Can we speak intelligibly about non-physical entities?

[Ionian_Tradition]

To borrow from Hempel's dilemma, to posit "Physicalism" one must first provide a comprehensive definition of the term "physical". If one asserts that the term "physical" refers to that which is revealed through the various scientific theories which encapsulate our contemporary understanding of the "physical" world (quantum mechanics, general relativity, atomic theory, etc), one has failed to provide an adequate definition of the the term "physical" given that our contemporary understanding of the physical world is demonstrably incomplete. An example of this would be the fundamental conflict existing between the theory of relativity and quantum theory which presently drives the search for a "Grand unified theory". If one asserts that a future "complete physics" will round out our understanding of the physical world in its totality, one has appealed to a circular form of reasoning which states that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because a proper understanding of physics is that which explains all phenomena (including abstract thought, which begs the question that abstractions can be understood in terms of physics). Moreover, if one attempts to define the term "physical" in reference to a physics yet to be developed, has one truly said anything meaningful given that one cannot truly know what new physics will emerge? A cursory review of scientific developments made over the course of our species' history does not instill confidence that our "physics of the future" is guaranteed to reflect a physics similar to physics as it is presently known.

Given this, how is it that we can speak intelligibly of "non-physical" entities given that the term itself implies the understanding of that to which the term is antithetical ("physical" entities)? We have seen that we do not yet, and may never, possess a comprehensive understanding of the term "physical", how then can we speak intelligibly of things which are the opposite of that which has yet to be properly defined?


Questions for debate:

1. Can the term "physical" be comprehensively defined so as to provide meaning to the term "non-physical"?

[Haven]

I think if we are talking about God (rather than just random 'supernatural events') we must use analogy.

God is wholly other. That means our understanding of 'love', 'joy', 'peace', 'mercy' are mere shadows of the true, 'love', 'joy', 'peace', 'mercy' that God possesses. They hold a similar truth, but they are not quite the same.

If God is "wholly other," then it means that we cannot speak intelligently about him/her, because he/she is completely beyond our understanding. Even if God exists, all human talk about her/him is literally meaningless.

Another way we can talk about God is via negativa, by saying what God isn't.

But this isn't talking about God, it's talking about what God is not. It doesn't get us any closer to answering the question "what is God?" If one asks me to describe a toaster, and I reply that it's not made of sand, it doesn't have three eyes, and it's not a child, I've said nothing about a toaster. Once again, such talk is at best ineffectual, and at worst utterly devoid of meaning.

[His Name Is John]

Are spirits immaterial?

If so how could the Devil change from being an angle of light to Satan?

Spirits are immaterial.

Satan's whole existence is also atemporal, and consists of a single unified choice to disobey. This manifests itself (to our perception) as individual acts which occur at separate times, but they are all things which happen "at once" as it were. The same with other spirits.

But Satan didn't always choose to disobey. He choose to follow God as an angle of light. There was definitely a change there.

[kowalskil]

To borrow from Hempel's dilemma, to posit "Physicalism" one must first provide a comprehensive definition of the term "physical". ...

"Physical world" means "material world" to me. More about this is at:


http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... heist.html

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[Divine Insight]

Questions for debate:

1. Can the term "physical" be comprehensively defined so as to provide meaning to the term "non-physical"?

I personally believe that it not only can be, but that it already is sufficiently defined via the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. Granted, a definition that may not be readily accessible intuitively to the man on the street. Or any non-mathematician, for that matter.

The ultimate questions really reduce basically to the questions that Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein struggled with to the end of their days. In other words, can Quantum Mechanics be said to be "complete".

Albert Einstein argued that it cannot be complete and suggested the need for "hidden locals variables" that have yet to be discovered. Niels Bohr argued that it is complete via a very abstract concept of "complementarity".

Both men died before the issue was finally settled by the genius of John Stewart Bell. Bell came up with an experimentally testable mathematical theory to decide if Einstein's "hidden local variable" could possibly explain Quantum behavior. The experiments revealed that Einstein's "hidden local variables" could not exist.

Thus supporting Niels Bohr's abstract concept of "complementarity". Which isn't an intuitive idea at all. In fact, it's just a very abstract term that basically says we have no clue what's actually going on, but that whatever is going on is "completely beyond our ability to know".

In fact, that's a core principle of Quantum Mechanics given mathematically by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In order for us to ever learn what goes on beneath the quantum realm Quantum Mechanics must FAIL. In other words, it must either be grossly wrong, or grossly flawed in some major way.

~~~~

Having said all of the above, if we then allow the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics to "define" precisely what we deem to be "physical", then clearly there must exist a "non-physical" reality beneath the "physical world".

This "non-physical" reality would only be "non-physical" in the very precise sense that it simply cannot be described by "physics" or any laws of "physics" that we can determine. And in that sense it makes perfect sense to speak of the "non-physical" as still being "real" and having obvious properties and behavior that we can know exists, but cannot define precisely in terms of "physics".

This is precisely my world view at the moment to be sure.

~~~~

There is hope for some "intuitive" understanding of this "non-physical" substrate of what we call the "physical world". And that hope has been offered to us by David Bohm. David Bohm also proposed a "Hidden Variables" model of reality.

However, unlike Albert Einstein's "hidden local variables" David Bohm's hidden variable are non_local. This may sound like "magic", or "spooky action at a distance", but it actually has quite a bit of merit. And ironically what gives it merit is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The very thing that appears to be incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.

I don't want to get side-tracked into a huge explanation of this, but the bottom line boils down to the following. In General Relativity the mathematical description of "time" is nowhere near compatible with our common sense notion of time. And it's also far more profound than just an idea of "Newtonian Time" being stretched or warped. The effects of time dilation are obvious, (when thought about deeply), and even "intuitive" once they are understood to some degree.

In other words, we can almost understand time-dilation intuitively in a Newtonian sense of "time" (albeit a very warped picture of time).

However, General Relativity actually goes far beyond this mere dilation of time and reveals to use that our very notions of "past, present, and future" are themselves necessarily incorrect. Especially our stubborn intuitive notion of a absolute "Now". General Relativity actually forbids such an notion. There cannot be any such thing as an "absolute now" that holds true for the entire universe "at once".

So it is our notion of absolute time that is throwing us for a loop and preventing us from seeing the wisdom (and very real possibility) of the existence of David Bohm's "non-local hidden variables".

~~~~

One way I think of it is as follows:

Think of the physical world (i.e. the world described by Quantum Mechanics) as being a digital computer. Everything is either ON, or OFF. In other words, it either has observable existence (what we call physical reality), or it doesn't (i.e. it pop out of existence altogether) from our point of view.

Then think of the "non-physical" world (the substrate beneath the physical world that actually gives rise to the physical world) as being an analog computer. (although most people probably aren't familiar with how an analog computer works, but trust me they exist) .

Except this "analog computer" does not obey the speed limit of light propagation set forth by Relativity. And that is what David Bohm is attempting to address with his "non-local hidden variables".

And these two different realms (the physical and the non-physical) together create the reality that we experience.

So in this sense it makes sense to speak about the "non-physical" because we have everything well-defined.

~~~~

This is my world view. And because of this, it makes "sense" for me to speak of the "non-physical" in a meaningful way because I have very rigid mathematical definitions that determine what I mean by "physical" and what I mean by "non-physical".

I also have more than sufficient reason to accept that a 'non-physical' realm must exist. You can even say that it is scientifically verified experimental evidence. The evidence given by the very same experiments that verify that Quantum Mechanics is true, as well as Quantum Entanglement, and the experimental verification of Bell's Theorem.

In short, I accept David Bohm's "non-local hidden variables" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. And with that acceptance, I must also accept the existence of a "non-physical" realm (by rigid mathematical and scientific definitions).

So, yes, the term "non-physical" makes perfect sense to me, and I can indeed speak about the non-physical intelligently with very well-defined scientific and mathematical definitions to precisely differentiate what I mean by "physical" and "non-physical" whilst also remaining within the realm of what can be "known" about each of these aspects of reality.

So for me this topic is not a matter of "debate". It's simply a matter of acceptance of various definitions and views of reality.

If you disagree that Quantum Mechanics is a complete description of "physical" reality and you think that someday Quantum Mechanics will fail and we will move beyond it, they you're probably not going to accept my model of reality because you are holding out for an imagined dream of something yet to come.

I can't argue with that, other than to point out that at this point in time all you have is a dream.

I'm basing my model on what we actually currently believe to know.

[His Name Is John]

I think if we are talking about God (rather than just random 'supernatural events') we must use analogy.

God is wholly other. That means our understanding of 'love', 'joy', 'peace', 'mercy' are mere shadows of the true, 'love', 'joy', 'peace', 'mercy' that God possesses. They hold a similar truth, but they are not quite the same.

If God is "wholly other," then it means that we cannot speak intelligently about him/her, because he/she is completely beyond our understanding. Even if God exists, all human talk about her/him is literally meaningless.

Perhaps it would have been better to say 'God was wholly other'. Since Jesus, Christian's believe they do know things about God as he lived and acted as a human. When Jesus was good, that was God being good.

But even without Jesus I think analogy answers the 'wholly other' problem. There are similar truths.

Another way we can talk about God is via negativa, by saying what God isn't.

But this isn't talking about God, it's talking about what God is not. It doesn't get us any closer to answering the question "what is God?" If one asks me to describe a toaster, and I reply that it's not made of sand, it doesn't have three eyes, and it's not a child, I've said nothing about a toaster. Once again, such talk is at best ineffectual, and at worst utterly devoid of meaning.

Not if you were describing a personal being.

By saying that God isn't evil, it makes it likely that he is good.

By saying God isn't weak, it makes it likely that he is powerful.

By saying God's knowledge isn't limited, it makes it likely he is all knowing.

But even using your example, it isn't close to being utterly devoid of meaning, we know that the thing you are describing has not got three eyes, is not made of sand and is not a child. Those are several very meaningful statements. If we continued saying more and more what God isn't, we would get a better and better idea of what God is.

[Ionian_Tradition]

To borrow from Hempel's dilemma, to posit "Physicalism" one must first provide a comprehensive definition of the term "physical". ...

"Physical world" means "material world" to me. More about this is at:


http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... heist.html

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

I would then ask what one means by "material world" and how this term escapes Hempel's dilemma.

[Ionian_Tradition]

This "non-physical" reality would only be "non-physical" in the very precise sense that it simply cannot be described by "physics" or any laws of "physics" that we can determine. And in that sense it makes perfect sense to speak of the "non-physical" as still being "real" and having obvious properties and behavior that we can know exists, but cannot define precisely in terms of "physics".

Are you arguing that the term "physical" is relegated to only that which can be understood by our present day understanding of the physical world? There was a time when modern physics was unknown to our species. Shall we then consider the present day findings we might consider "physical" to have been, at one point, "non-physical" by virtue of the fact that they were not encapsulated by the prevailing model of the day ? When you argue that "non-physical" refers to that which can never be encapsulated by a future model of physics, do you not realize that perhaps the same argument could have been made by our ancestors regarding the findings we take for granted at present that were at one time completely unknown to those who came before us? Do you not think it somewhat presumptuous to assume that our present day understanding of the physical world represents the limits of our understanding? Are you quite sure that what you deem "non-physical" today will not be considered the text book physics of tomorrow? I'm not sure how you would go about demonstrating that you're asserting here is in fact the truth of the matter. Of course I see you have a ready made retort in the form of the following:

If you disagree that Quantum Mechanics is a complete description of "physical" reality and you think that someday Quantum Mechanics will fail and we will move beyond it, they you're probably not going to accept my model of reality because you are holding out for an imagined dream of something yet to come.

I can't argue with that, other than to point out that at this point in time all you have is a dream.

I'm basing my model on what we actually currently believe to know.

I'm not sure this is much of an argument. Of course you can appeal to what is known today, but what bearing does that have on our future capacity to add more to our understanding than you claim is possible? You can't argue that we'll never know more than we know today simply by appealing to the fact that today we only know X. This smacks of non-sequitur.

[kowalskil]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 573#474573] ...
I would then ask what one means by "material world" and how this term escapes Hempel's dilemma.[/quote]

I am sure you know the answer. One way to present it is to say that material world is made of atoms, and that concepts describing it were formulated by scientists. Please do not ask me to define atoms.

L.K.

[JohnPaul]

Divine Insight wrote:

I also have more than sufficient reason to accept that a 'non-physical' realm must exist. You can even say that it is scientifically verified experimental evidence. The evidence given by the very same experiments that verify that Quantum Mechanics is true, as well as Quantum Entanglement, and the experimental verification of Bell's Theorem.

I agree with some of what you say, but I would object that experiments verify that Quantum Mechanics is "true" only in the sense that limited experimental observations agree well with calculations. The question of "why?" is another matter entirely. The famous "Copenhagen interpretation" of Neils Bohr simply evades the question by saying, in effect, "Just do the calculations and don't ask questions." Even the experimental verification of Bell's Theorem explains nothing, only adds to the mystery.

After more than 80 years, there is still no coherent broad theory behind the mathematical results. We have theories with no mathematics or experiment. and we have mathematics with no theory. The multiverse of String Theory is an example of very elegant mathematics with no possible experimental verification or coherent theory.

I had great hopes for Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation in the 1950s, but that seems to have been ignored for decades in favor of the multiverses of String Theory, a quite different concept. Both ideas depend on multiple spatial dimensions beyond the three our brain can observe. Who is to say that these extra dimensions are not equally real and equally "physical" simply because they are separated from us by a tiny "distance" in a "direction" our 3-D brain is incapable of perceiving?

[Nickman]

To borrow from Hempel's dilemma, to posit "Physicalism" one must first provide a comprehensive definition of the term "physical". If one asserts that the term "physical" refers to that which is revealed through the various scientific theories which encapsulate our contemporary understanding of the "physical" world (quantum mechanics, general relativity, atomic theory, etc), one has failed to provide an adequate definition of the the term "physical" given that our contemporary understanding of the physical world is demonstrably incomplete. An example of this would be the fundamental conflict existing between the theory of relativity and quantum theory which presently drives the search for a "Grand unified theory". If one asserts that a future "complete physics" will round out our understanding of the physical world in its totality, one has appealed to a circular form of reasoning which states that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because a proper understanding of physics is that which explains all phenomena (including abstract thought, which begs the question that abstractions can be understood in terms of physics). Moreover, if one attempts to define the term "physical" in reference to a physics yet to be developed, has one truly said anything meaningful given that one cannot truly know what new physics will emerge? A cursory review of scientific developments made over the course of our species' history does not instill confidence that our "physics of the future" is guaranteed to reflect a physics similar to physics as it is presently known.

Given this, how is it that we can speak intelligibly of "non-physical" entities given that the term itself implies the understanding of that to which the term is antithetical ("physical" entities)? We have seen that we do not yet, and may never, possess a comprehensive understanding of the term "physical", how then can we speak intelligibly of things which are the opposite of that which has yet to be properly defined?


Questions for debate:

1. Can the term "physical" be comprehensively defined so as to provide meaning to the term "non-physical"?

I think it is impossible to speak intelligibly about anything that cannot be detected by any of our senses. To speak intelligibly about anything you have to be able to observe it in some way using one of your senses. Other ways may be through mathematics to verify the existence of something. This was done with Pluto and Neptune and then confirmed further with telescopes. When it comes to god we have nothing to go off of. God is just a concept that is neither proven or disproven. SO anyone trying to speak as if they have some special insight to any deities existence, is being intellectually dishonest with theirself.