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

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:35:29 -0400, "Francis A. Miniter"
<faminiter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

I read the whole article. But here we have minds of secondary
creative abilities critiquing a mind of superior abilities. They very
likely do not have nearly the intuitive insights that he possesses.

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?

My own intuitive persuasion. It's kind of like the proposition where
infinite sets are defined by a finite number of axioms - one may never
know whether there exist logical paradoxes within the set.
Mathematicians who only want to play mind games with logic, continue
to define more propositions (like the well-ordering "theorem" which
states that every set may be well-ordered) because they cannot prove
otherwise. This is in spite of the fact that no one has ever produced
a well-ordering of the real numbers, and no one ever will. Intuition
says "NO" to that idea. Abstract mathematicians will laugh at you for
saying so because they don't deal with realities.
--
Howard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What should I say to the post-grads about Godel?
    ... the realm of physics. ... That wasn't really where Penrose was coming from. ... take a look at his book "Shadows of the Mind". ... the nature of consciousness. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • 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: What should I say to the post-grads about Godel?
    ... whether or not the mind is a physical mechanism. ... mathematics as well as physics). ... it is supernatural in nature. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: What should I say to the post-grads about Godel?
    ... the realm of physics. ... it is supernatural in nature. ... You can say that the mind is some sort of physical process which can ... 'Processing information' implies that information is a physical event and not a mental event, and if information is 'processed' then it is another physical event. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: What should I say to the post-grads about Godel?
    ... the realm of physics. ... it is supernatural in nature. ... You can say that the mind is some sort of physical process which can ... Certainly the *brain* is a physical artifact. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading