Does quantum mechanics beckon the end of naturalism?

It seems like a classic god argument to me. I'm surprised Essentia Foundation has accepted this contribution.

This is what made me suspicious of it. Now I'm very much of the idea that quantum mechanics can undermine a lot of different ways that we percieve the world, but it makes reality even WEIRDER than what any of us could have possibly thought beforehand. I don't think circling back to classic god arguments, but weird, is the right way to go about this. We need to get all Lovecraft up in this, shit is gettin unfathomable to mortal minds.

This is what made me suspicious of it. Now I'm very much of the idea that quantum mechanics can undermine a lot of different ways that we percieve the world, but it makes reality even WEIRDER than what any of us could have possibly thought beforehand. I don't think circling back to classic god arguments, but weird, is the right way to go about this. We need to get all Lovecraft up in this, shit is gettin unfathomable to mortal minds.

Without a bias against God arguments I fail to see why they are any less plausible than what you are looking at.  What would be wrong with examining both?

This is what made me suspicious of it. Now I'm very much of the idea that quantum mechanics can undermine a lot of different ways that we percieve the world, but it makes reality even WEIRDER than what any of us could have possibly thought beforehand. I don't think circling back to classic god arguments, but weird, is the right way to go about this. We need to get all Lovecraft up in this, shit is gettin unfathomable to mortal minds.

It seems to me the argument is actually noting the way QM seems to be suggest a disorder governed by some kind of higher order. This follows from specific interpretations, sure, but not really seeing what is "Lovecraftian" about QM?

It seems to me the argument is actually noting the way QM seems to be suggest a disorder governed by some kind of higher order. This follows from specific interpretations, sure, but not really seeing what is "Lovecraftian" about QM?

Not that QM is Lovecraftian, but that what QM tells us about the world seems to suggest more and more that root reality is seemingly unknowable or uncomprehendible. If that is the case, then any kind of divine order or cosmic consciousness would be equally unknowable, rather than any kind of anthropormorphised diety.

Not that QM is Lovecraftian, but that what QM tells us about the world seems to suggest more and more that root reality is seemingly unknowable or uncomprehendible. If that is the case, then any kind of divine order or cosmic consciousness would be equally unknowable, rather than any kind of anthropormorphised diety.

If God is a being - even the best being - among other beings then I can see your argument holding, but the argument of the article as I understand it is that "God" is the Ground of Being.

Now one could say QM shows reality is fundamentally illogical and this extends to whatever is the Ground of Being, but I think this runs into questions about the validity of the logical axioms that underpin the very mathematics used to describe QM....Should the indeterminism and bizarre seemingly illogical descriptions of QM level reality extend to the logical semantic chains we must depend on for theorems and proofs to hold in math?

If God is a being - even the best being - among other beings then I can see your argument holding, but the argument of the article as I understand it is that "God" is the Ground of Being.

Now one could say QM shows reality is fundamentally illogical and this extends to whatever is the Ground of Being, but I think this runs into questions about the validity of the logical axioms that underpin the very mathematics used to describe QM....Should the indeterminism and bizarre seemingly illogical descriptions of QM level reality extend to the logical semantic chains we must depend on for theorems and proofs to hold in math?

I don't think so, at least as applied to the macro physical world of human experience. The basic laws of logic are endlessly, repeatedly found to be truths of experience, where countless predictions based on laws founded on these 4 principles are confirmed as exactly correct. The macro world and our very bodies work according to these principles.

There are various formulations, but these are the traditional four logic principles of reality:

1) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
2) The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
3) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'
4) The principle of sufficient reason: 'Everything must have a reason or a cause.'

In our experience of the macro physical world, I don't think we have experienced anything that doesn't follow these four principles. However, it seems that at least both the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are routinely violated in subatomic quantum mechanical interactions. So the validity of the foundational axioms of logic seems to be conditional rather than absolute. 

Whatever the true reality is, it has to accommodate this rather indigestible incompatibility, and may be humanly incomprehensible.

 So the validity of the foundational axioms of logic seems to be conditional rather than absolute.

I'm not sure I understand you here but the way I see it, the foundational axioms of logic itself remain constant but must be applied to new experiences that appear to run contrary to the reality we are used to.

I don't think so, at least as applied to the macro physical world of human experience. The basic laws of logic are endlessly, repeatedly found to be truths of experience, where countless predictions based on laws founded on these 4 principles are confirmed as exactly correct. The macro world and our very bodies work according to these principles.

There are various formulations, but these are the traditional four logic principles of reality:

1) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
2) The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
3) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'
4) The principle of sufficient reason: 'Everything must have a reason or a cause.'

In our experience of the macro physical world, I don't think we have experienced anything that doesn't follow these four principles. However, it seems that at least both the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are routinely violated in subatomic quantum mechanical interactions. So the validity of the foundational axioms of logic seems to be conditional rather than absolute. 

Whatever the true reality is, it has to accommodate this rather indigestible incompatibility, and may be humanly incomprehensible.

Like @Brian said above, I don't know if we really need to surrender the absolute laws of logic, though what these might be exactly may be up for grabs in some cases.

My point was more that if there is a physical reality where the connections between things violates the usual idea of a causal chain there can still - arguably must be - a semantic chain where each step in a logical proof follows from the meaning of the prior statement. IMO it is "must be" b/c without mathematical foundations there is no real way to frame QM...

Yet if we accept proof as the foundations of maths then the existence of said logical Universals means there's something beyond the physical and that this content has some Order/Harmony. This isn't necessarily God in the sense of any religious scripture, but the word "God" would seem to fit if we accept mathematical/logical Universals are real and are of a mental nature. If we accept the latter then these Universals exist in a Mind that shares them with all beings capable of higher thought...

Like @Brian said above, I don't know if we really need to surrender the absolute laws of logic, though what these might be exactly may be up for grabs in some cases.

My point was more that if there is a physical reality where the connections between things violates the usual idea of a causal chain there can still - arguably must be - a semantic chain where each step in a logical proof follows from the meaning of the prior statement. IMO it is "must be" b/c without mathematical foundations there is no real way to frame QM...

Yet if we accept proof as the foundations of maths then the existence of said logical Universals means there's something beyond the physical and that this content has some Order/Harmony. This isn't necessarily God in the sense of any religious scripture, but the word "God" would seem to fit if we accept mathematical/logical Universals are real and are of a mental nature. If we accept the latter then these Universals exist in a Mind that shares them with all beings capable of higher thought...

The way it seems to me to be is that it is apparent that in the subatomic quantum mechanical world at least two of the absolute logic laws are routinely violated, non-contradiction and excluded middle, whereas the absolute laws of logic are never violated in our macro human world. The absolute laws of logic seem to be basic to the way our macro physical world, bodies and minds work. Consequently, there is an apparent incompatibility buried in reality. 

This could be resolved if reality is simply designed that way by fiat of the powers that be, being(s) who are way beyond and higher than our reality, such that in the subatomic quantum mechanical world there are certain designed-in exceptions to the macro world laws of logic. Perhaps an analogy to this would be the apparent incompatibility of Einsteinian general relativity with quantum mechanics, which is pragmatically recognized and accepted and worked with by physicists as just the way things work.

The way it seems to me to be is that it is apparent that in the subatomic quantum mechanical world at least two of the absolute logic laws are routinely violated, non-contradiction and excluded middle, whereas the absolute laws of logic are never violated in our macro human world. The absolute laws of logic seem to be basic to the way our macro physical world, bodies and minds work. Consequently, there is an apparent incompatibility buried in reality.

But the events in the two worlds are nothing to do with logic, they are just the way things behave.  Logic is our means of understanding those events.  It was by logic that we understood superpositions and the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement.  Quantum reality is just as logical as our reality even though its laws are different.  1+1=2 is the same in both worlds it is just that 1 and 2 are different events in one world than in the other.