Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I am a follower of aristotelian thomistic philosophy or best known as classical philosophy (most catholics are). I've managed to engage an atheist physicist who has already invoked the quantum theory to disprove the notion of causality. Given that I'm no physicist and at best lint on a great philosopher; I was hoping someone more aquainted with physics and classical philosophy could explain why he belives QM has officially made classical philosophy obsolete. So far as I can understand, quantum mechanics is able to disprove that certain things have a cause and therefore bringing the whole notion of causality into question. How exactly does it do this? I know it has to do with predictability but beyond that do I have to have a PhD in physics to know what the hell he is talking about?
I will note that he seems to lack understanding in classical philosophy. For example, for quantum mechanics to show us that nothing is responsible for anything is mind boggling to me. It may show us that there is nothing responsible for some things, but who doesn't already know that chance and luck play a part of the cosmos? You certainly don't need to be a physicist to know this. The absence of causes at one level does not prove there are no causes altogether. To think this somehow rattles the classical philosopher is only an indication of ignorance on the part of the phycist.
What am I missing? It's probably difficult to find someone who knows both discplines well enough to clarify?....
I will note that he seems to lack understanding in classical philosophy. For example, for quantum mechanics to show us that nothing is responsible for anything is mind boggling to me. It may show us that there is nothing responsible for some things, but who doesn't already know that chance and luck play a part of the cosmos? You certainly don't need to be a physicist to know this. The absence of causes at one level does not prove there are no causes altogether. To think this somehow rattles the classical philosopher is only an indication of ignorance on the part of the phycist.
What am I missing? It's probably difficult to find someone who knows both discplines well enough to clarify?....