plants, so he should know a thing or two about natural selection, which he accepts…but he also knows the limits of it first hand…

    Educate yourself!

  20. 20
    Axel says:

    I’ve just accidentally deleted further text in my reply #18 to you, J-Mac.

    I wanted to thank you for your kind words regarding my ‘take’. I’m tickled you see what I was driving at, and that you had had similar intimations concerning it.

    You wrote:

    ‘The speed of light is not absolute… Entangled particles “communicate” instantaneously; i.e. much faster than speed of light no matter what the distance…’

    Well, I’ll try to spoil the ‘sciencey’ party here, J-Mac, as I suspect that instantaneous communication between entangled particles, are possibly Acts of God (the spiritual pole of our faith-knowledge continuum), as insurers used to designate ‘force majeure’; spreading further confusion in our increasingly motley, scientific worldview, even though Christians and other theists, and deists, have accustomed themselves to the ever-proliferating paradoxes of QM, their being not dissimilar to to the Mysteries of our Christian faith.

    Hilariously, atheists try to get round them by considering them, not as counter-rational, but counter-intuitive ! You’d have to be catatonic to need to rely on your intuition to discern the counter-logical nature of paradoxes, but then, they expect their descendants to understand everything one day.

  21. 21
    J-Mac says:

    Axel,

    I assume you refer to PC…

    I don’t know and I don’t want to speculate…
    UD and even Sandwalkblog were his territory…He has gone from one extreme to another; overwhelming bloggers, sometimes unnecessarily, to no comments here…

    All I know is that he is busy trying to falsify materialism as well as find the scientific proof for the existence of afterlife, such as his “obsession” with quantum soul that lives on…

    I had had an exchange or two with him here at UD on that very subject as I was learning the many new things on Christian beliefs of immortality of the soul, hell etc…
    If you watch any of this videos, you can almost bet, that in one way or another, it will refer to quantum, immortal soul that lives on after death…

    I’m not saying he is wrong about it…I just don’t think he has enough to support that view…
    Some of this views on the theme see contradictory to me…
    But hey! He may very well end up being right… but the more I study the subject of quantum mechanics, the less likely his views look to me…

    Also, life and especially evolution on quantum level look so well orchestrated, that materialists are going to do everything to suppress is as long as they can…

  22. 22
    J-Mac says:

    Axel,

    “I’ll try to spoil the ‘sciencey’ party here, J-Mac, as I suspect that instantaneous communication between entangled particles, are possibly Acts of God (the spiritual pole of our faith-knowledge continuum)”

    Lol I like your thinking… I do. PC and I seem to think the same way, with the exception of the soul thingy, now you… Good for you! I’d like to see PC’s take on that very theme…I know he is going to smile when he reads this… I bet he knows very well what I’m talking about…

    Anyways, Acts of God are a broad theme…

    The entanglement, where subparticles “communicate” faster than the speed of light are not direct acts of God as far as I can see, unless the existence and influence of dark energy will turn out to be that very “act of God”.

    If you think of specetime as a property of dark energy, rather than the other way around, then entanglement and “communication” between entangled subparticles is not really happening between any distance because they are a part of the same thing…

    I’m speculating here…obviously… but this is the only things that come out of my thought experiments… 🙂

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    PC did respond to it, positively, J-Mac, when I posited these ideas a while back. I can’t remember too well now, but I think he had wondered himself about God ‘monkeying’ (pace God and hat-tip to Fred Hoyle) with ‘our’ science and our metaphysical forays. At this QM level, I doubt if it’s wise to exclude the latter possibility, particularly regarding these mysteries

    I suggested on another forum that our universe was perhaps contained within a kind of spiritual matrix, and one respondent mentioned another American chap, a kind of oddball, maverick scientist, who was a colonel in the US military, who had suggested the same. Then I discovered Max Planck had said it, more or less in passing, I think, actually using the word, ‘matrix’.

    Though I think there is a distinct possibility I might have picked it up unconsciously in a Wikiquotes page devoted to him. On the other hand, it’s the sort of thought that would hardly surprise a believer, in any case. But it’s why I thought the instantaneous communication would be as ‘easy as pie’ to God to effect by that means.

    I think Pope Francis is not allowing for the effortlessly infinite scope of God’s powers – including to subliminally micro-manage the least movement of an E-Coli virus. He micro-manages my autonomic intelligence, to ensure that I keep breathing, blinking and all the rest, presumably via his own subliminal autonomic intelligence !!!

    But really all we know about God is that his powers and all-round properties/qualities are mind-boggling… and ultimately to the most sublimely beautiful and loving effect.
    Nice talking to you J-Mac.

  24. 24
    Axel says:

    Incidentally, I psychically sensed the positive nature of your last responses, and evidently that you had made them while I was away from the screen, although I had wondered if I should have been more conservative in my ‘communiques’. Also, I find I very often sense if one of my jokes or jokey mini-passages are well-received generally.

  25. 25
    jcfrk101 says:

    I have a question, C is the speed of light derived by obeservation, which means the speed of light in it particle form, how can we be certain that C is constant when light travels as a wave if observing or measuring it makes it travel as a particle?

  26. 26
    Axel says:

    J-Mac,
    I don’t know anything about dark energy, or much else in the line of physics ; the more detailed, the less I know or understand. But I do suspect, like you, that there is likely to be little to no distance communicated over, between the seemingly ‘bridged’ particles.

    Personally, I favour ‘no distance’. God has ‘rigged’ the game! He does not have to be bound by his own laws in relation to what we call ‘science’. It would be all one to him ; He wouldn’t need to categorize, just ‘float like a butterlfy and sting like a bee’, at his sole discretion; part science, part fun and games.

    I think it would be typical of our God to have made this vast universe just for little old us, while allowing the dark spirits to pose as extra-terrestrials. The most off-putting thing about the ETs for me is their ugly appearance.

    Why would God, who has created so much beauty that takes our breath away create such desperately – to put it mildly – unattractive beings? Even our animals have their own beauty, deep-sea creatures included. Tiger Tiger burning bright in he forests of the night…

    But this is what intrigues me more than anything, in terms of QM : the consistency of a statement made by a rabbi in he Talmud, I believe, centuries ago.

    He said: When a person dies, a whole world disappears with him – suggesting that we each of us live in a world of our own, integrated and coordinated by our Creator.

    But listen ti this account of an NDE, from 29, when it begins., paying special attention from 40.10, at which point the describes the whole scene as appearing to come from him!

  27. 27
    J-Mac says:

    @jcfrk101,

    Please try to be clearer if you can…
    My fear is you may not understand the concept of the speed of light and how it has been proven to be be constant…Maybe I missed something? Could be…

  28. 28
    J-Mac says:

    @Axel 26,

    I think you missed a link or something???

  29. 29
    Axel says:

    Sorry, J-Mac. Here it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPc3DhDQ8Lk

    ‘Personally, I favour ‘no distance’. God has ‘rigged’ the game! He does not have to be bound by his own laws in relation to what we call ‘science’. It would be all one to him ; He wouldn’t need to categorize, just ‘float like a butterfly and sting like a bee’, at his sole discretion; part science, part fun and games.’

    On re-reading that, the tone of it sounds to me rather arrogant, the science/’fun and games’ dichotomy having been meant tentatively, and is not necessarily a belief I would confidently espouse; though I do favour it to the extent that the former NASA chief, Robert Jastrow saw God’s use of empirical science as a providential preparation for the mountain-top Sting, when the ‘scientismificist’ atheist ‘scientists’ peer incredulously over the top, only to see a band of theologians who had been cozily ensconced there for centuries. Thus, ‘fun and games’ on a wholesale scale, not a retail one, so to speak.

    However, I do think that atheism was given the coup de grace by QM, though in truth, I cannot see any evidence more overwhelming and water-tight than ID: something, virtually the whole of mankind has appreciated as the most basic and ineluctable common-sense from the year, dot.

    It struck me earlier today that both Robert Caplan and the rabbi I referred to are/were Jewish. Although it was Max Planck who had, I believe I read, very little Jewish blood and virtually founded QM, Jewish scientists really seem to have come into their own with the discovery of the quantum world, so fretted through with paradoxes – especially Bohr who was half-Jewish, seems to have been ‘tickled’ and enchanted by them, judging from quotes of his.

  30. 30
    Axel says:

    @ jdk,

    ‘Our understanding of the material world has been expanded (even though there is much we don’t understand), but that doesn’t mean we have “debunked” it. Quantum mechanics studies the material world: therefore its finding are part of a materialistic understanding of the world.’

    No, jdk. Photons have a non-local dimension apparently not proper to space-time. Just one of many paradoxes, materialist scientists have to take on board, but of seminal significance, like the Big Bang Singularity.

    However, acceptance by them of the ever-proliferating, experimentally-proven paradoxes, thrown up, extraordinarily successfully, by QM the moment, they were, permanently rendered materialism totally vapid. They need to hold their noses and swallow QM or they’d be researching the job-market in ragtime. Like the, perforce, theistic scientists, although in the materialists’ case, no matter how reluctantly, they must accept these paradoxes (called Mysteries in the Catholic Church), using them as staging posts for the more ‘meat and potatoes’ logical forays.

    Materialism has never been debunked, because it manifestly has never had any even putative merit to be debunked.

  31. 31
    jdk says:

    When I wrote,

    Our understanding of the material world has been expanded (even though there is much we don’t understand), but that doesn’t mean we have “debunked” it. Quantum mechanics studies the material world: therefore its finding are part of a materialistic understanding of the world.

    Axel replied,

    No, jdk. Photons have a non-local dimension apparently not proper to space-time. Just one of many paradoxes, materialist scientists have to take on board, but of seminal significance, like the Big Bang Singularity.

    However, acceptance by them of the ever-proliferating, experimentally-proven paradoxes, thrown up, extraordinarily successfully, by QM the moment, they were, permanently rendered materialism totally vapid.

    I think mainstream science accepts results of QM, although philosophical interpretations about what underlies them vary. Non-locality through entanglement, for instance, and wave-particle duality, are accepted science. QM is almost 100 years old, and has worked it’s way into many areas of science.

    As I said above, these results just add to our understanding of the material world. They have revised the now out-dated cartesian, Newtonian view that existed before relativity and QM, but they are still aspects of our scientific view of the material world.

    So, Axel, I’d be interested in your describing what are some of the aspects of what you think a materialist viewpoint is that are challenged by QM.

  32. 32
    Axel says:

    Thank you for asking for clarification, jdk. I ought to have expressed myself more clearly.

    What I meant was that the old classical, reductionist, mechanistic physics was ‘meat and drink’ to the materialists, but that Q is really precisely the opposite. They have been forced to accept it, even though it is the death of their scientism.

    Well, ‘it ought to have been’, I should have said, but for the fact that they are, as the saying goes, ‘loose cannons on a rolling deck’. In fact the cannons are able not just to slide back and fore, but are wont to slew round and roll off anywhere at any tangent – as evidenced by the Multiworld, Many Worlds, etc, and Richard Lewontin’s dictum (‘bon mot’) to the effect that the main point of science is not to let God get his foot in the door…

    After all, how can the lump of meat that is our brain create our mind, if people start prying into exotic, minuscule stuff and invoking paradoxes that are actually empirically tested and confirmed, and that make materialism beyond laughable.

  33. 33
    jdk says:

    Thanks for the reply, Axel.
    You write

    What I meant was that the old classical, reductionist, mechanistic physics was ‘meat and drink’ to the materialists, but that Q is really precisely the opposite. They have been forced to accept it, even though it is the death of their scientism.

    First, we agree that the “old classical, reductionist, mechanistic physics” is no longer the accepted paradigm. The old picture of a clockwork universe, in which in all cases constituent parts of the universe, no matter their size, locally adjacent in a framework of Cartesian space and time, interact in completely deterministic ways according to certain immutable laws has been being modified for over 100 years.

    Second, though, this old view was not just the view of materialists. It was the view of the physical world held by virtually all physicists in the 19th century, most of whom were not materialists, irrespective of whatever metaphyisical beliefs they had.

    And like all paradigm shifts, various people resisted or enthusiastically adopted the new ideas. Einstein famously resisted both the role of probability (God does not play dice) and non-locality (spooky action at a distance), while Schrodinger embraced Jungian and Eastern ideas as a metaphysical interpretation of QM.

    But QM isn’t the “precise opposite” of the old view: the old view is still a quite valid framework for many phenomena, but obviously not for the most basic constituent parts of the universe taken in relative isolation.

    But QM is still about how the material, physical works. The fact that it has added to our knowledge about the physical world doesn’t mean it isn’t about the physical world.

    So, as I said in my first post, QM doesn’t “debunk” materialism. If by materialism one means the philosophical view that the material world is all there is, then QM doesn’t debunk nor confirm that philosophy. There might or might not be more to the world than the material world – obviously people disagree about that – but QM doesn’t help resolve that issue, because QM is about how the material world works.

  34. 34
    jdk says:

    Question about the site: i’ve noticed that most of the time my posts do not show up promptly in Recent Posts on the home page, and that maybe this is common for other people. Is this a feature of the site that is not working well?

  35. 35
    Axel says:

    Hope to be back later this evening, jdk. Sorry about the delay.

  36. 36
    Axel says:

    jdk, I side with Max Planck in terms of his following two comments, as quoted in Wikiquotes:

    ‘Max Planck said in 1944, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

    ‘I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.’

    And Heisenberg, in terms of this observation:
    “The concept of the objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated…”; “the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them … is impossible …

    Is that not the antithesis of the materialists’ claim that mind, spirit, whatever ….. everything, emanates from matter !!! And, as the corollary, has not the passage of time seen Planck’s wholesale repudiation of the classical mechanistic, materialist paradigm aka scientism, been continuously vindicated. In brief, matter has a non-local dimension, far beyond Horatio’s ken.

    The fact that the classical, mechanistic paradigm is unchallenged is not germane, since it applies to the superficial appearance of matter, progress only being made by incorporating in various apparatuses, discoveries in the quantum realm and their practical applicability.

    The whole Wikiquotes page on Bohr’s beliefs highlights the antithetical nature of the quantum paradigm and that of the classical mechanistic physical paradigm. Indeed, it is not a matter of physically detaching the quantum world from its quotidien, human-scale superstructure, but of the subject of the structure of matter at the quantum level being so very different from that of the everyday empirically-observable material objects of classical, mechanistic physics – never mind their ultimate, integral homogeneity – that their paradigms could not be more antithetical.

    —————
    In any case, photons possess a proper framework of reference, so that, while interacting with space-time (being absorbed), they are intrinsically (if mysteriously) exogenous to it, and hence not subject to relativity. That really puts the kybosh on scientism/materialism.

    Bohr obliquely addressed our cross-purposes in these words:
    [About describing atomic models in the language of classical physics:] We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.

    I was not denying the reality, however superficial, of matter on the human workaday scale, but stressing that it is a superficial, a surface reality, whose mechanistic paradigm takes no account of its ultimate non-local dimension.

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    J-Mac,

    You wrote:

    ‘I’ve questioned this myself many times…unfortunately unless it is proven that spacetime, or space itself is a property of something “greater”, such as dark energy, rather than the other way around, we are stuck with the experimental proof that spacedtime adjusts to accommodate the constant speed of light… ‘

    I realise you are only addressing the reality as it is, but your phrase, ‘being stuck with experimental proof’, astonishes me, in the light of the infallibility of mathematics in physics. I mean, making a fetish of empirical proof, when the maths ‘add up’, is surely ‘putting the cart before the horse’.

    I even heard a Nobel physics laureate in a TV documentary, chuckling that when, he told Einstein that somebody thought he had disproved one of his relativity theories, he simply murmured, ‘It will pass. It will pass’. I believe that is verbatim. Apparently, our Albert did not consider himself too accomplished at Maths, so had a friend perform the calculations entailed in his theorems for him.

    But that fetishism manifests again and again, to the very longstanding shame of the ‘kooks’. That term, ‘secular fundamentalist’, as applied to our more truculently-militant atheist friends is itself a reality, absolutely more than a ‘bon mot’.

    And the same ‘digging in’ of their ‘heels’, in the teeth of the implications of plainly-indisputable truths, such as the ‘Cambrian explosion’, indeed, ID, itself, is utterly, utterly surreal. You people have grown up with this nonsense, having to combat it in laughable detail, as if to toddlers in a kindergarten.

    Who can forget, on the other hand, the enthusiastic self-deception of the ‘physics fundies’, who were doltish enough to proffer to Wolfgang Pauli some nonsense, in relation to which, as he remarked in no doubt baffled astonishment, they had not even performed the necessary statistical calculations. I believe it was one of those cases, where the universe is not old enough for such chance to have played even the most nugatory role.

    Little wonder, therefore, that, if it can be said that Christ’s preaching was based on the tenets of a particular philosophical school, it would be voluntarism.

    The great sin of the ‘hot-shots’ of the politico-religious Establishment of his day were not a failure of their understanding, their intellect, but of their will to understand, their desire to know the truth, even when it would be – as it is – personally demanding. With the Anawim of the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount, the opposite was the case. They were intellectually docile (literally, teachable) to the truths he preached.

    What a time to bring this up, mind you – just when they’re looking for a rationale for dispensing with a need for evidence !

Leave a Reply