Where physics and metaphysics meet

[Hoth]

Here's an interesting site I just came across:

http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html

Haven't even had the time to read it all yet, but a lot of this is showing the relationship between modern physics and metaphysics.

The quantum world is one where you can't be a physicalist and you can't be an idealist... you have to be something in between. I think that's what the title means by the end of dualism... the distinction between the two types of things (objective physical and subjective observation-based, or physics and metaphysics) breaks down, and we're left with one sort of thing, that's neither physical nor non-physical and neither objective nor subjective.

Here's a part that kind of indicates the dilemma:

Bohr had said, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description." Heisenberg had echoed, "The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts." (Peat, 85)
Cf.: "...the wave function [of the primordial source of the universe] is not real; it is simply a device used in the mathematics of quantum theory. Indeed, it is a wave of probability rather than an oscillation of matter. What the wave function describes is the probability that a particle will be discovered in a particular region of space should a measurment be carried out. This same wave function is also the mathematical tool used to predict the outcome of other experimental measurements. So what sense does it make to talk about the reality of wave functions and quantum states when no laboratory apparatus is around - indeed, when no large-scale world yet exists?" (86)

I'll admit most of this sort of stuff is over my head, but it's interesting anyway.

If anyone can explain to me what the stuff about Bell's theorem means, and the implications of the idea of nonlocal reality and the lack of impact of distance, that'd be nice. (Needless to say, when it starts to use it to justify religious experiences I get uncomfortable.)

 

[justagirl]

I certainly am not qualified to explain this to you. But they say your reality is effected by your dreams. go figure...why can't I dream about brad Pitss ..lol

 

[TruthSeeker]

It's interesting to see my ideas in a site like that...

Just read my posts and you'll find them...
My first thread, for example... "The Ancient connection between Science and Religion"...

And all my ideas about Universe molded by our beliefs...
And Quantum Faith...

Pure Metaphysics mixed with Science and Religion!
Thanks Hoth... you gave me an evidence of the Truth of my ideas!

I'll read about it more carefully... If I try to explain, I won't mix with Religion...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Hoth]

Great, so you're the ghost writer of the article? It's not the main concepts that confuse me so much, or even the mentions of religion since the perspective I'd take wouldn't define the useful parts as really being religion (since nothing in the theory requires a god). What I can't figure out is what Bell's theorem is and what the theroem means and how it was demonstrated. How can you create and test a theorem on this sort of stuff? A scientific test of metaphysics? I think the article is kind of skipping over that too much.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Hoth,

What I can't figure out is what Bell's theorem is...

It seems a theorem that states that a particle can exist in more than one place at the same time... and that interaction in the Quantum world is independent of distance...

...and what the theroem means...

That there's no observer and obseved in the Universe... that it's all one thing... that we can be as powerful as God (actually through Him) if we learn how to interact with the Quantum world... that the Quantum world connects all the Universe in a Huge Net of events independent of the time... that we live in a living Universe...

...and how it was demonstrated...

How can you create and test a theorem on this sort of stuff? A scientific test of metaphysics?

That's a good question... I guess only in a very high speed we can see it... like the speed of light... And it's pretty hard because there is the problem that the observer interact in the experiment... I have no idea how we can isolate the experiment... but that's already the proof that it's true...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Io Aurelia]

If there's one thing that annoys me more than anything else, it's when people get all new-agey when it comes to quantum physics.

I've run into alot of people who claim that it's an explanation for telepathy/magic/clairvoyance/god and that sorta stuff.

This article here goes into a bit more:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

Io

 

[TruthSeeker]

"Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory developed early in the century to account for the anomalous behavior of light and atoms, are being misconstrued so as to imply that only thoughts are real and that the physical universe is the product of a cosmic mind to which the human mind is linked throughout space and time. "

Only thoughts are real...? I think so...

Chopra also asserts that "beliefs, thoughts, and emotions create the chemical reactions that uphold life in every cell," and "the world you live in, including the experience of your body, is completely dictated by how you learn to perceive it" (Chopra 1993, 6). Thus illness and aging are an illusion and we can achieve what Chopra calls "ageless body, timeless mind" by the sheer force of consciousness.1

Tell me what's wrong with that...

"the world you live in, including the experience of your body, is completely dictated by how you learn to perceive it"

That's right... if you say God doesn't exist, how can He ever come and talk with you? There'll be no interaction because you can't accept his existance...

A Christian perceive the world in one way...
A Taoist another...
An atheist, other...

You make your reality... and you can be sure you'll die with the reality you create for yourself.

PS: Look for Junguian Pscycology, and you will see an interesting connection with what we have here...

Love,
Nelson