FairFiend

Whenever one debates, the person would be well to attempt to point out any logical contradictions in their opposition's arguement. The thought being that contradictions in a person's arguement weakens it. For example, on the Existence of God(s) forum, nontheists attempt to point out contradictions between the attributes God is supposed to possess and the nature of how life really is. Some of the debate boils down to that God can neither be all good, all powerful, and all knowing at the same time because those attributes contradict one another.

Now, this would tend to suggest that for a belief to be correct, it should hold no logical contradictions.

But, (and forgive me if this arguement has been presented before) research in physics tell us that electrons can behave both as particles and as waves. Though experiment after experiment bear this out, it none the less seems like an aparent contradiction.

So, therefore if logical contradictions can (or at least seem to) exist in nature, is it correct in holding that natural phenomenon (which I would also classify God if He existed) be devoid of logical contradictions?

I understand that I may be missing something due to my ignorance of the details of quantum theory. If this arguement has been presented before to these forums I would be appreciative if someone could provide a link to such a thread.

tk

Regarding wave-particle duality, my high school physics lecturer said this:

"...The fact is, light is neither a wave nor a particle! Light is light!..."

This pretty much captures the idea. When we think of light as a `wave' or a `particle', we're merely saying that light exhibits the behaviour of a wave or a particle, and using wave or particle theory to help us better understand light. This says nothing about whether light is intrinsically a wave or a particle, or neither.

The two contradictory views of light can be resolved, by noting that the `wave' and `particle' models are both only approximations to reality, and are known to break down at the fringes. If both views are claimed to be perfect, then there's a contradiction.

FairFiend

I understand what you're saying tk. You're saying that light, electrons, etc. are in a class all by themselves. Since we have to have something to compare electrons to, it sometimes can be described as having particle characteristics and wave characteristics while at the same time being some totally new kind of phenomenon

I'd like to know more about what you mean by "are known to break down at the fringes." For it to be accurate that light or electrons are neither particles or waves but do have characteristics of both, wouldn't they have to exhibit some particle characteristic(s) not common to other particles other than their wave-like behavior and vice versa?

If electrons exhibit all the characteristics of what is termed "particle" and all the characteristics of what is termed "wave", and if each definition is mutually exclusive, it would be a contradiction.

The only way I can see to refute this is to,

1. Show that electrons don't exhibit all the characteristics of a particle or of a wave. That particles have some characteristics that electrons do not (other than not having wave-like properties), and vice versa.

2. Show that particles and waves are not mutually exclusive definitions. One way would be to give an example of something that is both a particle and a wave, without using electrons, light, etc. as an example because that would be circular. Or, the other way would be to show that there is natural phenomenon that are neither particles nor waves (having no characteristics of either) and at the same time be completely different than electrons, etc.

It could be said that the real nature of light, electrons, etc. is so alien to us that our attempts to describe it in terms we already know fail. But then I begin to sound like a theist.

:banghead:

John Page

FairFriend:

If I might suggest a change here. "Now, this would tend to suggest that for a belief to be logically correct, it should hold no logical contradictions."

Our interpretation of the results of experiments can lead us to suppose that light comprises particles or light is a waveform. I highlight the word "interpretation" since our mind leads us to try and find a causal model that "explains" the data. I would argue that the analogies we use to explain the phenomena of light are contradictory but the experimental data speak for themselves (so to speak, please fogive the anthropomorphism!).

Cheers, John

FairFiend

John Page wrote:
Yes, inserting "logically correct" would make it a better statement. Thanks.

John Page wrote:
Yes, I agree with your statement here. We have to form analogies to describle new observations and phenomenon. It's one of the ways to trasmit a complex idea(s) to another person. Some analogies are of course better than others and there are obvious limits as in the case of quantum physics perhaps. One of the benefits for the whole wave-particle duality of light is that it is backed up by experiemental evidence. This is why that even though the analogies we use to describe it seem contradictory, it is none the less true.

I'd be curious if the wave properties and particle properties of light were predicted before experiements were done, or were they a discovered from those experiments. I admit my knowledge of the history of science is incomplete.

However, could not a theist say that that the particle and wave properties are "traits" of light. And though these "traits" contradict one another, experiemental data show them to be true. Similarily, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are likewise "traits" of God. And though they appear to logically contradict one another, it wouldn't disprove the existence of God alone. Of course there isn't experimental data on God, and even if one could experiement on a supernatural being that was god-like, it would be problematic measuring his omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence. However, that would be beside the point. The point being that a contradiction in a logical arguement for the existence of God certainly doesn't help, but it doesn't disprove either. Perhaps this itself is a bad analogy.

Has anyone heard this argument made before? If so I'd appreciate a link.

John Page

My scientific knowledge is lacking, but taking your reasoning further, aren't there precedents for difference forms of the same substance, e.g. different arrangements of carbon atoms, different forms of water molecules etc. Why should light not display entropic behavior, I wonder?

Light "corpuscles" were proposed by Sir Isaac Newton, I believe, followed by Huygens wave theory of light. Is that right (school was so long ago)?

Cheers, John

FairFiend

I may be wrong, but entropy is a property of matter. Light is made up of oscillating electric and magnetic fields at right angles to one another. I think the analogy doesn't hold. I don't see how entropy would apply, but nice thought.

John Page

Thanks, yes, I should have used the term allotrope.

tk

Consider two mythical concepts, the `idealized particle' and the `idealized wave'. The idealized particle is a single well-defined body in space, and moves exactly in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The idealized wave is a collection of energy that acts on idealized particles exactly as predicted by wave theory.

We now know that light is not an idealized wave. Though most of the time it behaves like a wave, the photoelectric effect gives an instance where light deviates from the idealized wave behaviour.

We now also know that electrons are not idealized particles. Electrons can actually `cancel' each other out in certain cases, like waves can cancel each other out. But we know that idealized particles don't `cancel' each other out.

These are the places where wave and particle theory break down.

How does this apply to God? A theist may be inclined to argue that God is always benevolent and always just. But this creates a contradiction. It's not contradictory, however, to conceive of a divine being who is usually benevolent and usually just.

Primal

Sadly I have to agree with TK on the point concerning light being a particle or wave and I think the problem lies with our attempt to analyze microscopic entities via a comparison with macroscopic ones: when the analogy may be totally unwarranted.

Remember we are entering a new and unfamiliar territory, in which case our old categories of wave or particle may breakdown or be inadequate. If anything this POV shows your argument for contradictions to be less then sound.

Oh yes and God, though He may be less the Ideal, always remains superfluous.