Quinquae Viae (of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

Thomas Aquinas is better known for his contrbution to natural theology by compiling and developing five specific arguments to support belief in the Christian God. These arguments can be found in his Summa Theologiae. As an attempt to show how superfluous these arguments really are, I well embark on a basic excercise in showing that the Five Ways, as they are called, point just as equally to the Flying Spaghetti Montser (FSM).

Ex Motu

1. Some things are moved.
2. Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
4. Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
5. This mover is what we call the FSM

Ex Causa

1. Some things are caused.
2. Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
5. This causer is what we call the FSM

Ex Contingentia

1. Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
2. It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occured.
3. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
4. This being is what we call the FSM.

Ex Gradu

1. Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
2. These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.

Ex Fine

1. All designed things have a designer.
2. The universe is designed.
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.
4. This designer is what we call the FSM.

Conclusion
It follows from the above five arguments that the FSM does indeed exist. QED

William Lane Craig and Wikipedia

I have come to the conclusion that I don't update this readily enough to even draw in traffic. To few (if any) readers who do manage to read this message, I apologize. For the past month and a half I have been reading up on "intelligent design" creationism. The process seems to draw away what little time I do have between my studies and work.

Anyways, personal business aside, I was reading over the quantum mechanics article at Wikipedia earlier this evening when a memory crossed my mind. When I attended the Future of Atheism conference I had a great misfortune of interacting with William Lane Craig. During the course of our discussion, he insisted, quite adamantly, that there existed more than ten different versions of quantum mechanics. I must stress versions, as he attempted to imply that there existed multiple mathematical formalizations to quantum mechanics. Though I called him on his bullshit at the conference, I didn't have the means to show him his error. As well, lacking a formal training in physics himself (as he did admit to me), simple words or even a marker and a whiteboard would not have suffice to convince him of his error impromptu.

It is well known that there is only one version of quantum mechanics. A wave function is a wave function, a state is a state, and an exchange force is always an exchange force. What he probably meant to say was there are different interpretations. After having read the Wikipedia article, it seems clear to me that Craig, when doing his research on quantum mechanics, simply used Wikipedia. This especially became clear to me when I compared my notes to the article itself. That is, his wording and the wording on the page sounds so similar, I cannot help but make this association.

I doubt Craig reads this, but in case he does, I should let him in on a little secret. The Copenhagen interpretation is the one most supported by experimental data and is less bulky in complex or abstract thought. I say this lightly, because quantum mechanics itself is a rather abstract art, but indeed the Copenhagen school seems to always wins. That is, we live in an indeterministic world in which particles are in constant supposition of states. A particle can be anywhere prior to measurement, and the measurement only tells you where the particle is at the time of the measuring event. Any time after the event or any time before the event cannot be determined except with another measuring event. But then you only have the particle's position in that time; therefore, you cannot extrapolate where the particle will be at all times but only where it was at those times. This is a peculiar interpretation, but the one most accepted by physicists (including a vast majority of Noble Prize winners) as well as most supported by measuring events.

Bohm's hidden variables, which Craig attempted to attribute to God (under his breath in mutered nonsense, it seemed), holds no ground. Sadly, I cannot elaborate very well at the moment on why Bohm's interpretation is a bit off. But for the time being, Ill be brief. Bohm's interpretation fails to give an account of quantum field theory as well as makes spin a very difficult topic to approach conceptually. For this reason, and a number of others, Bohm's interpretation is not taken seriously. These and other reasons are why R.F. Streater listed Bohm's interpretation as a lost-cause.

Finals are this week, so expect no more posts from me. This summer, I plan on attacking head-on the mathematics and philosophy of "intelligent design" creationism.