Re: OT: science alone cannot explain "ultimate reality"

Howard Duck wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:21:50 -0400, "Francis A. Miniter"
<faminiter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Howard Duck wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5918050.ece

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0317/p02s04-usgn.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/french-physicist-wins-14-million-religion-prize/

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/398/

Religion really, really hopes that science will stop its progress and leave mysteries for it to hide behind. Sorry. But what the Templeton people think he is saying does not appear to be it at all. See
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unil.ch%2Fwebdav%2Fsite%2Fphilo%2Fshared%2FDocsPerso%2FEsfeldMichael%2F2007%2FEspagnat-SHPMP07.pdf&images=yes

Your reference states the following:

"... the basis on which Bernard d'Espagnat argues in his recent books
for two philosophical claims: (1) Quantum reality is nonseparable and
therefore holistic. (2) We cannot know that reality... we cannot know
nature as it is in itself."

This is the basis on which Bernard d'Espagnat argues in his recent
books for two philosophical claims: (1) Quantum reality is
nonseparable and therefore holistic. (2) We cannot know that reality.
We only occasionally get a glimpse of it in experiments such as the
Bell-type experiments. Quantum theory thus is important for philosophy
in two respects: concerning the metaphysics of nature, it shows that
nature is holistic instead of atomistic, or multitudinist, as
d'Espagnat puts it. Concerning epistemology, it refutes scientific
realism: we cannot know nature as it is in itself.

The first of my references above also states:

Dr d'Espagnat said in prepared remarks that, since science cannot
reveal anything certain about the nature of being, it cannot tell us
with certainty what it is not.

"Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated," he
said. "On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of
being."

He said that he is "convinced that those among our contemporaries who
believe in a spiritual dimension of existence and live up to it are,
when all is said, fully right".

Speaking to The Times, Dr d'Espagnat, a Roman Catholic, said his work
as a physicist had convinced him of the existence of a deeper reality.
"When we hear great classical music or look at very great paintings,
they are not just illusions but could be a revelation of something
fundamental. I would accept calling it God or divine or Godhead but
with the restriction that it cannot be conceptualised for the very
reason that this ultimate reality is beyond any concept that we can
construct."

My own conjecture earlier was that a mind that is created by a purely
natural evolutionary process could probably never know its own origin
and nature by human observation and reason. Thus, the mind would
necessarily have an immaterial source, and would have to gain
understanding from a supernal source by revelation.
--
Howard

This, by the way, is a better link to the article I quoted in my last post.
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:DuOxbMFlga0J:www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Espagnat-SHPMP07.pdf+%22Bernard+d%27Espagnat%22&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I had hoped you would read on about the critique of d'Espagnat's work, in particular, the following:

-------------------------
However, all these types of
interpretations – and all their various versions – are proposals about what nature is in itself.
On the no collapse interpretations, nature simply is a huge entangled quantum system; on the
Bohm interpretation, nature consists in a dualism of quantum potential and particles; and on
the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber interpretation, nature in itself is characterized by entanglement,
but there subsequently are processes of spontaneous localization that dissolve the
entanglement. In none of these 991 interpretations is any link from nonseparability and
holism to our ignorance of what nature is in itself.
--------------------------

and

-------------------------
There are of course serious arguments for some version of anti-realism or other in the
literature. But given the state of the art reached in the discussion on nonseparability and
holism and the interpretation of quantum physics in general, it is simply conceptual confusion
to take one particular physical theory – i.e., quantum physics – in distinction to other physical
theories – i.e., classical physics including general relativity – to imply anti-realism.
------------------------

As I implied before, statements such as he makes are premature, and are more deeply motivated by his Catholicism than they are by his scientific brain. They are premature because we are still learning more and more about nature every year, every month, every day. To declare the project futile now is ridiculous.

Turning to your comment about the ability of the human mind to know its own origins only if it has an immaterial source, I think that has to be wrong. First of all, recent experiments have shown that humans are not the only animals with self-consciousness. See http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RQDSPTQ
Elephants especially have demonstrated this trait. So, unless you are going to claim that elephants, chimpanzees and dolphins are all endowed by a supernatural source with this faculty, I think we can infer that it has natural origins. Second, there is a logical gap in your jump to the conclusion that there must be a supernatural source. Your premise that an evolved mind could never know its own origins is highly suspect. There is no a priori reason why a conscious animal cannot evolve to become self-conscious and then go on to inquire, logically and in accordance with scientific principles, about that evolution. Why must you assert a supernatural reason at all?

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: science alone cannot explain "ultimate reality"
    ... On the no collapse interpretations, nature simply is a huge entangled quantum system; ... holism and the interpretation of quantum physics in general, ... Do you think that the number of reals between any two reals is the same? ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: science alone cannot explain "ultimate reality"
    ... On the no collapse interpretations, nature simply is a huge ... holism and the interpretation of quantum physics in general, ... creative abilities critiquing a mind of superior abilities. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: No new Einstein
    ... From the quantum phenomenon it appears to follow ... >> does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, ... > contrary to nature in view of the molecular structure of everything ... > functions from physics. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: OT: science alone cannot explain "ultimate reality"
    ... On the no collapse interpretations, nature simply is a huge ... holism and the interpretation of quantum physics in general, ... creative abilities critiquing a mind of superior abilities. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Slow Motion Cosmological Train Wreck
    ... Instead of scales of quantum, ... Where both simple extremes ... There is one nature. ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading