Is quantum reality pneumatic? A hylomorphic alternative to realism

Teofrastus · Sunday at 12:29 AM

The modest intellectual capacities exhibited by certain members of this forum disclose themselves in their laborious and decidedly inelegant efforts to cast suspicion upon the sole contribution of genuine refinement, on the grounds that it is insufficiently buttressed by empirical data. They appear quite unaware that the argument in question belongs to the realm of philosophy rather than that of the laboratory. Their reactions merely reveal the extent to which the reigning ideology of our age, scientism, has thoroughly permeated their thinking, notwithstanding their professed allegiance to Christianity, a tradition which is not, and has never pretended to be, scientifically validated.

Larniavc · Sunday at 3:07 AM

Teofrastus said:
They appear quite unaware that the argument in question belongs to the realm of philosophy rather than that of the laboratory.

I’ve put this through my pomposity purifier and it comes out as “I don’t have any evidence of anything real”.

Unfortunately my dedicated de-discombobulator is out of commission.

Pommer · Sunday at 3:10 AM

Teofrastus said:
The modest intellectual capacities exhibited by certain members of this forum disclose themselves in their laborious and decidedly inelegant efforts to cast suspicion upon the sole contribution of genuine refinement, on the grounds that it is insufficiently buttressed by empirical data. They appear quite unaware that the argument in question belongs to the realm of philosophy rather than that of the laboratory. Their reactions merely reveal the extent to which the reigning ideology of our age, scientism, has thoroughly permeated their thinking, notwithstanding their professed allegiance to Christianity, a tradition which is not, and has never pretended to be, scientifically validated.

Insulting one’s fellows might be great sport and a grand tradition at the Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien, but it is singularly out-of-place here.
Good day, sir.

Teofrastus · Sunday at 5:02 AM

One is, alas, compelled to recall the venerable admonition against casting pearls before swine. The entire spectacle has about it the air of a tragicomedy: the offering of cultivated insight to minds so exquisitely unprepared for it that the gesture becomes less an act of generosity than a performance in genteel absurdity. It is rather like presenting the subtleties of Strauss or Monteverdi to an audience that cannot distinguish the overture from the barnyard's morning chorus.

Larniavc · Sunday at 5:31 AM

Teofrastus said:
:

You mean ;

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 8:05 AM

Teofrastus said:
The modest intellectual capacities exhibited by certain members of this forum disclose themselves in their laborious and decidedly inelegant efforts to cast suspicion upon the sole contribution of genuine refinement, on the grounds that it is insufficiently buttressed by empirical data. They appear quite unaware that the argument in question belongs to the realm of philosophy rather than that of the laboratory. Their reactions merely reveal the extent to which the reigning ideology of our age, scientism, has thoroughly permeated their thinking, notwithstanding their professed allegiance to Christianity, a tradition which is not, and has never pretended to be, scientifically validated.

Look everyone, I've committed a 'scientism'!! Me, of all people! How could I do that?!! :ahah:

The fact of the matter, Teofrastus, is that you don't know me, and apparently, you're not of the frame of mind to simply compare notes where Philosophy of Science is concerned. I've coughed, hacked and sneezed for years here on Christian Forums against the inroads of Philosophical Naturalism (a.k.a. 'Scientism). Please don't mistake my call for evidence as a vestige of 'scientism.' It ain't.

Moreover, as fate has it, I appreciate that you (at the least) have brought to my attention something about Aristotle's philosophy that I hadn't known about prior to your posting this thread. Being that Ancient (Classical) Philosophy of Science isn't my cup of tea, and that I don't go in for much on Aristotle, still you nudged me to look up the term, hylomorphism, and see what philosophers who support your position, such as Robert C. Koons, have to say about it in conjunction with other thinking on Quantum Physics/QM. This is my essential effort to attempt to 'steelman' your position before I apply Critical evaluations of Realism to what you're proffering here.

Rob Koons: Aristotle and the Quantum [Torrey Honors Institute] - Biola University

So, I apologize for calling you a Cartesian. I now see that you're not, and I extend a small thank you, even if I shan't be incorporating hylomorphism into my own Philosophy of Science or into my view on Christian Theology any time soon.

As for my own approach to Quantum Physics/QM, I expect a conversation on the topic---one that may even touch slightly upon Epistemology and Philosophy itself within the conversation---to go down the path of spin being presented by the dialogue found between Brian Greene and Alain Aspect. This approach to QM serves as my baseline rather than does a Thomistic type approach. My preference for doing so doesn't, to my mind, impute upon me the dastardly crime of having committed "scientism":

Have We Been Brainwashed? Quantum Mechanics and Nonlocality | World Science Festival

AV1611VET · Sunday at 12:07 PM

Teofrastus said:
The modest intellectual capacities exhibited by certain members of this forum disclose themselves in their laborious and decidedly inelegant efforts to cast suspicion upon the sole contribution of genuine refinement, on the grounds that it is insufficiently buttressed by empirical data. They appear quite unaware that the argument in question belongs to the realm of philosophy rather than that of the laboratory. Their reactions merely reveal the extent to which the reigning ideology of our age, scientism, has thoroughly permeated their thinking, notwithstanding their professed allegiance to Christianity, a tradition which is not, and has never pretended to be, scientifically validated.

What do you expect, when the church is replaced by a laboratory, the Cross becomes a clipboard, and white robes become lab coats?

jacks · Sunday at 2:16 PM

Teofrastus said:
One is, alas, compelled to recall the venerable admonition against casting pearls before swine. The entire spectacle has about it the air of a tragicomedy: the offering of cultivated insight to minds so exquisitely unprepared for it that the gesture becomes less an act of generosity than a performance in genteel absurdity. It is rather like presenting the subtleties of Strauss or Monteverdi to an audience that cannot distinguish the overture from the barnyard's morning chorus.

He’s speakin’ in code, Uncle Jed! I bet 'bon appétit' is just a fancy way of sayin' 'dig in' before the gravy gets cold."

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 5:47 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I was attempting to offer AV something he'd understand.

You should have used the MAD magazine with the JFK/Marilyn cover. (It must exist, right?)

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 5:50 PM

Teofrastus said:
paroxysm of touching self-importance,

Et tu Teofrae?

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 5:52 PM

Hans Blaster said:
You should have used the MAD magazine with the JFK/Marilyn cover. (It must exist, right?)

Why that one? Is that a clever innuendo about spooky action at a distance?

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 5:58 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Why that one? Is that a clever innuendo about spooky action at a distance?

Something he remembers from days at the Naval Supply School in Athens.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 6:02 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Something he remembers from days at the Naval Supply School in Athens.

Oh. Ok. I didn't know that.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 6:07 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Oh. Ok. I didn't know that.

I assume. The guy is ancient, right?

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 6:12 PM

Hans Blaster said:
I assume. The guy is ancient, right?

Aristotle? Or AV? ^_^

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 7:58 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Aristotle? Or AV?

How do you tell the difference?

Teofrastus · 2026-07-24T03:10:57-0500

Plato, in that venerable Republic of his, sketched the Allegory of the Cave, a rather apt portrait of the common multitude, who pass their days in a kind of dim-witted torpor, gazing at flickering shadows as though they were the very substance of reality. And when some unfortunate soul, possessed of the rare courage to ascend towards the light of true understanding, attempts to rouse these cave-dwellers from their stupor, they do not thank him; they sneer, jeer, or even lash out, much as they did with poor Socrates, whose only crime was seeing farther than those content to remain chained in the dark.

It is a condition of mind so tediously familiar that Bonhoeffer, surveying the same human landscape, offered his own diagnosis of its deeper malady. Bonhoeffer observed, with a kind of weary patrician lucidity, that against stupidity we are entirely defenseless. Neither dignified protest nor the application of force produces the slightest effect; reason merely glides past such minds as though one were addressing an ornamental statue in a neglected garden. Facts that disturb their cherished prejudgments are simply refused entry, and in these moments the stupid often presume to adopt a critical posture. And when the facts prove so obstinately irrefutable that even they cannot deny them, the whole matter is brushed aside with an airy flick, declared inconsequential, incidental, and quite beneath the attention of anyone who imagines himself a person of standing.

jasperr · 2026-07-24T05:48:05-0500

Teofrastus said:
Plato, in that venerable Republic of his, sketched the Allegory of the Cave, a rather apt portrait of the common multitude, who pass their days in a kind of dim-witted torpor, gazing at flickering shadows as though they were the very substance of reality. And when some unfortunate soul, possessed of the rare courage to ascend towards the light of true understanding, attempts to rouse these cave-dwellers from their stupor, they do not thank him; they sneer, jeer, or even lash out, much as they did with poor Socrates, whose only crime was seeing farther than those content to remain chained in the dark.

It is a condition of mind so tediously familiar that Bonhoeffer, surveying the same human landscape, offered his own diagnosis of its deeper malady.

Bonhoeffer observed, with a kind of weary patrician lucidity, that against stupidity we are entirely defenseless. Neither dignified protest nor the application of force produces the slightest effect; reason merely glides past such minds as though one were addressing an ornamental statue in a neglected garden. Facts that disturb their cherished prejudgments are simply refused entry, and in these moments the stupid often presume to adopt a critical posture. And when the facts prove so obstinately irrefutable that even they cannot deny them, the whole matter is brushed aside with an airy flick, declared inconsequential, incidental, and quite beneath the attention of anyone who imagines himself a person of standing.

How does one distinguish between who is the "stupid" one and who is enlightened?

Is it in the eye of the beholder?

Does it depend on the consequences to the respective parties.?

Which is happier or which is most productive?

Socrates acknowledged the limits of his knowledge and elevated this state into a high virtue.

Is such self awareness a virtue or is the benefit we can impart to and take from our community a higher measure.
(Is the OP settled?)

AV1611VET · 2026-07-24T07:04:36-0500

Teofrastus said:
Plato, in that venerable Republic of his, sketched the Allegory of the Cave, a rather apt portrait of the common multitude, who pass their days in a kind of dim-witted torpor, gazing at flickering shadows as though they were the very substance of reality.

Plato is in Aitch.

Teofrastus · 2026-07-24T07:05:26-0500

jasperr said:
How does one distinguish between who is the "stupid" one and who is enlightened?

Is it in the eye of the beholder?

Does it depend on the consequences to the respective parties.?

Which is happier or which is most productive?

Socrates acknowledged the limits of his knowledge and elevated this state into a high virtue.

Is such self awareness a virtue or is the benefit we can impart to and take from our community a higher measure.
(Is the OP settled?)

Plato's point, and Bonhoeffer's as well, is that the distinction between the merely obstinate and the genuinely enlightened reveals itself not through subjective preference but through the disposition each party exhibits towards reason, evidence, and self-examination. The "stupid" person in Bonhoeffer's sense is not simply one who lacks information, nor one who is unhappy or unproductive, but one who has relinquished the very capacity to be corrected by reality. Socrates' self-awareness is indeed a virtue, but it is a virtue precisely because it keeps the mind permeable to truth rather than sealed within its prejudgments. The enlightened person is not the one who claims superior knowledge, but the one who remains corrigible, receptive, and capable of being instructed by what exceeds him.

In the Apology, the oracle at Delphi declared Socrates the wisest of men. Perplexed, he set out to refute the oracle by examining politicians, poets, and craftsmen who were reputed wise. What he discovered was that each possessed some knowledge, yet each also believed himself knowledgeable about matters far beyond his competence. Socrates concluded that he was "wise" only in the modest sense that he did not think he knew what he did not know.

It is a hallmark of the intellectually complacent that they accumulate fragments of information which, over time, coagulate into something stale and inert. Thus one encounters people who "know" that God does not exist simply because they have absorbed this notion under the banner of science, despite the fact that science is not equipped to adjudicate such a metaphysical question. They possess a great many conclusions which they have never truly examined, and therefore do not genuinely know. This is why they are so quick to dismiss the insights of those who have actually undertaken the labour of thought.

Is quantum reality pneumatic? A hylomorphic alternative to realism

Active Member

Perfect in every way.

Future History Slab Carver

Active Member

Perfect in every way.

Satan can kiss my A.A.S.S. !!

​

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Er Victus

Your turn, Atlanta!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Satan can kiss my A.A.S.S. !!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Satan can kiss my A.A.S.S. !!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Satan can kiss my A.A.S.S. !!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Active Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Similar threads