Replies

...since Physics cannot find ANY known way that the observer is effecting the physical nature of the experiment and yet the observer has been proven to do so, well then, there has to be some ‘non-physical’ aspect unknown to these same Physicists yet they wish to use their magic thinking and dismiss what they have proven to be the facts. In essence, they have proven that the Universe is more than the mechanical in its operations.

The very fact that such "Physicists" think they can "stand outside the physical" in order to observe (measure) the "physical" is a non-starter position. [And then they try to defend this absurd position by saying that "all things supervene on the physical".... Talk about a non sequitur! That particular "defense" must come at the sacrifice of their own evaluative minds, must cost them any possible understanding of their own being and thinking.]

It should be obvious that this epistemological commitment requires that the "observing" or "measuring device" itself must be entirely outside the "physical" which it is attempting to "measure." Which is something quantum theory has already demonstrated with high credibility never happens.

Nonetheless, you are correct to note these guys inadvertently, already, "have proven that the Universe is more than the mechanical in its operations." That is to say, whether they wanted to or not.

The problem is: Somehow they have entirely excused themselves from the purely "physical" in order to make this determination. As if they, themselves, were wholly lacking in any physical component. [Which as mortal beings, they most assuredly do have.] Still, somehow, unaccountably, they persist in being oblivious to this quite obvious fact... about the very nature of themselves, and how human beings actually engage with their world.

Which brings us to the "observer problem," or as you put it, the "observer effect."

What quantum theory shows is that the presence of an observer and his measuring instruments are parts, already fully implicated, in the "whole" which is under investigation. It maintains that such presence has direct effect on possible outcomes of a given total experimental situation, in that the introduction of an observer with his instruments not only distorts the given physical situation [by introducing unforeseen additional elements at the physical level], but also specifies, or directs, what is looked for, or is anticipated, in the results of any given experimental situation.

To put this "observer" issue into perspective, I'd like to cite the famous dispute between two excellent friends, Albert Einstein (relativity theory) and Niels Bohr (quantum mechanics theory).

As their mutual biographer, Abraham Pais, put it, Einstein loved to twit his friend, by saying: For Niels, the moon does not exist at all, unless Niels has personally observed it.

But I daresay, all "Niels" was saying, was that phenomena do not depend on human observation in order for them to be "real" phenomena; all "Niels" was saying was that if we have not directly observed, experienced, a phenomenon in Nature, then we have no right to speak about what we have not, in fact, directly seen.

In other words, man's observation does not determine events in Nature, as Einstein seemed to conclude from Bohr's remarks on the subject. All Bohr was saying is that "observations" of nature must all eventually be cast into human language in order to be communicated successfully to other human beings. At the same time, Bohr seems painfully aware that one cannot legitimately speak with authority about things one has never seen directly.

And nothing in the quantum world can be seen "directly." Its functioning ever goes on below the threshold of direct human awareness. If humans could be aware of this at all, it could only be at a sub- or un-conscious level. [And that problem is beyond the scope of the present writing.]

Here's the "big picture" problem, as I see it: Absolutely everything at the physical level that exists in God's Creation obtains its material, physical basis out of the universal quantum field....

I gather that it is the constant, on-going collaboration between this field and the Logos that creates and continuously maintains the Creation that God made in the Beginning.

As Isaac Newton put it, God is not only Creator of everything that exists, but He also engages directly in the world of His making, "from time to time," as needed.

Newton's model of the universe was a mechanical one. Because he knew that mechanical things, by their very nature, will accumulate "errors" over time that affect the performance of the machine, God would have to intervene, as needed, to set matters aright again....

To Newton, God is eternally "the Lord of Life, with His creatures." His modus of communication with the Creation He made in the Beginning Newton designated as the sensorium Dei.... Which, to me, strikes as having a sort of universal "field-like" nature, all by itself....

Just some musings, my dear brother in Christ. Thank you ever so much for inspiring them!