Comments on: Subnatural and supernatural

By: Jan Galkowski

Jan Galkowski — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:05:06 +0000

Dürr, et al, “Ab initio determination of light hadron masses”, Science, 21 Nov 2008, vol. 322, 1224-1227, with an overview by Kronfeld beginning on page 1198 of the same issue, titled “The weight of the world is quantum chromodynamics”.

By: Chris Waggoner

Chris Waggoner — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 06:33:28 +0000

Just so we’re all clear: is QM actually non-deterministic? I heard that the Von Neumann formalism makes it look non-det. when in fact the theory is deterministic. The source was BBC 4’s “In Our Time” show on free will.

I don’t get (or maybe just don’t agree with) Lewis’ assertion that these movements are sub-natural. It’s just a theory which takes account of a lack of knowledge. Not that the particles are “moving on their own” but that our equations can’t point to everywhere they ever go.

Not to insult the efforts of a non-specialist to wrest out the philosophy behind an abstruse field.

@Jan Do you have a link for “most of a nucleon is believed to be quantum froth”?

By: Jan

Jan — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:45:00 +0000

The thing is, quantum indeterminacy is highly reliable. A substantial fraction of the mass of your typical nucleon is believed to be mass of quantum froth: Particles which bubble out of the nothingness of space for a fraction of a moment, and then disappear. The idea of particles moving independent of a Laplacian-style deterministic rule meaning that they somehow "have free will" is Einstein's mistake and is highly anthropomorphic, admittedly from my heavily opposing view. People of all stripes simply have a tough time accepting the idea we might be machines, even if such machines have biomechanical dice at their core.

By: John

John — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:23:48 +0000

C. S. Lewis didn’t put much stock in this argument. He mentions it in passing before going on to his main line of reasoning. He introduces it saying

One threat against strict Naturalism has recently been launched on which I myself will base no argument, but which it will be well to notice.

By: ARaybould

ARaybould — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:27:20 +0000

Roger Penrose gives a particularly lucid explanation of quantum-mechanical determinism and indeterminancy in the first part of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, and as I recall, it is a good deal more complex and nuanced than C. S. Lewis would like to believe. I say ‘like to believe’, because he made his theological philosophy clear through his writings, and his hope that science would be adapted to it is clear in the quote here. It should be recognized for what it is: a statement of belief and hope, not a scientific argument. It does not strike me as a particularly promising line of thought: even if science were to run up against specific limits, that would not necessarily imply the existence of the supernatural, whatever that means, and certainly not the specific form of the supernatural that Lewis envisioned. After all, though no dummy, he was ‘”a medieval literature professor writing in the 1940s”, and so probably not the best guide to physics.

By the way, I was not convinced by Penrose’s argument, but not because of any disagreement with his physics!