Is quantum reality pneumatic? A hylomorphic alternative to realism

Teofrastus said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

:

Click to expand...

You mean ;

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.



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":

​

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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."