05.09.09

QM and noumenal/phenomenal?

Posted in Kant, physics at 3:59 pm by nemo

Comment on Kant and QM

James said,
May 9, 2009 at 3:36 pm ·
“Some philosophers see quantum phenomena as a sign of far greater unknown forces at work and it bolsters their view that a spiritual dimension exists.”

How the f*ck does quantum nonlocality prove that a “spiritual” dimension exists? I don’t really understand why everybody says that QT is so counterintuitive. All it tells me is that our simplistic Newtonian views of “differentiation” are rather naive.

Good point: the misuse of the term ‘spiritual’ is a part of the problem.
I think the Kantian distinction of ‘phenomenal’ and ‘noumenal’ is appropriate here.

5 Comments »

  1. Stephen P. Smith said,

    May 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Amit Goswami has some wonderful books out that will answer these questions.

    Incidently, spirituality is self-evident!

  2. nemo said,

    May 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    We’ve read them all, but the enigma remains

  3. James said,

    May 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    “Amit Goswami has some wonderful books out that will answer these questions.”

    I’m not really a fan of idealism or “ground of being” theories since they are just as extreme as reductionism.

  4. James said,

    May 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Opinions about QT from famous physicists:

    http://www.paricenter.com/library/audio/index.php

  5. Darwiniana » Some classic papers on QM said,

    May 10, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    [...] Comment on QM and noumenal/phenomenal James said, May 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm · Opinions about QT from famous physicists: [...]

Leave a Comment