On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hey Christine,
>
>> See my responses interspersed below :)
>
> Gladly!
>
>> Um yeah, all those "simple illustrations" you just mentioned--never heard
of them. Quantum physics was never part of my education, save for the
conversations I've had w/ my chem. eng. husband and now, the conversations I
get to listen in on with ASA :)
>
> Well, that's part of what I'm lamenting here. It wasn't part of my
education either, even in college. I think you correctly pointed out just
how off-in-the-corner it's placed when it comes to education in general.
>
>> Generally speaking, I would concur that its not considered important in a
general science education curriculum, as my own education shows. Likewise,
I'm certain that you're assessment of the layman's grasp of evolution
(abysmal) is probably about right, thanks in large part of pop culture
distortions.
>>
>> A counter-question for you though...beyond it's philosophical and
academic implications, what in quantum physics makes it essential for the
general public to know on an everyday basis? Can it contribute to the
discussion of national policy, and so better inform voters? Can it
contribute to our understanding of disease & health issues (as evolution
can)?
>>
>> Or are you making the argument that quantum physics is important to the
general public precisely because it is has philosophical (and theological)
implications? If so, I wonder what you assessment of the general public's
interest in such matters would be in the first place? It seems to me that
(stereotypically) anything philosophical or academic in character is
dismissed as useless and boring by John Q. Public, and that in general, our
society suffers from an appalling lack of what I like to call "deep and
profound discussions/thinking"
>
> Good questions. My response:
>
> The "philosophical and academic implications", along with social (which
should probably be categorized under the first time), are the only
justifications to stress evolution nearly as much as we do with this
audience. The only segment of evolution which comes close to having any
relevance on disease & health issues, national policy, or an everyday basis
is the form of evolution that the most dire, literalist YEC is capable of
swallowing whole without qualm or controversy. When the NCSE, Jerry Coyne,
or others testily refer to the ignorance of people about evolution, their
concern can be pigeonholed to what I summarized: "Man evolved form
lower/precursor life forms, with no guidance or design by a deity". That's
the gold standard, the type of survey question everyone cites to ascertain
the status of scientific knowledge. I question the value of that. I question
the motivation in some quarters as well. And I think the comparison to QM
remains apt - if the concern is truly 'scientific knowledge', then there's a
myopic standard in play, as well as an apparent double-standard. My own
view? The concern for the public's 'scientific knowledge' is, in large part,
a lark.
>
> I also would hesitate to lay the blame of misunderstanding evolution
entirely on pop culture distortions. As near as I can tell, so long as that
gold-standard assent is made, few seem to care what the public thinks, hence
there's no criticism of pop culture unless it's hitting a philosophical
concern.
>
>> Interesting potential bias. Though, that can and should be counteracted
by Christians in science, such as Polkinghorne. But here's an alternative
possibility...you have X number of years for each child in school, to teach
them Y number of things by the time they leave. Presumably, classical
physics (and chemistry too) must be taught and understood before you can
teach quantum physics, yes? Given that basic physics and chemistry are only
taught for the first time in high school (and often retaught in college to
those that need remedial help and/or need prerequisites), isn't it more
likely that teachers and professors don't teach it simply because they run
out of time? Where would you place it in the curriculum if you had the
choice, and what would you take out? Or are you arguing instead that more of
an effort should be made (a la via popular books and newspapers, etc.) to
educate the general public about quantum physics outside of the formal
school
>> setting?
>
> I'm going to have to be honest here, and punt to a degree: I don't like
public schools, period, and have only a marginally better attitude towards
private schools. In an ideal world, the education of children would be
considered a job of responsible parents, at most with some but minimal
oversight from a governing body. You don't have to tell me how many hurdles
this would require, legally and socially. But I deeply distrust mandatory
governmental education, precisely because it inevitably leads to third
parties vying for having those children learn the 'right' thoughts, the
'right' opinions. On the upside, this keeps me out of the vast majority of
the ID-TE conflicts. The school fights are a distant concern to me.
>
> Further - I think classical physics is largely intuitive physics for many
people anyway. 'Object a moves because object b knocked into it like a
billiard ball.' Specific applications and instances of classical mechanics
must be taught, but QM violates what amounts to common sense. I think the
fundamental point of interest in QM could be covered in 1 or 2 days at most,
if someone were really trying to get it into the curriculum. My own
(Catholic) education was able to cover evolution, chemistry, atoms and the
atomic table, cosmology, etc. We spent a whole lot of time discussing
Einstein - somehow, the fact that he was seemingly and deeply wrong about a
major fundamental scientific issue never came up, not even in passing. It
didn't come up in my physics class at a state college either, and wasn't
touched on anywhere in the curriculum (non-physics, obviously.)
>
> True story: As near as I can remember, I started to learn about QM because
of an episode of Futurama. They were watching a horse race which was close
and came to a 'quantum finish', and the Professor was upset because 'You
changed the result by measuring it!' I wanted to know what the heck he was
talking about, and started to read up on it. It took me a very long time to
accept what I did read up on as 'not a lie', thanks to tremendous
disinformation and obfuscation - sometimes, from popular science sources. I
admit, this state of affairs bugs me.
>
> But yes - primarily I'm talking about efforts via popular books and
supposed organizations 'interested in science education', secular and
Christian. In my opinion, when it comes to claims that the desire is to
improve the public's science literacy, there's a whole lot of nonsense going
on.
>
>>
>> To my previous responses, I would also add regarding B & C both of those
contain a high degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty is notoriously hard to
convey to the general public in a manner that accurately does justice to
what science really is (witness the distortion of "uncertainty" in the
debate surrounding climate change), and so I can sympathize with those who
might be hesitant to try to teach it more broadly. Not to say that this is a
good thing...I think it's sad that as a larger society, we can't engage
these issues more effectively and more in-depth...but I think before you can
do so responsibly, the broader public needs to have a better grasp of the
basic scientific method and what science really is (and isn't).
>
> Regarding B, there's no 'high degree of uncertainty' that there's a
strongly implied link to consciousness, and whoever says as much is, in my
opinion, equivocating tremendously. There may be considerable uncertainty
about specific and loosely related claims - Penrose's thoughts on human
consciousness, Stapp's thoughts on same, various interpretations of the
measurement problem - but that strongly implied link is there, and obvious
upon reading up on the experiments. It should be, since by most accounts
scientists have been trying to disprove it since QM's inception, without
success. Regarding C, the mere fact that A holds practically entails C. No
matter what the reason, or what the speculation, A violates our common sense
- and therefore how we see the world. The fact that we have no certain
answer to these questions (and that there may be no certain answer coming)
does not decrease the importance of this, on that 'philosophical,
intellectual, and social' level. In fact, the uncertainty would only
heighten it.
>
> Let's be clear here: If we're going to argue that the public simply can't
be trusted with important, fundamental scientific information because we
don't like where their thoughts may be led, then all pretense to 'wanting to
improve the public's science education' goes out the window. At that point,
what we're after is something else. We don't care about merely improving
their knowledge and scientific literacy - in fact, if they'll potentially
come to conclusions we dislike, we'll justify keeping certain topics
unexplored and unmentioned. On the flipside, if we think certain information
will bring them to conclusions - unrelated to the science - that we do like,
well, we'll focus on those topics to the exclusion of all else.
>
> Maybe there is value in that - who knows. But in that case, honesty
demands that all this talk about science education being the first and
foremost goal is, frankly, baloney. It's a red herring. We're actually after
something else.
>
>> Regarding the latter--sounds interesting, but never heard of it; so I
can't speak to that. Regarding the former...I think you have perhaps
identified an inconsistency in the introduction of a sort of an
"evolutionary litmus test"...but at the same time, per my earlier comments,
I think the evolution debate is more than just about evolution. It's about
the meaning of science, and the way science is done, and how science
can/should relate to Scripture. All of these things are being played out and
debated through the lens of evolution, and until the Christian community
knows how to better address these underlying issues, I'm not sure that
trying to start a new discussion over the role and implications of quantum
physics would be helpful. These same issues would simply ignite an old
controversy through the lens of a new scientific topic.
>
> Well, I'm not just talking about the Christian community here - I was
talking about the general attitude of 'It's important for the public to
learn about science, and by science we mean evolution, and by evolution we
mean man descended from apes with no design, even thought detecting design
is unscientific'. The strange pigeonholing of science education to a single
topic, the bizarre inconsistency of excluding another major,
counterintuitive, scientifically fortified set of results.
>
> Note that this doesn't just apply to the Christian community - it applies
to secular organizations as well, hence my reference to the NCSE, etc. In
fact, that's where the question becomes really curious. I can understand why
a Christian organization would devote so much time to talking about
evolution - as you say, it seems more pertinent to their faith. But why
would secular organizations spend that much time? Their concerns would be
different, if they weren't primarily motivated by philosophical and social
concerns. And yet, and yet...
>
> Anyway, if you're curious about how What The Bleep did this, here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN8BqGRP5WA - I find other experiments
(delayed choice quantum eraser) more striking, but despite the nonsense in
the rest of the movie, as near as I can tell this is a very orthodox
explanation of the twin slit experiment.
>
> And no, apparently that's not Gomez Addams' voice there. Could've sworn at
first.
>
>>
>> As an aside, speaking of Scriptures...I think the other reason why
evolution in particular is the lightning rod, as opposed to quantum physics,
is that evolution more directly challenges (at least superficially) the
Bible's authority. God's creation of the world and the animals, and
especially His creation of man, are addressed very specifically in Genesis.
The nature of free will and consciousness and the soul are not. Their are
multiple terms floating around throughout the Bible like "soul" and "spirit"
and "living being" and "breath of God" and "image of God", but there is no
real theological discourse (let alone conclusive statement) about how all
these things are defined and what they mean. Given the ambiguousness of
these concepts relative to the stories told in Genesis, I think it's easy to
see (and not unjustifiable) why evolution is so prominent relative to the
issues that quantum physics raises.
>
> Agreed here, though the problems for me remains as explained above.
>
>>
>> To conclude, I don't think that we're encouraging simple submission to
intellectual authority (in fact, I'd discourage that!), but I do think that
what we're after is teaching people the basics of science (including
evolution, but not quantum physics) as is represented by the current
academic consensus, and then letting people pursue or not pursue the rest as
suits their interests and talents. If a Christian (or anyone for that
matter) wants to learn more about quantum physics just out of curiosity or
because they want to ponder its philosophical implications--then hey, more
power to them. But the vast majority of people, I think, simply don't want
to. And that's OK. What's not OK is if people do not understand the basics
of science, and particularly for those in the faith community, I think that
yes, it is embarrassing when people are not only ignorant of it, but
actively fight against it.
>
> I should qualify here: I'm speaking somewhat loosely on 'we' and such -
forgive me, casual habit. There are 'the people on this mailing list',
'Christian ministries', 'Science-related Christian organizations', 'Secular
but ostensibly religion-neutral science advocacy organizations', etc. I
think there are specific concerns this whole topic broaches on, depending on
who we're talking about. But I maintain there is something very odd - and
possibly very wrong - with how the question of science and the general
public is approached, Christian or not.
>
> As for people not being interested, well. In this case, I think it's like
my own lack of interest in QM through high school and college. I wasn't
interested because I never heard of it before - I had to go out of my way to
so much as get a clue about it, and believe me, it was not easy to get even
that far at the time. I've yet to meet a person who, when these well-known
and major QM experiments are explained to them, does not become interested.
Perhaps that is part of the problem.
Hello you all from Michael Mc
There are some valid points being discussed here but I am not at this point
going to comment on their relative merits. I need more time to acquire an
appreciation of how you are going about accomplishing your aim(s) here at
ASA. But while this thread of QM is still open I would like to ask your help
in developing an ongoing project of my own. I would also like to ask your
patience because how this project might tie in with the larger goals of ASA
will only become apparent toward its completion.
QM is counterintuitive and weird. The various Q theories are weird at least
as theories go. Some in QM suggest, don't try to figure it out just accept
your observations and go on. Bohr said "there is no quantum reality." ETC.
Etc. The question arises, at least in my own mind, that perhaps something
was unknown in the 1930's when Bohr proposed his Copenhagen explanation that
we might know about today? Would you be so kind as to help me develope that
thought?
1. Is it correct to use the term "quantum wholeness" to refer to N. Bohr's
statement that there is "an indivisible wholeness," an unanalyzable
wholeness that binds the quantum object and the measuring apparatus into an
undivided whole, a quantum system?
2. Do you agree with the following statement?
The concept of nonlocality develops from the attempts to answer questions
raised by Einstein and developed something like this. The A. Einstein, Boris
Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR) paradox was part of a long running debate
between Einstein and Bohr. The EPR paradox was designed to test, at least
philosophically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but the debate soon
shifted to other issues. Einstein maintained that the reason the two
particles in the EPR paradox have correlated properties, was because they
had the same source and there was no need for then to communicate at faster
than light speed. Bohr maintained that the paradox's argument was too weak
to overturn quantum theory. This argument of the debate was said to involve
locality, with Einstein's position being termed local and Bohr's nonlocal.
3. and this?
John Bell proposed a theorem in which he was able to demonstrate that the
amount of correlation of two particles from a single source due to local
effects would be less than the correlation obtained if the two particles
were considered part of a quantum system (nonlocal). Alan Aspect and others
were able to perform experiments that tested Bell's theorem and these
demonstrated that quantum systems exhibit nonlocality.
4. and this?
The term "nonlocality" refers to the concept that two particles from the
same source considered as a quantum system exhibit amore correlation than
they otherwise should and the two particles appear to communicate at faster
than light speed.
5. and this?
The term "wave-particle duality" refers to the long standing realization
that light and other quantum bodies exhibit properties of both waves and
particles. Newton proposed a particle theory of light, while his
contemporary Christian Huygens proposed his own wave theory.
6. and this?
Although quantum wholeness, nonlocality, and wave particle duality have
been demonstrated -------- by experiment and observation, currently there is
no description of a natural phenomenon that would explain them.
I am still searching for a suitable adjective to put in the -----. Perhaps
you can suggest one.
Thanks, more questions tomorrow.
Michael McCray
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 15:39:25 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 17 2008 - 15:39:25 EST