Is quantum reality pneumatic? A hylomorphic alternative to realism

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 8:24 AM

AV1611VET said:
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

And I'm all about removing mental blocks. Don't believe me? Just read Incredible Hulk #200 and see what I mean..... :sorry:

Teofrastus · Friday at 8:42 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Secondly, I don't think it's clear that we can discern a special place for one of the three most competing interpretations of QM.

Although I could be wrong, yours seems to incorporate and assume a Bohmian interpretation rather than the Copenhagen or the Many Worlds.

No. In the article I also reject Bohmian pilot-wave theory, because it ultimately depends on a form of wave‑realism. Neither of the two dominant modern philosophical schools, realism and idealism, actually works. We have to relearn how to think as the Church Fathers did. Every modern attempt at quantum realism is hopeless. Modern people have forgotten how to think in terms of pneumatic potentia, which the ancients took for granted because they understood the Spirit as "the pneuma that blows wherever it wishes."

Nominalism and rationalism have conditioned modern thinkers to assume that only the actual exists. They have lost the ability to take potentiality seriously as a genuine mode of material being.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 8:53 AM

Teofrastus said:
No. In the article I also reject Bohmian pilot-wave theory, because it ultimately depends on a form of wave‑realism. Neither of the two dominant modern philosophical schools, realism and idealism, actually works. We have to relearn how to think as the Church Fathers did. Every modern attempt at quantum realism is hopeless. Modern people have forgotten how to think in terms of pneumatic potentia, which the ancients took for granted because they understood the Spirit as "the pneuma that blows wherever it wishes."

Nominalism and rationalism have conditioned modern thinkers to assume that only the actual exists. They have lost the ability to take potentiality seriously as a genuine mode of material being.

This is all speculative philosophy, Teofrastus, and I personally have an allergy to that sort of thing. I prefer Analytic forms of philosophy as a handmaiden to how I approach the Philosophy of Science. And if that means that we leave our understand of the Universe and even of Christian Theology in fragments, that's better than imposing sheer rationalizing by extracting abstract Aristotelian principles and shoving them into our current modes of scientific investigation.

I will remain both an Existentialist and an Evidentialist in regard to the use of Aristotle's idea of pneuma.

So, I'm sticking with the general trends in science which we've had since Copernicus......

“There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.” -- Nicolaus Copernicus

And I would keep the Church Fathers out of it.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 9:25 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
And I'm all about removing mental blocks. Don't believe me? Just read Incredible Hulk #200 and see what I mean.....

Invoking obscure technical literature again... sigh.

Teofrastus · Friday at 9:32 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
This is all speculative philosophy, Teofrastus, and I personally have an allergy to that sort of thing. I prefer Analytic forms of philosophy as a handmaiden to how I approach the Philosophy of Science. And if that means that we leave our understand of the Universe and even of Christian Theology in fragments, that's better than imposing sheer rationalizing by extracting abstract Aristotelian principles and shoving them into our current modes of scientific investigation.

I will remain both an Existentialist and an Evidentialist in regard to the use of Aristotle's idea of pneuma.

So, I'm sticking with the general trends in science which we've had since Copernicus......

“There may be babblers, wholly ignorant of mathematics, who dare to condemn my hypothesis, upon the authority of some part of the Bible twisted to suit their purpose. I value them not, and scorn their unfounded judgment.” -- Nicolaus Copernicus

And I would keep the Church Fathers out of it.

Quantum reality is the elephant in the room: it is matter in its potential mode. It is so obvious!

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 10:47 AM

Teofrastus said:
Quantum reality is the elephant in the room: it is matter in its potential mode. It is so obvious!

You can keep your Cartesian style attempt at rationalism to yourself.

Also, please refrain further from implementing your Reification Fallacy.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 10:48 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Invoking obscure technical literature again... sigh.

I was attempting to offer AV something he'd understand. :sorry:

Larniavc · Friday at 11:50 AM

Teofrastus said:
They have lost the ability to take potentiality seriously as a genuine mode of material being.

You mean made up things?

Pommer · Friday at 5:16 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Just for the record, I assume the average human being has a least been blessed with some thinking power, which is one reason as an advocate for education I get a little put out when I see someone not using their God given potential of mind, whether they tow along a useless degree in hand or not.

“Thinking” is probably the attribute that is most over-estimated in Dunning-Kruger terms.

Pommer · Friday at 5:30 PM

AV1611VET said:
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

A waist is a terrible thing to mind!

AV1611VET · Friday at 6:35 PM

Pommer said:
A waist is a terrible thing to mind!

Reminds me of the time someone started a thread asking if you believe in near death experiences, and I said:

AV1611VET said:
I asked my wife once if she thought she was putting on a few pounds.

Teofrastus · Saturday at 12:28 AM

One is forced, with a sigh of weary resignation, to acknowledge that this forum has descended into a kind of overlit nursery, populated by juveniles who, in a paroxysm of touching self-importance, attempt to imitate the bearing of adults, yet whose every syllable and gesture radiates such unmistakable childishness that their pretence dissolves before it has even begun to cohere.

Larniavc · Saturday at 4:57 AM

Teofrastus said:
One is forced, with a sigh of weary resignation, to acknowledge that this forum has descended into a kind of overlit nursery, populated by juveniles who, in a paroxysm of touching self-importance, attempt to imitate the bearing of adults, yet whose every syllable and gesture radiates such unmistakable childishness that their pretence dissolves before it has even begun to cohere.

“Use your aggressive feelings boy, let the hate flow through you”.

2PhiloVoid · Saturday at 5:01 AM

Teofrastus said:
One is forced, with a sigh of weary resignation, to acknowledge that this forum has descended into a kind of overlit nursery, populated by juveniles who, in a paroxysm of touching self-importance, attempt to imitate the bearing of adults, yet whose every syllable and gesture radiates such unmistakable childishness that their pretence dissolves before it has even begun to cohere.

Pretense? Au contraire mon frère !

We're just waiting for you to spell out the "obvious" empirical evidences associated with your theoretical position and give us further insight into what your hylomorphic position* enables any of us to predict in further scientific studies/experiments.

Pretend that the school bell has just rung and we're sitting in class awaiting your every loquacious, hylomorphic syllable.

*Just for the record, as a philosopher myself, I appreciate what you're attempting to do. But as an Evidentialist, I need more than sheer abstracted Aristotelian type theory. I need more than the sound of a pneumatic tube at the bank. I need a payout, even if it's just a buck or two.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 5:42 AM

Teofrastus said:
One is forced, with a sigh of weary resignation, to acknowledge that this forum has descended into a kind of overlit nursery, populated by juveniles who, in a paroxysm of touching self-importance, attempt to imitate the bearing of adults, yet whose every syllable and gesture radiates such unmistakable childishness that their pretence dissolves before it has even begun to cohere.

What do you want from us in a thread you started about alternatives to realism?

And for the record, this is from AI Overview:

Hylomorphic (derived from the Greek words hylē, meaning "matter," and morphē, meaning "form") is a philosophical term used to describe anything composed of both physical matter and a shaping or organizing principle.

Originating with Aristotle and later adopted by medieval scholastic philosophers, this theory explains that no physical object can exist solely as raw material or an abstract concept. Instead, all things require both:

This clashes with God's miraculous creation, when He first brought the earth into existence.

Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

So there was a time in 4004BC -- albeit briefly -- when your hylomorphism was no more in play than science was.

Both (hylomorphism & science) weren't even a speck on God's radar, when the earth came into existence.

In short, you can no more force hylomorphism on us than academia can force science on us.

Ophiolite · Saturday at 10:21 AM

Teofrastus said:
One is forced, with a sigh of weary resignation, to acknowledge that this forum has descended into a kind of overlit nursery, populated by juveniles who, in a paroxysm of touching self-importance, attempt to imitate the bearing of adults, yet whose every syllable and gesture radiates such unmistakable childishness that their pretence dissolves before it has even begun to cohere.

One inclines to think the juvenile is the one who prepares to throw out the toys from their pram because their poorly written OP was ill received and appropriate demands for evidence were treated with ignorant disdain. I'll give you a leg up: here is my post #2 written directly, not in the sub-text that I expected an educated man, allegedly having a well furnished brain, would have little trouble interpreting, but simplified to the extent that, sadly, seems necessary.

Point 1:
"The reason I know I am not truly intelligent is that I understood all of your words, but none of your meaning."

It is deliberately self-deprecating on the surface, but the implied challenge is: If an educated reader can parse every sentence but still cannot reconstruct your argument, perhaps the problem lies in the writing rather than the reader.

That can be a legitimate criticism of philosophical writing. Understanding vocabulary is not the same as understanding an argument. Good philosophy should survive paraphrase. After reading the post, I could summarise the broad thesis, but many of the key claims remain ambiguous because terms such as pneumatic, incarnation, and logos are never defined operationally. And I cannot, and shall not, guess at which operational definitions you chose.

Point 2:
"Concatenation of Concepts Collapsing Concrete Cosmology, Consequently Clarifying Copenhagen."

You strung together an interesting collection of concepts, so you might think I set out to ape them. If so you missed my point. I'll break it down for you. You're welcome. I address my understanding of your turgid transcript.

Concatenation of Concepts – you import concepts from Aristotle, medieval theology, philosophy of science, and quantum mechanics.
Collapsing Concrete Cosmology – your new framework is claimed to displace the ordinary realist picture of physical reality.
Consequently Clarifying Copenhagen – the new ontology is presented as resolving what Copenhagen and other interpretations leave unexplained.

3. "Offering Argument but not Evidence rarely convinces."

You repeatedly asserts things like

"Quantum physics has proven..."

without showing why.

For example,

"Quantum physics has retroactively challenged this modern bias..."

Yet no evidence is presented.

Likewise,

"The pneumatic framework dissolves this paradox completely."

How? You never demonstrate that. Since the discussion is in a science forum rather than a philosophy seminar, this criticism carries extra weight.

4. "?"
What did I miss? You have (or at least had ) a chance to explain.

Lose the arrogance and most of us will meet you half way.

Larniavc · Saturday at 10:32 AM

Ophiolite said:
One inclines to think the juvenile is the one who prepares to throw out the toys from their pram because their poorly written OP was ill received and appropriate demands for evidence were treated with ignorant disdain.

It wasn’t even a very entertaining flameout.

Ophiolite · Saturday at 11:29 AM

Larniavc said:
It wasn’t even a very entertaining flameout.

I don't mind justifiable arrogance, but the justification should be delivered before the arrogance is displayed. And if the arrogance is replaced by modesty, so much the better. But it was interesting while it lasted - perhaps it's not finished. Perhaps we should have made allowances for someone working in a foreign language. (I suspect Teofrastus is the Rumanian form of the English Theofrastus. I believe the other Romance languages would end in an 'o'.)

Does anyone have an olive branch?

jasperr · Saturday at 12:35 PM

Ophiolite said:
I don't mind justifiable arrogance, but the justification should be delivered before the arrogance is displayed. And if the arrogance is replaced by modesty, so much the better. But it was interesting while it lasted - perhaps it's not finished. Perhaps we should have made allowances for someone working in a foreign language. (I suspect Teofrastus is the Rumanian form of the English Theofrastus. I believe the other Romance languages would end in an 'o'.)

Does anyone have an olive branch?

I am all for an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I understand how extremely successful and enabling it has been but I expect there are important advances still to be made since we know it breaks down in extreme situations (so I hear)

Perhaps a new interpretation ,even if wrong could be a pointer along the way or possibly just a pedagogic aid ...

I am not sure if any new interpretation must necessarily come with something that can be tested that could not be done with other interpretations(do any of the other interpretations do that or are they just handwavy as well?)

Actually I think there may be a test for the multiverse theory -is that the same as the "many worlds" interpretation? Maybe not...

Ophiolite · Saturday at 3:43 PM

jasperr said:
I am all for an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I understand how extremely successful and enabling it has been but I expect there are important advances still to be made since we know it breaks down in extreme situations (so I hear)

Perhaps a new interpretation ,even if wrong could be a pointer along the way or possibly just a pedagogic aid ...

I am not sure if any new interpretation must necessarily come with something that can be tested that could not be done with other interpretations(do any of the other interpretations do that or are they just handwavy as well?)

Actually I think there may be a test for the multiverse theory -is that the same as the "many worlds" interpretation? Maybe not...

I agree largely with what you say. My objections to the attempt in the OP is that it lacks the clarity and recognition of limitations, which are both delivered, for example, in your own response here. The reaction of the poster to justifiable criticism was equally disappointing.

Is quantum reality pneumatic? A hylomorphic alternative to realism

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Active Member

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Active Member

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Perfect in every way.

Future History Slab Carver

Future History Slab Carver

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Perfect in every way.

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Perfect in every way.

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Similar threads