Thomism and the Interface Problem

[james03]

Does anyone know of any online articles on how the Scholastics deal with the interface problem?

[james03]

Here is one that is interesting:

https://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm

[james03]

I really haven't found anything either.  The attached article was the best I've come across.  I'll dig into Feser's blog some more and then  I'll post my proposed solution to the problem later.  For now, here is an easy way to see the problem of interface:

"State the efficient causal chain involved in a thought/desire ending up moving a hand.".

Note the problem of interface is fatal to atheism.  It became cataclysmic after Quantum Theory became accepted.

[Michael Wilson]

James,
please explain what is the "Interface Problem", and why its fatal for atheism.

[Heinrich]

James, with all due respect, it is threads and pursuits such as this that make me see the Dellery's delimma and his discombobulated state, resulting in his frustrations with Tradman.

[Insanis]

Does anyone know of any online articles on how the Scholastics deal with the interface problem?

A question like this can be answered only by "walls of text".

[james03]

James,
please explain what is the "Interface Problem", and why its fatal for atheism.

In short, a field and a charge are only accounting book entries describing a certain volume, for example, an electron (charge), or area around a magnet (field).  Science can not provide a materialist efficient causal chain to explain how a magnetic field can divert the path of an electron.  That is because charge and field do not materially exist.  They immaterially exist, and are real, but matter is not involved.  Therefore they are left to explain the interface problem, how immaterial charge and field can exert a force on the mass of an electron.  They can't.

When you get to certain quantum phenomenon, like entanglement, the materialist's head explodes.  The A-T concept of form solves the problem.  There is no physical entanglement, that is impossible.  Instead the forms of the particles become entangled.  This was explained in an article posted on this forum awhile back.

[Insanis]

James,
please explain what is the "Interface Problem", and why its fatal for atheism.

In short, a field and a charge are only accounting book entries describing a certain volume, for example, an electron (charge), or area around a magnet (field).  Science can not provide a materialist efficient causal chain to explain how a magnetic field can divert the path of an electron.  That is because charge and field do not materially exist.  They immaterially exist, and are real, but matter is not involved.  Therefore they are left to explain the interface problem, how immaterial charge and field can exert a force on the mass of an electron.  They can't.

When you get to certain quantum phenomenon, like entanglement, the materialist's head explodes.  The A-T concept of form solves the problem.  There is no physical entanglement, that is impossible.  Instead the forms of the particles become entangled.  This was explained in an article posted on this forum awhile back.

That is not profound: that is ignorance of modern science. Yes, modern science has complicated elements such as the equivalence of mass and energy, but this is a matter of science, not philosophy.

Using words you heard and trying to be deep while you resist any actual reading is silly. You need to know the basics first.

[Heinrich]

James,
please explain what is the "Interface Problem", and why its fatal for atheism.

In short, a field and a charge are only accounting book entries describing a certain volume, for example, an electron (charge), or area around a magnet (field).  Science can not provide a materialist efficient causal chain to explain how a magnetic field can divert the path of an electron.  That is because charge and field do not materially exist.  They immaterially exist, and are real, but matter is not involved.  Therefore they are left to explain the interface problem, how immaterial charge and field can exert a force on the mass of an electron.  They can't.

When you get to certain quantum phenomenon, like entanglement, the materialist's head explodes.  The A-T concept of form solves the problem.  There is no physical entanglement, that is impossible.  Instead the forms of the particles become entangled.  This was explained in an article posted on this forum awhile back.

That is not profound: that is ignorance of modern science. Yes, modern science has complicated elements such as the equivalence of mass and energy, but this is a matter of science, not philosophy.

Using words you heard and trying to be deep while you resist any actual reading is silly. You need to know the basics first.

Yes, but isn't he asking about Thomistic theology?

[james03]

Yes, but isn't he asking about Thomistic theology?

Yes.  In the past this sub forum had a lot of Thomists, probably some with Masters Degrees in philosophy.  Now I have to hunt around Feser's blog if I have a question.

[Heinrich]

Yes, but isn't he asking about Thomistic theology?

Yes.  In the past this sub forum had a lot of Thomists, probably some with Masters Degrees in philosophy.  Now I have to hunt around Feser's blog if I have a question.

Hopefully Gardener sees this.

[andy]

In short, a field and a charge are only accounting book entries describing a certain volume, for example, an electron (charge), or area around a magnet (field).  Science can not provide a materialist efficient causal chain to explain how a magnetic field can divert the path of an electron.  That is because charge and field do not materially exist.

No, charge and field do materially exist. There is such a thing as a gravity wave. This is a massless matter. They move with maximum speed of light. They can be located in 4D space and time. They are of different kind than e.g. angels.

[james03]

This is a massless matter.

If they are massless, then they don't materially exist.  They immaterially exist.  They are real.  But they don't involve matter, as in, having mass.  Therefore science can't come up with a material causal chain of how say an electric field can divert the path of an electron.  They can describe it.  They can develop calculations to predict it.  But they can't provide a material causal chain.  This is the interface problem.

Defining terms:
material / materially: describing something with mass.
immaterial / immaterially: describing something without mass.

[james03]

They are of different kind than e.g. angels.

Yes.  I use the term "spiritual" to define "the perceiving immaterial".  Qualia such as "red" shares some characteristics with angels.  It has no time.  It has no place.  However unlike angels it does not perceive.

There is also Information.  As it pertains to Realism, I see at least two subcategories: parameters and rules.  Charge and field are parameters.  The diversion of an electron is a rule.  The spiritual perceives information.

[andy]

I guess I have a quite different definition of what "material" means. It is a pattern or law which exists in our universe. Whether it is a mass or a massless particle or an interaction or a wave or a soliton.

The prime example are nuclear reactions, where an energy freely interchanges with a mass. They are predominant outside our "flat" Earth.

In another words, this equation E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 links energy, momentum and mass and it is a heart of our material world.

Even a vacuum is material as it can be described by 4D coordinates: space and time.

I use the term "spiritual" to define "the perceiving immaterial".  Qualia such as "red" shares some characteristics with angels.  It has no time.  It has no place.  However unlike angels it does not perceive. 

Are you referring to "the redness of an evening sky". This is definitely a light. It exists and is perceived by our eyes. Not sure what you mean?