• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
303
113
66
Stockholm
Visit site
✟88,839.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I could never quite grasp the Aristotelian concept of immanent form until I read Abraham P. Bos's book on Aristotelian pneuma as the carrier of form. That was when I realized this very idea could help solve a classic puzzle: what exactly is quantum reality, and what kind of existence are we actually dealing with?

I want to share a way of looking at this that fixes a major blank spot in the classic Copenhagen model, without getting stuck in the traps of modern realism. While the Copenhagen model is great because it doesn't treat quantum states like everyday classical objects, it doesn't really explain what is actually there. This lack of a solid philosophical foundation often makes it feel like a shallow tool, just a set of math equations for predicting things rather than a description of real life. Because of this, physicists and philosophers usually default to realist interpretations.

Rather than adopting such realist views, I suggest we look back to an old idea from Aristotle called hylomorphism (the pairing of matter and form), but complemented with the concept of pneuma. Think of pneuma as an active, subtle, and formative energy. In this pneumatic view, a quantum state isn't a physical particle or a wave travelling through space; it is pure, objective potential. Before we measure it, the quantum object is identical to the laws of physics themselves, existing as an un-incarnated, pneumatic logos. It only takes on classical, thing-like properties when it physically "incarnates" during measurement.

This pneumatic approach completely rules out the realist assumption that there is a pre-existing, definite classical past. Take John Wheeler's famous cosmic delayed-choice experiment. Realist thinking leads to the bizarre conclusion of retrocausality, making it seem like a measurement we make today can reach back billions of years to rewrite a photon's history. The pneumatic framework dissolves this paradox completely. The photon never needed to travel as a classical wave or particle in the first place; it was always an irreducibly quantum, pneumatic entity. Measurement is simply an "incarnation event" that makes things concrete in the present, meaning we don't need any time-traveling magic to explain it. Pneumatic quantum reality is primary, while wave and particle are merely secondary manifestations.

To see how we lost the ability to think this way, we have to look at how Western philosophy changed over time. Thinkers like Maximus Confessor (c. 580-662) understood the logoi as active, organizing principles existing right inside natural things. But when later medieval philosophy stripped these forms of their pneumatic carrier, nominalism took over, flattening everything into mere surface-level form. Eventually, this led to the modern view that order is just something our minds project onto the world. However, quantum physics has retroactively challenged this modern bias, proving that there is indeed a real, non-classical organizing principle operating inside nature, completely independent of our minds.

Ultimately, I see quantum measurement as a two-way street, a participatory event where pneumatic quantum reality and our human concepts meet. On a cosmic scale, this process is happening everywhere, all the time, through environmental and gravitational decoherence. Cosmic history is an ongoing, irreversible process of physical incarnation, moving from a unified, low-entropy quantum beginning to the highly differentiated classical world we see today. Read more about this on my retro nineties homepage: Pneumatic Hylomorphism and Quantum Philosophy: Retrieving the Logoi in the Copenhagen Model.
 

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,749
10,575
✟324,157.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Please select the option most useful to you:
1. The reason I know I am not truly intelligent is that I understood all of your words, but none of your meaning.
2. Concatenation of Concepts Collapsing Concrete Cosmology, Consequently Clarifying Copenhagen.
3. Offering Argument but not Evidence rarely convinces.
4. ?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,361
18,934
56
USA
✟494,276.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I could never quite grasp the Aristotelian concept of immanent form until I read Abraham P. Bos's book on Aristotelian pneuma as the carrier of form. That was when I realized this very idea could help solve a classic puzzle: what exactly is quantum reality, and what kind of existence are we actually dealing with?

This stinks of philosophy. Perhaps it is best done on the philosophy section
I want to share a way of looking at this that fixes a major blank spot in the classic Copenhagen model, without getting stuck in the traps of modern realism. While the Copenhagen model is great because it doesn't treat quantum states like everyday classical objects, it doesn't really explain what is actually there. This lack of a solid philosophical foundation often makes it feel like a shallow tool, just a set of math equations for predicting things rather than a description of real life. Because of this, physicists and philosophers usually default to realist interpretations.

Rather than adopting such realist views, I suggest we look back to an old idea from Aristotle called hylomorphism (the pairing of matter and form), but complemented with the concept of pneuma. Think of pneuma as an active, subtle, and formative energy. In this pneumatic view, a quantum state isn't a physical particle or a wave travelling through space; it is pure, objective potential. Before we measure it, the quantum object is identical to the laws of physics themselves, existing as an un-incarnated, pneumatic logos. It only takes on classical, thing-like properties when it physically "incarnates" during measurement.

This pneumatic approach completely rules out the realist assumption that there is a pre-existing, definite classical past. Take John Wheeler's famous cosmic delayed-choice experiment. Realist thinking leads to the bizarre conclusion of retrocausality, making it seem like a measurement we make today can reach back billions of years to rewrite a photon's history. The pneumatic framework dissolves this paradox completely. The photon never needed to travel as a classical wave or particle in the first place; it was always an irreducibly quantum, pneumatic entity. Measurement is simply an "incarnation event" that makes things concrete in the present, meaning we don't need any time-traveling magic to explain it. Pneumatic quantum reality is primary, while wave and particle are merely secondary manifestations.

To see how we lost the ability to think this way, we have to look at how Western philosophy changed over time. Thinkers like Maximus Confessor (c. 580-662) understood the logoi as active, organizing principles existing right inside natural things. But when later medieval philosophy stripped these forms of their pneumatic carrier, nominalism took over, flattening everything into mere surface-level form. Eventually, this led to the modern view that order is just something our minds project onto the world. However, quantum physics has retroactively challenged this modern bias, proving that there is indeed a real, non-classical organizing principle operating inside nature, completely independent of our minds.

Ultimately, I see quantum measurement as a two-way street, a participatory event where pneumatic quantum reality and our human concepts meet. On a cosmic scale, this process is happening everywhere, all the time, through environmental and gravitational decoherence. Cosmic history is an ongoing, irreversible process of physical incarnation, moving from a unified, low-entropy quantum beginning to the highly differentiated classical world we see today. Read more about this on my retro nineties homepage: Pneumatic Hylomorphism and Quantum Philosophy: Retrieving the Logoi in the Copenhagen Model.

or /dev/null
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
17,815
9,619
51
The Wild West
✟959,677.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
While the Copenhagen model is great because it doesn't treat quantum states like everyday classical objects, it doesn't really explain what is actually there.

I like your idea, but I’m not sure I agree with this. We do know actually what is there with extremely high mathematical precision. Where Aristotelian categories might come in handy is in providing superior terminology to what is there, for example, quantum chromodynamics uses color to refer to the relationship of quarks based on analogy to how human perception of color relies on three fundamental colors that the cone cells in our eyes can perceive, namely red, green and blue, and the opposites of those three colors, anti-red, anti-green and anti-blue, which is to say cyan, purple and yellow. This can create misunderstandings and distractions towards those attempting to approach quantum physics. Likewise, the use of the term “spin” to refer to the integral magnetic and angular momentum of particles also causes confusion.

Thus rather than a new interpretation of quantum mechanics to explain for example wave-partical duality or the wavefunction collapse, I think new terminology, which could be derived from Aristotelian principles, would be more helpful.
 
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
303
113
66
Stockholm
Visit site
✟88,839.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I like your idea, but I’m not sure I agree with this. We do know actually what is there with extremely high mathematical precision. Where Aristotelian categories might come in handy is in providing superior terminology to what is there, for example, quantum chromodynamics uses color to refer to the relationship of quarks based on analogy to how human perception of color relies on three fundamental colors that the cone cells in our eyes can perceive, namely red, green and blue, and the opposites of those three colors, anti-red, anti-green and anti-blue, which is to say cyan, purple and yellow. This can create misunderstandings and distractions towards those attempting to approach quantum physics. Likewise, the use of the term “spin” to refer to the integral magnetic and angular momentum of particles also causes confusion.

Thus rather than a new interpretation of quantum mechanics to explain for example wave-partical duality or the wavefunction collapse, I think new terminology, which could be derived from Aristotelian principles, would be more helpful.
No, we do not know what quantum reality is prior to measurement. That is precisely why so many competing theories of quantum reality persist: wave, particle, field, noumenon, pilot wave, many-worlds, and so forth. The pneumatic conception is attractive from the standpoint of Christian metaphysics because the Church Fathers invested deeply in this Stoic and Aristotelian framework. They even conceived spirit as pneuma, a subtle divine substance. As David Litwa (2012) argues, when Paul says, "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," he means that the pneuma of Christ has permeated his body and now directs his life, replacing his former false self that was attached to earthly things (Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul's Soteriology).

From a modern horizon, this appears strikingly naive. Today we tend to think of spirit as abstract and subjective, and we interpret such statements metaphorically or as symbolic of God's energeia active in the world. The question, then, is how we can make sense of Paul's pneumatic theology while rejecting the ancient conception of spiritual beings operating as quasi-physical agents in the cosmos. Otherwise, we must reject biblical theology altogether, since it maintains that God has a body. As Sommer (2009) notes, the Hebrew Bible contains frequent references to the deity's corporeality, and it "contains not a single verse denying that God has a body" (The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel). Yet theologians, though they briefly acknowledge the physicality or visibility of God, immediately translate it into abstract terms whenever God's presence is mentioned.

We therefore face a theological problem that demands resolution, and we must begin to take the pneumatic conception seriously again. However, although I argue that quantum reality is pneumatic, I am not claiming that it is divine. It is only the first step towards recovering a pneumatic worldview in which the divine has its proper place.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,361
18,934
56
USA
✟494,276.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No, we do not know what quantum reality is prior to measurement. That is precisely why so many competing theories of quantum reality persist: wave, particle, field, noumenon, pilot wave, many-worlds, and so forth. The pneumatic conception is attractive from the standpoint of Christian metaphysics because the Church Fathers invested deeply in this Stoic and Aristotelian framework. They even conceived spirit as pneuma, a subtle divine substance. As David Litwa (2012) argues, when Paul says, "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," he means that the pneuma of Christ has permeated his body and now directs his life, replacing his former false self that was attached to earthly things (Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul's Soteriology).

From a modern horizon, this appears strikingly naive. Today we tend to think of spirit as abstract and subjective, and we interpret such statements metaphorically or as symbolic of God's energeia active in the world. The question, then, is how we can make sense of Paul's pneumatic theology while rejecting the ancient conception of spiritual beings operating as quasi-physical agents in the cosmos. Otherwise, we must reject biblical theology altogether, since it maintains that God has a body. As Sommer (2009) notes, the Hebrew Bible contains frequent references to the deity's corporeality, and it "contains not a single verse denying that God has a body" (The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel). Yet theologians, though they briefly acknowledge the physicality or visibility of God, immediately translate it into abstract terms whenever God's presence is mentioned.

We therefore face a theological problem that demands resolution, and we must begin to take the pneumatic conception seriously again. However, although I argue that quantum reality is pneumatic, I am not claiming that it is divine. It is only the first step towards recovering a pneumatic worldview in which the divine has its proper place.
A discussion of "quantum reality" will NEVER include discussion of theology. You are lost.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
303
113
66
Stockholm
Visit site
✟88,839.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
A discussion of "quantum reality" will NEVER include discussion of theology. You are lost.
The question of what quantum states are prior to measurement is not a physical question. Any attempt to say what they are is already metaphysics. Thus, we cannot avoid the philosophical implications of the physics itself. My argument uses a metaphysical framework drawn from Christian intellectual history to interpret the ontological status of quantum potentiality, which is precisely the kind of interpretive work every quantum interpretation already does.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,361
18,934
56
USA
✟494,276.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The question of what quantum states are prior to measurement is not a physical question. Any attempt to say what they are is already metaphysics. Thus, we cannot avoid the philosophical implications of the physics itself.
Unless there is a experimental test, I see no reason to care in the slightest about what a quantum state is before measurement.
My argument uses a metaphysical framework drawn from Christian intellectual history to interpret the ontological status of quantum potentiality, which is precisely the kind of interpretive work every quantum interpretation already does.
It has nothing to offer.
 
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
303
113
66
Stockholm
Visit site
✟88,839.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Unless there is a experimental test, I see no reason to care in the slightest about what a quantum state is before measurement.

It has nothing to offer.
Your statement assumes that "experimental test" must mean direct observation, yet quantum states are accessible only indirectly. We cannot see a quantum state, but we can experimentally probe its pre-measurement structure, for example by reconstructing it through quantum tomography or by verifying its coherence through interference.

For this reason, the premise that a theory must be supported by a direct experimental test in order to matter is false. The statement also becomes self-defeating for anyone who seeks to understand quantum foundations, since those foundations concern precisely the nature and significance of the quantum state prior to measurement.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,361
18,934
56
USA
✟494,276.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Your statement assumes that "experimental test" must mean direct observation, yet quantum states are accessible only indirectly. We cannot see a quantum state, but we can experimentally probe its pre-measurement structure, for example by reconstructing it through quantum tomography or by verifying its coherence through interference.

For this reason, the premise that a theory must be supported by a direct experimental test in order to matter is false. The statement also becomes self-defeating for anyone who seeks to understand quantum foundations, since those foundations concern precisely the nature and significance of the quantum state prior to measurement.
You don't seem to understand what I meant. (And of course you don't. If you did you wouldn't make a thread about quantum mechanics and some theology stuff.)

I'm talking about an experimental test of the "interpretation" of QM. If you don't have an experimental test of your "interpretation" of QM, I don't care about your personal, theological speculation on QM.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Perfect in every way.
Jul 14, 2015
16,872
10,200
53
✟444,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Please select the option most useful to you:
1. The reason I know I am not truly intelligent is that I understood all of your words, but none of your meaning.
2. Concatenation of Concepts Collapsing Concrete Cosmology, Consequently Clarifying Copenhagen.
3. Offering Argument but not Evidence rarely convinces.
4. ?
Can I have a 3 please.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Theology with a 'spin'!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,213
12,571
Space Mountain!
✟1,538,816.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, we do not know what quantum reality is prior to measurement. That is precisely why so many competing theories of quantum reality persist: wave, particle, field, noumenon, pilot wave, many-worlds, and so forth. The pneumatic conception is attractive from the standpoint of Christian metaphysics because the Church Fathers invested deeply in this Stoic and Aristotelian framework. They even conceived spirit as pneuma, a subtle divine substance. As David Litwa (2012) argues, when Paul says, "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," he means that the pneuma of Christ has permeated his body and now directs his life, replacing his former false self that was attached to earthly things (Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul's Soteriology).

From a modern horizon, this appears strikingly naive. Today we tend to think of spirit as abstract and subjective, and we interpret such statements metaphorically or as symbolic of God's energeia active in the world. The question, then, is how we can make sense of Paul's pneumatic theology while rejecting the ancient conception of spiritual beings operating as quasi-physical agents in the cosmos. Otherwise, we must reject biblical theology altogether, since it maintains that God has a body. As Sommer (2009) notes, the Hebrew Bible contains frequent references to the deity's corporeality, and it "contains not a single verse denying that God has a body" (The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel). Yet theologians, though they briefly acknowledge the physicality or visibility of God, immediately translate it into abstract terms whenever God's presence is mentioned.

We therefore face a theological problem that demands resolution, and we must begin to take the pneumatic conception seriously again. However, although I argue that quantum reality is pneumatic, I am not claiming that it is divine. It is only the first step towards recovering a pneumatic worldview in which the divine has its proper place.

Not every theological problem we think we have in our hands has an access point for resolution. Simply articulating speculative statements to serve as initial explanations isn't the same as providing an actual method for demonstration.

I'll stick with mainstream forms of Realism. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,749
10,575
✟324,157.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Not every theological problem we think we have in our hands has an access point for resolution. Simply articulating speculative statements to serve as initial explanations isn't the same as providing an actual method for demonstration.
I think that matches my point 3 in post #2. Perhaps you will have more success in getting a response than I. I wonder if he was put off by my implicit critique of his turgid writing style.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Theology with a 'spin'!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,213
12,571
Space Mountain!
✟1,538,816.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think that matches my point 3 in post #2. Perhaps you will have more success in getting a response than I. I wonder if he was put off by my implicit critique of his turgid writing style.

Ah, I see that now. Those are good points and you're right about point 3, but I doubt I'll convince Teofrastus of his current line of thought in any short order. He seems to be invested in this 'form' of theological inquiry.
 
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
303
113
66
Stockholm
Visit site
✟88,839.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
You don't seem to understand what I meant. (And of course you don't. If you did you wouldn't make a thread about quantum mechanics and some theology stuff.)

I'm talking about an experimental test of the "interpretation" of QM. If you don't have an experimental test of your "interpretation" of QM, I don't care about your personal, theological speculation on QM.
What I am proposing is not a quantum theory but a quantum philosophy. Quantum metaphysics cannot be empirically tested, because we cannot perform experiments that reveal what quantum reality is prior to measurement. This is a central difficulty in quantum physics, and it seems that many people still have not grasped it.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,361
18,934
56
USA
✟494,276.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What I am proposing is not a quantum theory but a quantum philosophy.
Then you should go to the philosophy section (or theology section). You seem more comfortable there.

QM is physics. Physics is a physical science. This is the physical science section. QM belongs here. Philosophical naval gazing goes elsewhere.

Quantum metaphysics cannot be empirically tested, because we cannot perform experiments that reveal what quantum reality is prior to measurement.
Then it is not science and not on topic here.
This is a central difficulty in quantum physics, and it seems that many people still have not grasped it.
Nah, the central problem is that 3-body quantum systems are complex and can not be solved analytically.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Theology with a 'spin'!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
27,213
12,571
Space Mountain!
✟1,538,816.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The forum seems to be populated, in no small measure, by individuals whose mental furnishings are distressingly sparse.

Pardon me, but some of us actually have degrees in either one of the sciences relevant to this forum, or even just a plain jane degree in Philosophy.

Either way, we're not bone-headed light weights, and if you want to convince me of your thesis, I need to see your sources - HERE, not simply your premises.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
303
113
66
Stockholm
Visit site
✟88,839.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Pardon me, but some of us actually have degrees in either one of the sciences relevant to this forum, or even just a plain jane degree in Philosophy.

Either way, we're not bone-headed light weights, and if you want to convince me of your thesis, I need to see your sources - HERE, not simply your premises.
Just click the link and read the article.
 
Upvote 0