re: integrating some of the stuff in JB and Phil�s minds.

We're in the Triple A Auto Club (where auto = autopoesis and AAA stands for Aristotle, Aquinas & Arraj). You can pay your dues here by reading The Mystery of Matter: Nonlocality, Morphic Resonance, Synchronicity and the Philosophy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas

Multiple Personality Disorder

Glancing at the site it looked like some of it was discussing whether or not this phenomenon exists at all. I've never knowingly met someone with multiple personalities. But from simple reasoning I would be astonished if it didn't exist. Who doesn't go into different modes when they are with the friends, or with their boss, or with their family? And we do this so effectively that we don't use f-words accidentally at church nor do we fart in front of the boss, although we may do so without a thought in front of a bunch of guys while watching a football game. Rarely do we mix up these modes (Although I remember loudly belching in front of a client and just cracking both of us up. Of course, he had been a client forever. I've been to his house often, that sort of thing. Perhaps belching is just my lway of moving the relationship to more of a friendship and saying "I love ya, man.") I guess I just have an electromagnetic personality. That still on topic, Phil?

�and the Philosophy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas

I find the Aquine notion of God animating all things at all times in order to keep them in existence to be interesting, and somewhat related to this electromagnetism idea. It seems to contradict the law of inertia (All things in motion tend to stay in motion. And what�s with this �tend� business? It makes it sound like things have a choice, like your golf ball could suddenly just slice to the right after being hit � ohhhhhh, now I get it.) But I suppose God could be said to be keeping the laws of physics themselves in effect.

I also wonder if our human emotions and behaviors are subject to some of the same physical laws. Do our individual biases tend to �stay in motion�? Is any strong opinion bound to evoke �an equal and opposite reaction�? Does the inverse square rule of the attraction of gravity apply to our personal lives, even if in reverse? It seems the more distant the woman the more we want them. And when we have them through marriage there is no longer so much attraction (present company excluded, of course). And no doubt some of you from time to time act like both a particle and a wave (better stop here or I could make reference to slit experiments).

How might we be like the properties of electromagnetism?

How might we be like the properties of electromagnetism?

I shall return.

When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and when toast is dropped, it always lands buttered side down. Therefore, if a slice of toast is strapped to a cat's back, buttered side up, and the animal is then dropped ... electromagnetically, what will happen?

Electricity can be dangerous. My nephew tried to stick a penny into a plug. Whoever said a penny doesn't go far didn't see him shoot across that floor. I told him he was grounded.

quote:

classical notions are extremely attractive because they are so familiar. So it is not surprising that all sorts of contraptions were invented in order to keep up with classical notions. "Quantum particles" are said to go through two slots at once. A particle cannot do that: this would be a contradiction in terms. The correct description for a "quantum particle" is exactly the wave function. Sometimes it appears less fuzzy, on a screen, for example. But all this can be described and explained in quantum terms. Modern decoherence theory [2] accounts for the appearance of a macroscopic world in terms of wave functions - not particles. In short, it turns out that the difference between micro- and macro-objects lies essentially in their different degree of isolation from their natural environment. No widgets such as "dualism" or "complementarity" are needed any more. To be sure, several fundamental questions (such as the precise location of observers in a holistic quantum world, or the role of gravity) remain open. The inconsistency introduced by using quantum and classical notions in parallel, however, has dissolved. The quantum wave function as a psychological barrier: Erich Joos - Metanexus: Views. 2003.03.11

Columns may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science <http://www.metanexus.net>"

From the Rediscovering A Thomist Philosophy Of Nature But our philosopher of nature would be somewhat dismayed to see how marginalized Bohm became because he acted on those instincts in regard to quantum theory. A belief in the objectivity of the world and our ability to know it, as well as causality, are all implicit in the work of the natural sciences. Without them science would not be possible. Why, then, would Bohm be isolated by his attachment to them?

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Bohm had a more developed philosophical sense than is common among physicists. From his early years he felt an intense desire not only to know the details about things, but he was fascinated with the question of wholeness. "I learned later that many of my fundamental interests were what other people called philosophical and that scientists tended to look down on philosophy as not being very serious. This created a problem for me, as I was never able to see any inherent separation between science and philosophy. Indeed in earlier times, science was called natural philosophy and this corresponded perfectly with the way I saw the whole field." (1)[

Boy does that bring back memories from school. I used to love taking mathematics and science classes and went on to do the same in two years of college. There was always a dissatisfaction lurking in the back of my mind and it got worse the more advanced the science and mathematics became. I remember doing the trig and calculus stuff where we learned those fancy formulas and techniques for finding the area of a curve, etc. But I was never interesting in the rote application of these ideas. I always wanted to know why that mathematics worked, why the area under the curve was just an approximation, why atoms formed into molecules and not just that they did. As you can guess I was an annoying student at times.

My impatience was always my downfall. I probably never realized that I was more a philosopher at heart than a scientist. I loved science because it brought me closer to some incredible truths, not so I could grow up to be an engineer and manufacture waffle irons (I'm going to hear from the waffle iron crowd for sure). Thus Shalom Place takes forum talk to a different level. One could say that we're never going to solve the world's problems here. But all the talking we're doing isn't just bitching, if you ask me. We are like little orbiting electrons; we jump to a higher shell when the energy is just right and on the downward return we produce a little light.

Well, that's my EM analogy.

We are like little orbiting electrons; we jump to a higher shell when the energy is just right and on the downward return we produce a little light.

Well, that's my EM analogy.
+++ +++ +++

Well THAT landed butter side up!

As for reality as wave function, my deepest physical and metaphysical intuitions are that consciousness is the manifestation of one great Oscillator in symphonic but assymetrical unison with an infinite array of other oscillations that give an appearance of binary on-off-edness. There could be no Creation without the backdrop of absolute nothingness for the void is the canvas upon which beauty has been brushed. Without an infinite array of dyads --- all setting alternate realities off in sharp relief, one from the other, there would be no conscious awareness, no experience to be had. No light without dark. No immanence without transcendence. No kataphasis without apophasis. No personal without impersonal. No silence without cacophony. Etc Ad infinitum. We are part of an eternal fugue of negation and affirmation but, as I have asserted, it is ultimately assymetrical because the default metaphysical position is nothingness and that is precisely what we do not find. It only took an infinitesmally small somethingness to tip the balance in favor of that we exist over against nonexistence and this assymetry has been having its way ever sense. And yes, good and evil comprise one of these dyads and cause us to ponder whether this existence is ultimately friendly toward its existants. Since good corresponds not to the void but to the fullness, the same assymetry reveals a friendly and not a hostile existence, eschatologically. All of the great philosophers and mystics, all of the great arts and works of music and literature open us to this reality and speak of beauty ... like a small plastic bag twirling in a tiny worldwind against the backdrop of immense human suffering somehow sending the motherly message: "Everything is going to be alright, rock-a-bye"

pax,
jb

JB said: As for reality as wave function, my deepest physical and metaphysical intuitions are that consciousness is the manifestation of one great Oscillator in symphonic but assymetrical unison with an infinite array of other oscillations that give an appearance of binary on-off-edness.

Reading a little more M of M, a comment was made that although Einstein's physics seemed to suggest there is no such thing as simultaneity that this doesn't mean that there is no such thing as at least a philosophical simultaneity:

"Maritain, in a long article on simultaneity according to Einstein, points out the kind of metaphysical confusion that results if we confuse the findings of physics with the ontological nature of the world. (9) Einstein's simultaneity, which he demonstrates to be relative, is not the same as real simultaneity in the philosophical sense. Two events from a philosophical point of view are either simultaneous or they are not."

And: "What if these images [Einstein's theory of relativity] we take for the way reality is must be subjected to a very searching philosophical analysis before they yield up their ontological content?"

So my question to you, JB, and it relates to your basic metaphor and this entire thread, is why should we in any way, shape or form use the wave function (or EM), even tangentially, to describe a deeper reality? An example of the perils is the photon which acts like both a particle and a wave. Are we stuck either saying that God is just God and deep reality is beyond our understanding, or can we say that because God's world is so propagated (yuck) by waves that waves are intrinsic to the whole sha-bang? BTW, I think your little TOE was interesting and I'm not quite through dissecting it yet.

And yes, good and evil comprise one of these dyads and cause us to ponder whether this existence is ultimately friendly toward its existants. Since good corresponds not to the void but to the fullness, the same assymetry reveals a friendly and not a hostile existence, eschatologically.

Since good and evil are the dual natures of existence, why do we not change the word order and call it "evil and good"? It seems to me the only way we can say that the universe is good, or intended to be good, is by the intentions of the Creator. But otherwise we might just as easily characterize the universe as evil. If evil didn't exist prior to existence, when there was only a void, it would seem to have just as much right to lay claim to the universe, as an adjective, as good does.

So my question to you, JB, and it relates to your basic metaphor and this entire thread, is why should we in any way, shape or form use the wave function (or EM), even tangentially, to describe a deeper reality?

The premise of natural theology is that the created order can teach us about the Creator through analogy. We must not forget, however, that, when applying analogies, we are dealing with far more dissimilarities than there are similarities. Catholics are said to have an anlogical imagination and their claim is that all of creation is charged with the goodness of God, that we can see God everywhere. The Protestant tradition is said to employ a dialectical imagination and, to some degree, the world might be considered bereft of anything sacred, in and of itself. A purely apophatic tradition might say we know nothing whatsoever about ultimate reality, that all is delusion (oversimplification, I know).

So, here we might juxtapose the dialectical imagination, which claims what we know of God is known only through Divine Revelation, hence their reliance on THE Word, sola scriptura, with the anagogical imagination of an apophatic tradition, which claims we can only gain descriptive accuracy of ultimate reality through a process of negation, through statements asserting dissimilarities. The Catholic analogical imagination stands in between these approaches, affirming both apophasis and kataphasis, carefully parsing what it claims can be known from creation in natural theology, from Scripture in revealed theology, recognizing the limits of analogy and metaphor while affirming the truths they assert nonetheless.

Aquinas can write the Summa, on one hand, the most comprehensive systematic theology of all time, and, not inconsistently, later declare it so much straw.

Catholics agree with the Protestants and with the Buddhists, neither of which agree with the other. God, to us, is neither wholly immanent or entirely transcendent. What we know of God does not come merely through conjunctive awareness, holistically, nor through only disjunctive awareness, reductionistically.

This applies to the waveform and to sunsets.

pax,
jb

Since good and evil are the dual natures of existence, why do we not change the word order and call it "evil and good"? It seems to me the only way we can say that the universe is good, or intended to be good, is by the intentions of the Creator. But otherwise we might just as easily characterize the universe as evil. If evil didn't exist prior to existence, when there was only a void, it would seem to have just as much right to lay claim to the universe, as an adjective, as good does.

Good point. Metaphysics can take us to the threshold of suspecting that, outside of the space-time-matter-energy plenum, there might be nonspatial, atemporal, immaterial and nonenergetic reality. In fact, because of nonlocality and superluminality and such, this might could be precisely what we suspect, that there is some type of formative causation in the classic Aristotelian sense. While this would clearly be non-natural , it doesn't necessarily follow that it need be considered super natural. Neither does it follow that such an influence of tacit dimensionality, however unobtrusive yet still efficacious, must be personal rather than impersonal. But let's say we take the leap and facilely collapse nonenergetic causation and formative information flow with intentionalty, as does seem to follow. After all, it is hard to ascribe what appear to be telic influences (design) and intelligibility in the universe to an ultimate reality that is nonteleological and unintelligent, which is to say, iow, impersonal. So, even if metaphysics has taken us to the threshold of a nonnatural and personal being, have we even proven it is a supreme being? And if it is an omnipotent and omniscient being, is not the jury still out on whether or not it is omnibenvolent vs omnimalevolent, which is to say good rather than evil?

But the question might be turned around to say that good and evil are not the dual nature of existence but rather good is the nature of existence and evil is the nature of nonexistence. That's moreso where I was coming from. These dyads of light and dark, of existence and nothingness cry out for a distinction between received existence and unreceived existence, between existence and essense, between what anything is and that anything is. Aquinas and Maritain will take you to the threshold of thatness, to a profound intuition of being, to a deep meditation on Heidigger's why is there something rather than nothing? and Wittgenstein's not how things are but that things are which is the mystical .

This bifurcation of how things are and that things are is closely connected to the Thomistic notion that creation teaches us about God only through analogy, or what God is like and not, rather, what God in fact is.

So, to the extent that evil and good exist as possibilities and that nothingness and existence exist as possibilities, that the order of things permit same, one wonders whether or not there might be a Cosmic Permit Office to whom we are permitees. Who is the Permitter?

Truly, we cannot proceed from such basic premises as I laid out and logically coerce a proof about the nature of ultimate reality. We can look at all of the indirect evidence and draw some rather compelling conclusions however. I think if one reflects on these aspects of existence and the fact of existence itself, that one might infer that, since existence and not nothingness is the order of the day as well as the prime order, primordially speaking, that, primordially, good will trump evil, too.

Where we might arrive at the end of our metaphysical explorations and natural theology, trying to figure out as much about ultimate reality as we can from our a priori presupposition that we can know reality and our a posteriori observations that flow therefrom, is at the theodicy problem or how evil and suffering could exist in a creation of an omnibenevolent, ominscient and omnipotent God. Some process theologians now question whether God is omnipotent in a truly classical sense or rather suffers with creation in its straining toward eschatological glory.

There is another way to approach the theodicy problem. For so long, one of the biggest ad hominem critiques of believers is their anthropomorphizing of God, or what Feuerbach called anthropomorphic projections akin to Freud's infantile illusions and Marx's opiate of the people ad hominems. Not only are such ad hominems fallacies not addressing the merits of metaphysical claims in and of themseleves, they are totally ironic. I counter those nonbelievers who toss out their personal theodicy issues with a putative God with the charge that they are engaing in anthropomorphic projections. Ergo, tu quoque.

Pope JPII once wrote: "God doesn't have to justify Himself to humankind." That hit me like a ton of bricks. God owes us nothing. That's why the Incarnation is such a scandal I suppose.

I no more believe that good and evil hang in the balance than that existence and nonexistence hang, precariously perched, in the balance. [See Phil's ubb signature. See JB's signature. We have drawn some rather compelling inferences from our experience of reality. They are Good News.]

Now, all we have really examined thus far are metaphysical notions that pretty much correpond to the Greek's Unknown God. We are on the threshold of hope with our Jewish brothers who drew on these notions and concluded that a redemption was possible. Longing ensued. Read their scriptures. They had no reason to believe that their messianic longings would not be fulfilled, somehow. They were grateful for existence and lived a moral life, best they could, with no belief in afterlife rewards. Then, as we know from history and literary and historical analysis of the Resurrection Event, all of the metaphysical intuitions of the Greeks (the same inferences we have explored on this thread) and all of the spiritual longings of the Jewish people appear to have converged, not only in the teachings of this man, Jesus, but in the very manner in which He lived His life.

We cannot separate His moral teachings (however much they were taught in both East and West prior to His life) from His claims about Himself. Either He was deluded about being the Messiah (like Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper) or He was lying about it. He wasn't crazy though. And to have been lying would have been incoherent and inconsistent. Not a liar? Not a lunatic? The other alternative: He is Lord. Now, if that's not enough --- just His truth claims --- then, to top it all off, several hundred people, documented historically, claimed to see Him after He was buried. His closest followers, once timid and fearful, martyred themselves. These weren't like the radically fundamentalistic jihad martyrs of Islam but rather a motley crew of fishermen, tax collectors, a physician and more. There are still signs and wonders, indisputable by CSICOP, and credible apparitions of His Mother, Mary, that any serious inquirer must investigate. This is, as they say, evidence that demands a verdict.

pax,
jb

Brad, I think you've got some ink in your hair

Aquinas and Maritain will take you to the threshold of thatness, to a profound intuition of being, to a deep meditation on Heidigger's why is there something rather than nothing? and Wittgenstein's not how things are but that things are which is the mystical.

I think I see what you mean. The "thatness" alone implies something so extraordinary that it must have some sort of inherent goodness attached to it, although for some strange reason I find it comforting at times to think of the universe as impersonal. It's sort of a Buddhist-like moment. You know, when the boat that has come untethered floats downstream and smashes into my boat I'm at first P.O.'d thinking some schmuck was being careless, but upon seeing that there was no intent behind the collision the anger melts away. There's a price God pays, no matter how deluded and ungrateful I me be, for my judgment of Him if I am to, in my shallow understanding of things, see Him in all things. I suppose that might explain some of the more Protestant ways of looking at things.

I think I see what you mean. The "thatness" alone implies something so extraordinary that it must have some sort of inherent goodness attached to it, although for some strange reason I find it comforting at times to think of the universe as impersonal.

Ah, here you encounter the true beauty of Catholicism's confoundingly crafty both-and approach!

Aquinas would agree that the Universe, Ultimate Reality, God --- is impersonal. It is only through analogy that we say God is like a person . But he ain't a person per se-- it's only metaphorical. So, have a slice of Buddhist cake from our apophatic tradition. So, God isn't personal at all in the strict etymological sense of the word personal. However, we do preach, mystagogically, that God is One in three persons, which is to say profoundly relational .

There may be some comfort in thinking God isn't personally and purposefully kicking our butts but the metaphysicians get around this by distinguishing between primary and secondary causality, God's permissive will and God's perfect will, and how human freedom necessitated the possibility of human evil or rejection of God, etc This still left the issue of natural evil kind of question begging but nowadays the process theologians see the universe as evolving with a certain amount of freedom, being coaxed by God (that unspecified force that is tacit but effective) but groaning in trial and error as it discovers all of the permutations available (as in a many worlds or multiverse or Omega Point theory). Still, Catholicism teaches that any good theodicy must remain immersed in mystery and we thus return to the Pope's assertion that God doesn't owe us an explanantion, that is to say He needn't justify Herself to us. So, you can also take a bite of that cake, too.