Joy, first you seem to be asserting that quantum events have physical causes. Then you seem to be asserting that we don't know if they have physical causes. If I knew what FAPP stood for would I realize why your not really contradicting yourself?

Sorry, Bilbo. FAPP stands for "For All Practical Purposes." Which is the most we can expect of science - that we can quantify things well enough to put them to practical use. Everything else - including the Eternal Quest For Absolute Truth - is just an armchair metaphysical exercise.

I presume quantum events have causes. I don't know what they are, suspect they may have something to do with not-time sampling of the universal wavefunction's state prior to becoming whatever it becomes. As I mentioned, what any given piece of matter becomes is quite severely constrained by its energy level and its interactions with other matter/energy. Shrodinger's cat might be dead or alive, it might spontaneously combust, it might vaporize altogether, but it's never going to become a dog. A proton might become a neutron, but it'll never become an electron. An electron might become a positron, but it'll never become a quark. See what I mean?

I'm an "FAPP Realist." That's all I need to be, since I don't smash atoms for fun and profit anymore. I can live with the entire universe being entangled, and while I'd be sad if my cat Larry spontaneously combusted, I'd sure be amazed if he turned into a dog. If he did, I'd feed him dog food instead of cat food. I could live with that, too.

By the way, I think the question of whether or not quantum events have physical causes is important to our understanding of theistic evolution and ID. Maybe I'll write a thread on it sometime.

I don't know if it has any relevance to ID beyond the directionality of evolution (of consciousness), or the physical operations of consciousness, or the ability of life forms to adapt and evolve. They all die in the end anyway, and none of 'em really cares at that point how many offspring they contributed to the process of evolution. I honestly don't think it matters to the universe either, unless the universe is inordinately concerned about life. That might be just another armchair metaphysical exercise.

I've little time for that these days… have a new granddaughter, three others are coming this weekend, spring has sprung and the garden calls, it's fire season and the woods have to be de-fueled… Besides, the price of food is causing riots in Egypt and Asia, and it's sure not getting any cheaper down at the supermarket. I need tomato and pepper seeds, new fence posts, some planks for the decks, have to replace the termite spikes, and fix that darned fallen ceiling in the loft. Sorry. No words of wisdom here! §;o)

Quantum events have causes - Penrose hypothesizes a Planck-level spacetime separation collapsed by gravity. It must still collapse into this or that. Collapse itself isn't amenable to our ability to observe and measure. The constraints of probability is what allows physical engineers to be contemplating quantum computational devices. We call it 'random' even though we know it's really not. It's just unpredictable (thus indeterministic).

But Joy also wrote:

What I'm saying is that the metaphysical or philosophical implications of quantum processes that are counterintuitive from a macroscale POV are entirely irrelevant to the mathematical mechanics that allows us to quantify what happens at the microscale of quantum events. To a spectacular degree of accuracy, btw. These events are indeed real FAPP, and that is all anyone needs to know about it - because that's all anybody CAN know about it. Everything else is metaphysical philosophy.

Joy, first you seem to be asserting that quantum events have physical causes. Then you seem to be asserting that we don't know if they have physical causes. If I knew what FAPP stood for would I realize why your not really contradicting yourself?

Zachriel: Statistical properties of random variables can be derived mathematically. Like the properties of integers. So what point exactly are you making?

That Miller thinking that individual quantum events are "free" is a wrongheaded way to think about quantum events.

I think we see both determinism and freedom in the world, and I think that perception is not an illusion, it is reality"¦

Thanks for that observation, Salvador. When we get all the way down to interpretations of the indeterminacy at the root of reality, some people just don't want to admit that their a priori faith investments (metaphysical philosophy) do NOT rule the roost. Or that at that level of reality, their metaphysical beliefs don't make determinate what is in fact indeterminate.

The argument from quantum weirdness is just another incarnation of Dueling Metaphysics, pertaining to questions science is neither chartered nor qualified to answer. Why can't they just live with that? I can. FAPP has a meaning, and that meaning makes metaphysical wonderments irrelevant to what's real.

The indeterminacy at the root of reality is indeed real. It's real no matter how anybody anywhere interprets it to their metaphysics. And metaphysics isn't physics. It should stop trying to pretend otherwise, from any metaphysical direction.

I think God works through chance. What say you?

I agree with qualification.

Creativity (a feature of true intelligence) seems incompatible with strict determinism. If God is the creator, there is an aspect of Him which cannot be described by any sort of determinism, hence, there is (at least from a human perspective) uncertainty, or chance.

Salthe pointed out an interesting problem. Is our perception of chance due to:

1. our lack of knowledge, or

2. inherent capriciousness of reality

I think both factors play a role.

I think, "free will" implies an inherent capriciousness within logical constraints. Paul Davies argues for the existence of this in mathematics as well. So does Gregory Chaitin to some degree. Thus, I think Capriciousness (or shall I say creative and unpredictability intelligence) is at the heart of reality.

At first when I studied math, it seemed math was so constrained and immutable, and deterministic…that was until I learned the liberating ideas of Godel and that there are degrees of freedom, free will, even in math….

In God there is both deterministic logic and free will creativity. A computer programmer builds deterministic systems, but what ultimately constrains him to write one kind of software versus another? Nothing really….He has free will to create whatever kind of deterministic system he wants. Thus at the heart of reality is creative intelligence, one that is not describable by determinsim, but rather free will. Chance implies mindlessness….but even intelligence beings use mindless processes.

Now, are "random" statistics really random? I can build an random number generator that is deterministic and mearly appears to be driven by chance to an outside observer. Given that deterministic systems can give the appearance of being capricious, are there truly any "chance" events within reality? I think so. This is borne out in math and the modern view of Quantum theory (the famous Bell Inequality)….

Physicist Reverend John Polkinghorne also believe reality is supple, and not quite so deterministic and Newtonian as we once supposed. I think we see both determinism and freedom in the world, and I think that perception is not an illusion, it is reality…

"Real" has many meanings, but in science realism means that objects have preexisting properties independent of the observation of those properties. Locality means that objects are in a causal relationship such that they can only influence objects in their vicinity. The combination of these principles is called local realism, and underpins all conventional physics, including causation. Local realism may not apply to quantum mechanics.

Give me a break, Zach. I don't need an 'intro to physics' from a biologist (you are a biologist, aren't you?).

What I'm saying is that the metaphysical or philosophical implications of quantum processes that are counterintuitive from a macroscale POV are entirely irrelevant to the mathematical mechanics that allows us to quantify what happens at the microscale of quantum events. To a spectacular degree of accuracy, btw. These events are indeed real FAPP, and that is all anyone needs to know about it - because that's all anybody CAN know about it. Everything else is metaphysical philosophy. Which, in case you hadn't noticed, is not physical science. It's not biology either.

In other words, you abandon the principle of realism. That's one valid interpretation.

I don't need your permission or approval for anything I know or anything I believe. Your condescension is not only boring in this matter, it's very weirdly out of place.

But this is fundamentally unlike orthodox physics.

Duh.

It may not even make sense to ask the question.

Then don't bother. It's irrelevant to what's real.

Joy: ??? And, if quantum events aren't an operation of physical reality, what the hell do you think they are? Little miracles? Divine intervention? Junior godlings? Angels dancing on pinheads?

"Real" has many meanings, but in science realism means that objects have preexisting properties independent of the observation of those properties. Locality means that objects are in a causal relationship such that they can only influence objects in their vicinity. The combination of these principles is called local realism, and underpins all conventional physics, including causation. Local realism may not apply to quantum mechanics.

Joy: It does not describe the actual nature of what the world is like at that level…

In other words, you abandon the principle of realism. That's one valid interpretation. But this is fundamentally unlike orthodox physics. When we say the Moon has a particular momentum, we mean that it has that momentum whether we measure it or not. This question may have a different answer for quantum objects. It may not even make sense to ask the question.

In other words, quantum events are not "just like other physical events".

??? And, if quantum events aren't an operation of physical reality, what the hell do you think they are? Little miracles? Divine intervention? Junior godlings? Angels dancing on pinheads?

You began with:

Quantum mechanics is apparently not compatible with local realism.

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical description of the behavior of what physicists call "elementary particles" (of indeterminate form) that make up the building blocks of matter and govern the forces and interactions that serve to construct the macro level material world [form]. An intelligently designed measuring tool.

QM describes a process - how information at one 'end' becomes whatever comes out the other 'end'. It does not describe the actual nature of what the world is like at that level, so there's ample disagreement and some mysterious aspects nobody pretends to understand. Insert your favored philosophical interpretation here, your interpretation in no way affects the mechanics or precision of the mathematical description.

Local realism isn't a requirement for quantum events, and apparently doesn't apply. Are you claiming that makes quantum events unreal? Not matter or energy or force? Not part of the material world?

Joy: Quantum events are physical events just like other physical events (with some extra degrees of freedom, particularly in the time dimension).

Quantum mechanics is apparently not compatible with local realism. Many of the best minds in science have tried to make that case, but experiment has consistently shown that position to be in error. In other words, quantum events are not "just like other physical events".