Cite, please?
Since I have not deviated from textbook quantum mechanics, I am not sure what kind of cite you are looking for. If you want positive evidence of actual quantum behavior in macroscopic systems, perhaps you will find this or this or this interesting. For a more general understanding of how experts view the quantum mechanics of macroscopic objects, read about schrodinger’s cat or quantum decoherence.
A cite for the fact that macroscopic objects are made up of atoms which are in turn composed of subatomic particles and behave according to quantum mechanics?
If it is possible for a single electron or nucleon to “tunnel” through barriers (and other quantum weirdness), it is possible, if much more improbable, for things composed of those subatomic particles to display the same behavior. The same way it is possible to roll five equal dice in Yahtzee; it’s just a lot more improbable than rolling one die and getting a particular number.
thank you all for the time and effort put in (esp. superfluous, bryan, etc, cube, etc)…
I think i have a little bit better understanding.
So. Let’s move to part two>
would any of you agree that reality is perfect, as Spinoza stated?
from wikipedia:
*In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects. According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. While components of the chain of cause and effect are not beyond the understanding of human reason, human grasp of the infinitely complex whole is limited because of the limits of science to empirically take account of the whole sequence. *
The universe does seem to be an interdependent cosmic machine…but each time I try to discuss this idea with my brainier friends, I’m shouted down into the carpet. “Perfection cannot exist!” etc etc.
It just seems to me we could imagine a severely less perfect machine, one where things just happened for no reason…with no predictability, where all was chaos.
That’s more a question of the definition of “perfect” than the nature of reality.
So, hey, call it whatever you want, I still think birth defects and cancer, among other things, leaves reality with something to be desired.
Keeping in mind that this argument is part of Spinoza’s pan-theistic system of ethics, I find it a pretty lame attempt at explaining away the problem of evil.
Basically, it argues that:
A) the universe is completely deterministic
B) therefore the universe is perfect
C) therefore everything we find objectionable in reality (explicitly including pain and suffering) is purely due to lack of knowledge.
If I concede A for the purpose of the argument, then all “perfection” seems to mean is “whatever happens”; purely because it’s defined that way. Again, I think, an example of extremely sloppy definitions or worse, calculated and suggestive use of loaded terminology.
As for C - even if the universe is perfect, it seems to me that any possible deterministic universe is perfect in this argument. Just because we find ourselves in a universe where, say, people can and do die in agony does not mean there isn’t a possible alternative - also deterministic, and therefore “perfect” - universe where the amount of suffering would be significantly lower.
In conclusion, the word “perfect” as used by Spinoza is so far off the common use of the word, that I can’t even answer the question.