Philosophy

Odd — I replied but this only shows up in one view, not another. This seems to depend on how I access the thread.

It may be that the site has some minor bugs being worked out, not at all unusual with such places.

Bill

Boltonian :

Sorry I haven’t posted for a while , I like the new place by the way .

Regarding the New Scientist article , unfortunately I haven’t read it . I’m a bit out of my depth on this one , but people have been playing around with quaternions and QM for quite a while , I’m not sure what it is that Christian is doing differently . The proof is in the pudding , however , if he can make useful predictions then that will be a very big deal .

Bill:

I read your first comment and I don’t know what happened to it. I hope Gordy can sort it out because I am useless with anything to do with computers.

SpaceP:

Anyway, glad you are back. If you would like to contribute a post to start a discussion please let either me or Gordy know (Gordy is Gerry71 BTW).

We might start a rugby thread on ‘Sport’ if the season gets interesting. By that I don’t mean Gloucester running away with the championship. :-}

Bill’s first response. Sorry for the confusion. Gordy.

I’ve read the article but doubt I can add anything of value to a discussion of it.

I suspect Christian has it wrong but of course lack the mathematical or experimental expertise to demonstrate this and await more responses from the physics community. (Certainly it’s not difficult to understand commutivity.)

I wonder if the strangeness of the implications of QM has more to do with serious flaws in basic scientific assumptions than anything else; in other words, there’s really nothing strange at all about these — this is what results from taking this approach into the realm of the very, very small and then attempting to extend the experimental results into the macro world.

Norman Friedman, in _Bridging Science and Spirit_, connects the physics of Bohm with Huxley’s “perennial philosophy” and the fringe teachings of the channelled Seth.

Per Seth, each of us literally creates a unique space continuum at every moment, the mass reality being a cooperative overlap of these (and the mass reality of course includes all other species, the earth itself, and other regions of consciousness not recognized as such by contemporary science).

There are ways to subjectively validate this seemingly far fetched explanation but we still lack any effective means of truly linking subjective experience with the contemporary scientific worldview, so far as I’m aware, something that lies at the crux (Christian notwithstanding) of the “quantum enigma.”

A great deal of privately obtained information, (obtained through means that would be deemed entirely unacceptable by almost everyone), suggests this is beginning to change, requiring me to adopt a wait and see attitude and pay attention to developments in this area.

Bill

Boltonian – this sounds v interesting. But, as I anticipated, it will have to be a spectator sport for me (though I may ask a few – perhaps silly – questions).

Just to add an observation …

The current understanding of QM does have deterministic and objective interpretations . Many worlds for instance is both objective and deterministic .

The modern version of the Copenhagen interpretation is probabilistic but it is objective in the sense that any interaction collapses the waveform , it doesn’t require a concious observer .

The most common interpretation , I’d say , is shut up and calculate . The mathematics works , lets leave it at that . Needless to say , that isn’t a very satisfying conclusion .

Also … Bloody wasps !

ChooChoo:

Would you like to contribute something in either the metaphysics or history (or any other for that matter) category at some point when inspiration attacks you?

SpaceP:

Well, wasps are pests!

Agree with the last para. The son of a friend gave up physics following his graduation after just such an injunction.

I would agree with many world having an objective and deterministic slant.

Talking of many worlds did you ( or anybody else) catch the Michio Kaku prog on BBC4 the other night?

The article tended to dwell on the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of the observer collapsing the waveform and until then it remains in a potentiality of all states. I don’t know if this was just for journalistic effect in contrasting Christian’s interpretation.

The maths might work but so it does with relativity.

boltonian – why not! Will have to wait for the hit. (And, as much as I use the word metaphysics rather often, I am no metaphysics boff at all). By the way – my computer seems to have been so absurdly slow today. Wanted to post on Vernon piece bit, forgot spam word again, lost the stuff, and then it just wouldn’t load back to the page. Will give it another go now. Sorry to interrupt – please (seriously) continue the QM discussions!

Does it matter (except for funding purposes) if QM or GR is right/incomplete? Anyone with an ounce of awe in their soul has to admit QM is way cooler …

More seriously, aren’t both positions a little unsatisfactory (i.e., shut up and calculate as well as multiple interpretations of QM, some subjective, some objective)? Also to say the maths might work but so does relativity, isn’t that one of the major criticisms of string theory, the maths might work but does it actually mean anything except that some people are very good at maths?

Unfortunate name though. Just wait for the confusion an article headed something along the lines of “Christian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” will cause!

peitha:

One of the major criticisms of string theory is that the maths doesn’t work, at least not in the way that it does for QM and relativity. We do not have a set of equations for string theory, which is one reason it is being questioned more and more. We are still waiting, after more than 20 years, for the evidence.

I would say, from my various readings, that string theory is not a theory at all but more of an interpretative hypothesis.

BTW there are lots of Christian scientists (small ’s’) out there. I have a collection of essays edited by George Ellis, himself a Quaker, called ‘The Far Future Universe,’ sub-titled, ‘Eschalotogy from a Cosmic Perspective.’ All the writers are scientists and most Christians.

This is way over my head do I will just keep out. I’ll just pick up on the points about QM and Christianity and Christian scientists. I’m sure many of you must be aware of the Faraday Institue at St Edmund’s College in Cambridge. It’s funded by the Templeton Foundation just to warn anyone in case they think I’m trying to entice them into black arts of the interface between faith and religion; you have been warned. You will find it at http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/ I would recommend you go to the multimedia link where you will find many lectures, some by the usual suspects (Polkinghorne McGrarth, Conway Morris) but also excellent talks about the history of science such as the loss of Darwin’s faith, evolutionary interpretations of altruism and the historical relationship between science and religion. There is a very fine and good humoured round table with Ron Numbers, Michael Ruse and Francis Collins somewhere there. Boltonian, your Ellis fellow gives a few lectures also. Despite some weak contributions I cannot recommend it highly enough, especially on the history of science and religion that puts to book the more ridiculous claims of you know who. I do not know why I feel I have to be so apologetic but in these times of the new inquisition I will notify you in advance many of the speakers, though scientists will invariably have little theological add-ons, just so you know. But then again they are discussing what we are discussing hear. In any case it’s far more balanced and less reverential than the Dawkins Foundation for freedom, rationality, reason, truth, liberation, and freethinking.

Simon:

Many thanks.

Unlike Dawkins and his even more extreme colleague, Atkins, I do not think that a scientist who also happens to be a Christian is an oxymoron.

But, as usual, it depends what one means by ‘Christian.’ Biblical literalists, such as a Christadelphians, cannot possibly be scientists of any kind, because they already have all the answers to everything.

Apologies, I have written ‘hear’ instead of here, I hate it when that happens, but often I will spell the same word three different ways; such are the pains of the dyslexic.

Boltonian

Since we are on the subject I would also recommend http://www.meaningoflife.tv a series of interviews between Robert Wright (he of The Moral Animal and Nonzero) and scientists (such as Freeman Dyson, Edward O. Wilson John Maynard Smith) theologians, Karen Armstrong, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Fukuyama and many more.

Out of all of them I found the most interesting one to be with Robert Pollack, I found it brutal in how honest he is; his reaction to memes is telling. If you have the time, take a look. If most religious people are pushed to the limit I think they would agree with him on why they have faith, and I don’t think it is a position to be mocked since it is a human reaction.

Simon

Many thanks for the link to the Faraday institute. It looks like a treasure trove for someone like me….

Boltonian

Am listening to Pollack as I type – many thanks.

Simon:

Some great stuff here on both of your links – it will take me a month to get through it.

BTW did anybody catch In Our Time this week? The subject was Avicenna – a very interesting character and equally revered by philosophers in the Islamic, Jewish and Christian traditions.

I recommend listening again if you can spare 45 minutes.

I am not sure these last few posts shouldn’t also appear in the phil of religion category. Just in case not everybody accesses all threads. Is that possible, Gordy? Or perhaps just Simon’s links?

Simon Bocanegra / Germont / McCabino / Massimo Moratti / WoolyMindedLiberal – thanks for those fascinating links – they look v interesting. Just, v quickly, do you know much about the background of the interviewer for the MeaningofLifetv stuff, Robert Wright?

Choo Choo

Massimo Moratti? Wash your mouth out; Facchetti please. From what I know, Robert Wright is a science writer who sees evidence for some purpose within evolution, mixing evolutionary psychology and game theory I’ll stop there in case I’m misreading him – he is agnostic. He has a new book coming out next year along the lines of the perennial philosophy. His interviewing technique is very funny in that he can come across as quite bland and stupid even though he is neither. He is also, I believe, a co creator of bloggingheads.tv. Or just look him up on wikipedia.

Boltonian

Sorry for having got away from the subject, in my defence Freeeman Dyson does discuss QM in his interview.
Hope everyone has a good weekend.

Boltonian

I’ve put Simon’s links (I had thought one of them was yours) on a separate page and invited guests to add more. Hope this is okay.

Good idea.