Anyone who is OK with quantum superposition ought to be able to handle transubstantiation. [No they are NOT the same thing and the former does not "explain" the latter.]
Anyone who is OK with quantum superposition ought to be able to handle transubstantiation. [No they are NOT the same thing and the former does not "explain" the latter.]
I understand what you are getting at in that they are similarly "weird" claims. However, we should not target "OKness of claims" but "OKness of reasons." The inductive process by which one arrives at these claims is totally different. Superposition goes through a series of experiments that seem to contradict our "common sense physics", and the conclusion of that chain of induction we call quantum superposition.
The transubstantiation claim comes from a particular reading of Gospels and commentary of early church leaders which leads to that philosophical conclusion which catholics call transubstantiation (which also contradicts "common sense physics"). There is a key inductive difference. The type of evidence in these two cases are not isomorphic. One is repeatable experiment, the other is textual induction from a range of authorities.
However, in another way there is isomorphism.
If you take standard Christian theology evidence standards and apply them to the eucharist, you are likely to arrive at transubstantiation or some Lutherany or Anglicanny variant. If you take standard physics evidence standards you will arrive at QS and one of its interpretations.
Anyone who is OK with quantum superposition ought to be able to handle transubstantiation. [No they are NOT the same thing and the former does not "explain" the latter.]
I understand what you are getting at in that they are similarly "weird" claims. However, we should not target "OKness of claims" but "OKness of reasons." The inductive process by which one arrives at these claims is totally different. Superposition goes through a series of experiments that seem to contradict our "common sense physics", and the conclusion of that chain of induction we call quantum superposition.
The transubstantiation claim comes from a particular reading of Gospels and commentary of early church leaders which leads to that philosophical conclusion which catholics call transubstantiation (which also contradicts "common sense physics"). There is a key inductive difference. The type of evidence in these two cases are not isomorphic. One is repeatable experiment, the other is textual induction from a range of authorities.
However, in another way there is isomorphism.
If you take standard Christian theology evidence standards and apply them to the eucharist, you are likely to arrive at transubstantiation or some Lutherany or Anglicanny variant. If you take standard physics evidence standards you will arrive at QS and one of its interpretations.