All things are possible . . .

[the_light]

It seemed the OP was initially heading in a good direction, but turned south really quick.

From my understanding of the physical world, you are correct. I believe your last post meant to say "the boundary between the QM world and the macroscopic world does not exist"... and as such, all things are technically possible.

But the "problem" is once you get to the macroscopic level, the probability of say, your hand passing through your keyboard and then through your desk, and into your leg... is so small, that you can basically forget about it ever happening. This macro-relevance initially occurred to me when I was in college and we were using Schrödinger's equations to analyze tunneling.

Your initial point went south when you started attacking "science". Science is the study of the world... it attempts to use experience and physical evidence and phenomena to better understand what is going on in the universe. To attack science, and its methods, is to attack experience and logic. That's a problem for you, as a Christian. No serious apologist or theological or philosophical mind is going to reject those things. Those are the only things you have to understand what is outside of "yourself".

You might say... "but the holy spirit, it imparts truths that we could never otherwise understand"... mmm... I did say "experience" didn't I? You may receive gifts of understanding or peace from the holy spirit, but that is still an experience. Obviously, if you are honest and scrutinize everything objectively, you'd be weary of those kinds of "experiences" because they lead to things like... oh... other religions!?

My point is - you can't attack science without attacking your very own means of discovering God's truths.

[Augustine2004]

Your initial point went south when you started attacking "science". Science is the study of the world... it attempts to use experience and physical evidence and phenomena to better understand what is going on in the universe. To attack science, and its methods, is to attack experience and logic. That's a problem for you, as a Christian. No serious apologist or theological or philosophical mind is going to reject those things.

The_Light

Your post is appreciated. Your second sentence is correct. That’s what I should have said. Must be a short circuit in my brain. I hope it’s only temporary.

Third paragraph = good.

Fourth paragraph - now wait a minute. I was merely pointing out or clarifying what I think science says and does not say. I believe the Bible is God’s Word (special revelation) and the ‘natural’ world is God’s general revelation. If there appears to be a conflict between what science says and what the Bible says, I’d take the Bible any time. However, I would re-examine my interpretation of the Bible. Anyway, I’m actually partially a deist. I think God to some extent has an ‘hands-off’ policy especially since Jesus Christ’s ministry.

So, it’s a good idea to do science, but it’s not magic.

[the_light]

So, it’s a good idea to do science, but it’s not magic.

I will agree there! People do go overboard sometimes and either drop moral standards in the name of progress, or they assume their interpretations of the world are the final say.

Those things should be avoided. Temperance. Its Biblical (so its good in your book), and its logical (so its good in my book).

[shunyadragon]

Thaum and Shunyadragon, you are both wrong. The theory is simply inadequate; the boundary between the QM world and the macroscopic world does exist. Experiments are now underway to investigate that.

Let me add, Bose-Einstein condensates and quantum entanglements. There may be other effects that I forgot.

It would help if you could remember and be more specific so that I could respond. Quantum entanglements are just how scientists describe the relationship between the behavior of the basic particles of matter and nothing more. It is related to the predictable nature of the basic particles in what we consider as 'Quantum Mechanics.' Regardless of the indeterminacy of the behavior it is a predicable and consistently observed behavior.

The Bose-Einstein was an experiment to demonstrate the Quantum behavior of some atoms when the collapse when frozen at a temperature of absolute zero. The collapsed atoms showed the behavior of the basic particles they were made up of. This does not help any beyond this particular 'observed behavior.' Beyond this 'observed behavior' we have nothing. You must realize this is not reflected the behavior of the macro world outside these special experimental conditions.

The problem with the nature of 'Quantum Mechanics' is that it is an 'observed behavior' under certain predicable conditions, and not part of the experimentally predictable nature of the macro world. Thes conditions are definitely predicable and well known.

[thaum]

Thaum, didn't you read this part?

I did read that part. What relevance does it have to what I said?

[Augustine2004]

Thaum and Shunyadragon, I agree that quantum mechanics effects become ever more undetectable on ever larger scales, generally speaking. However, I did read about some macroscopic effects that require quantum mechanics, if my memory is not playing tricks on me. I’ve already mentioned the dark-adapted eye, and I think there are other effects. I’ll keep my eyes open for news. In any case those effects are still calculable and do not vanish entirely, at least in principle.

[shunyadragon]

Thaum and Shunyadragon, I agree that quantum mechanics effects become ever more undetectable on ever larger scales, generally speaking. However, I did read about some macroscopic effects that require quantum mechanics, if my memory is not playing tricks on me. I’ve already mentioned the dark-adapted eye, and I think there are other effects. I’ll keep my eyes open for news. In any case those effects are still calculable and do not vanish entirely, at least in principle.

I checked out a google search on 'dark-adapted eye quantum,' and found a few things, but not anything that would refer to Quantum Mechanics, but some references to the behavior and nature of 'quantum' [plural quanta] the basic unit of light energy. These references did not refer to Quantum Mechanics indeterminacy observed in the macroworld.

I did find this 'New Age' mystic tofu foolish site that made odd claim concerning Quantum Mechanics and mind stuff.

http://quantumtantra.com/quim.html

Keep looking.

[Augustine2004]

Some dark-adapted eyes are able to see ONE photon at a time (individual eyes, that is ).

[shunyadragon]

Some dark-adapted eyes are able to see ONE photon at a time (individual eyes, that is ).

This may be, but it does not refer to the indeterminacy behavior of the basic particles of matter in quantum Mechanics. This simply refers to the ability to detect and respond to individual quantum of light energy. different ball game and different ballpark.

[Augustine2004]

What about superconducting? I believe that is QM phenomena that is nevertheless macroscopic.

[shunyadragon]

What about superconducting? I believe that is QM phenomena that is nevertheless macroscopic.

Again, another ball game in another ball park. Actually, superconducting would be a good thread in the forum category that would deal with specific issues of science.

The concept of Quantum Logic, would be relevant here in Philosophy, not because it deals with 'observable quantum indeterminacy' in the macro world, but what is logically and reasonably possible given a possible quantum indeterminacy in logic and reasoning. 'Anything is possible' is still not a logical and reasonable extension of quantum logic, but it opens some doors to more possibilities.


The Christian and others whose logic and reasoning is primarily entrenched in Aristotelian logic abridged by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, may find this logic discomforting, because it opens up things to include more possibilities.

[the_light]

What about superconducting? I believe that is QM phenomena that is nevertheless macroscopic.

Or... how about the (literally) countless semiconductors that are in your computer?

As I said, the "randomness" of QM fades at the macro level. So technically speaking your computer doesn't have to function predictably... but it will.

[M.Talkingsworth]

To those knowledgeable about such things:

I know that there are functions which predict the position of particles based on percentages. That is, one could predict that, say, 88% of the time a particle would be found within a given space.

Is there any place that one could *know* that a particle couldn't be? For example, could an electron in a hydrogen atom in this room possibly pop up 100 miles away, even though most of the time is is in it's appropriate orbit?

Thanks,

Matt

[shunyadragon]

To those knowledgeable about such things:

I know that there are functions which predict the position of particles based on percentages. That is, one could predict that, say, 88% of the time a particle would be found within a given space.

Is there any place that one could *know* that a particle couldn't be? For example, could an electron in a hydrogen atom in this room possibly pop up 100 miles away, even though most of the time is is in it's appropriate orbit?

Thanks,

Matt

Location of the basic particles of matter is not a problem. To keep it simple Quantum indeterminacy recognizes that our observation of the properties of the basic particles of matter is in a range that is determined by 'probability distribution' of the observable effects of the particles. For that matter we never 'see' any of the basic particles of matter we detect their effects, like tracks on a photograph. The order of magnitude of this indeterminacy is very very small for very very small particles is the smallest limit of science to measure 'things' which is Plank's constant. found to be 6.6 x 10-34 J·s by indirect experimental measurement. The electron will be within a limite range of very small measurements. By these measurements we can be relatively certain of location or the spin, but not both at the same time.