A Proof Of God Using Quantum Physics

[MindOverMatter]

This is one interpretation of Quantum Physics that i believe can lead to a inferential proof of God. Perhaps the first scientific proof of God? The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.

Theorists speculate that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function and thereby creates reality. In this view, a subatomic particle does not assume definite properties when it interacts with a measuring device, but only when the reading of the measuring device is registered in the mind of an observer (which may of course be long after the measurement has taken place). According to the most extreme, anthropocentric version of this theory, only self conscious beings such as ourselves can collapse wave functions. This means that the whole universe must have existed originally as “potentia” in some transcendental realm of quantum probabilities until selfconscious beings evolved and collapsed themselves and the rest of their branch of reality into the material world, and that objects remain in a state of actuality only so long as they are being observed by humans (Goswami, 1993).

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of “potentia”. If I’m correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But…

Other theorists, however, believe that nonselfconscious entities, including cats and possibly even electrons, may be able to collapse their own wave functions (Herbert, 1993).

If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn’t really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.

 

[Daedelus76]

The universe isn’t really real. It’s just sorta real. Just like you never see, hear, taste, touch, or smell any external thing, it’s all a mental projection like watching a movie, or a big giant holodeck. “Merily, merily, merily, merily… life is but a dream”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The universe isn’t really real. It’s just sorta real. Just like you never see, hear, taste, touch, or smell any external thing, it’s all a mental projection like watching a movie, or a big giant holodeck. “Merily, merily, merily, merily… life is but a dream”.

That may be. But we know that minds are real, or at least you know that your mind is real. It would be an illogical statement to claim that you think, but you do not really exist

I think therefore i am.

If this is true, then one more thing is certainly true. There is such a thing as an existence, in which you exist. For if there were no such thing as an eternal being, then you could not possibly exist.Therefore there is an objective reality outside of your mind.

 

[Daedelus76]

If this is true, then one more thing is certainly true. There is such a thing as an existence, in which you exist. For if there were no such thing as an eternal being, then you could not possibly exist.Therefore there is an objective reality outside of your mind.

That wolud make a great koan- “who exists?”. If thoughts are “I”, what happens when there is no thinker of thoughts? Yes, Descartes said “Cogito Ergo Sum”, but Descartes never had a kensho experience, otherwise he would have doubted it all, and burned all his philosophy, no doubt. So, he put the little homonculus ego inside the head.

If this “objective reality” is wholely transcendent, it doesn’t explain how the “I” interacts with this reality. My own personal theory/guess is something like pantheism or panentheism, emanationism, etc.

 

[ready]

A monkey who is conscious could never write Shakespeare, read the Gospels like youth can, or make any deep scientific sense out of what he sees in a microscope like a school child can. And anything really big the monkey may learn that has to do with Shakespeare, the Gospels, or science and a microscope comes from man who *guides *the monkey, and we know man is endowed with God given intelligence and human consciousness. Human consciousness was given to man by God at creation and allows us to probe into different universes big and small with the gifts he has given us, including the gift of human consciousness. I do not believe we evolved from apes in the least, but believe this consciousness given to us by God is uniquely human and different from all animals. I believe it was given by God breathing his spirit into Adam’s nostrils, just as Jesus breathed on his apostles and they received certain gifts.

 

[ready]

CORRECTION:

Also, human consciousness allows us to shape our world, Just as Adam was instructed to keep and work the land.

 

[buffalo]

Some physicists believe it is at the quantum level God acts in the universe. They see the universe as being porous in the quantum areas.

 

[ready]

Adam has dominion over the animals and the earth and thus guides its outcome with his human consciousness. No animal can name all the other animals and put them in genuses and species and write a book about all of them.

 

[ready]

And no animal has dominion over all the other animals. Man rules his environment and controls the destiny of the world around him…with God’s help, that is

 

[Detales]

The OP’s quote is a very clumsy exposition of an experiential proof that has been in practice for millenia. It is incapable of being said in words or maths, except as a pointers.

Descarte’s statement more likely would approach accuracy if it went something like " ‘I’ IS and manifests as AM; therefore the property of awareness appears as thought which manifests as things."

The koan also might better be something that acts by negation, eliminating everything in one’s experience as "not ‘I’, " until nothing else is left. As it has been said for ages, “Gnothi Seauton.” Know thySelf. If this isexperientially understood, the Identity statements attributed to Jesus and the burning bush symbolism have an entirely different meaning and consequence.

Daedelus, you might enjoy looking up “netineti,” if you can find someone who doesn’t butcher the concept.

~Bindar Doondat

 

[rvilbig]

An interesting interpretation of quantum mechanics that invokes God was developed by Wolfgang Smith in his book “Quantum Enigma”. He uses a Thomistic ontology to explain the various quantum enigma and recalls Saint Thomas Aquinas’ identification of God with the natura naturans, or the “Nature who makes nature”. Specifically, he argues that the wave-like interference of particles occurs in the realm of prime matter, whereas the de-superposition of waves into particles occurs in the realm of forms, and that God affects the transition from potency to act.

He explains it more clearly:

“I contend that quantum indeterminacy - the partial chaos of quantum superposition - can indeed be viewed as reflective of the primordial Chaos or even more concretely as a remnant of this underlying ‘disorder’” (page 123)

“The determinative act, moreover, is in fact more than a mere choice, a mere selection of one element from a given ensemble: for it brings into existence - as it were, ex nihilo - something which previously did not exist as an actual entity” (page 66)

“There is a certain transition from potency to manifestation – from the physical to the corporeal plane – and such a transition can only be effected by the creative or ‘form-bestowing’ principle, which is natura naturans. But since the action of natura naturans is perforce ‘instantaneous’ …], it turns out that there is in reality no temporal process – no actual ‘roll of the die’ – which determines or selects the measure value of X from the spectrum of possible outcomes. This determination derives, so to speak, ‘from on high’ and interrupts the normal course of events, that is to say, the Schrodinger evolution of the given system.” (page 107).

Here are some links to his books and essays for those who are interested:
book
essay

This should be required reading for all Catholic science students.

-Ryan Vilbig

 

[Detales]

Once again we may note that no proof of God that is contained in mentality is possible on the simple grounds that the lesser cannot include, prove, or necessitate the greater from those limited basis.

 

[buffalo]

This is one interpretation of Quantum Physics that i believe can lead to a inferential proof of God. Perhaps the first scientific proof of God? The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of “potentia”. If I’m correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But…

If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn’t really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.

Yup - it leads to consciousness outside our frame and right up to God.

 

[presidentjlh]

The universe isn’t really real. It’s just sorta real. Just like you never see, hear, taste, touch, or smell any external thing, it’s all a mental projection like watching a movie, or a big giant holodeck. “Merily, merily, merily, merily… life is but a dream”.

That, my friend, is called “Solipsism” and honestly is just so far-fetched it’s best to disregard that idea.

 

[Detales]

And yet, jlh, it is the only sane explanation. Catholicism, as are all the Abrahamic religions, is an ascending exoteric form of interpretation. It doesn’t even come near giving one the tools to correctly understand Solipsism and its variants. Too bad. Try re-reading Thomas Aquinas, St Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, the vast array of similar mystics not in the RC tradition, and, oh yes, Jesus. You might change your mind. Or not. In either case, enjoy, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

 

[rvilbig]

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is essentially solipsism: the mind creates the rest of reality. Dr. Stephen Barr eludes to this in his book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (link): “[The Copenhagen interpretation] raises the interesting question of whether we can talk about what happens if no one ever observes it. What if the universe had never given rise (and never were to give rise) to sentient beings such as ourselves? What then would the wavefunctions refer to? What would the laws of physics mean without observers?” (page 244) However, Dr. Barr doesn’t propose a solution to this.

Aquinas argued that the problem with solipsism was that solipsists can’t explain their own existence: Summa 1, q.2: “There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible…Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

Unfortunately, most physicists today are solipsists. Among the few exceptions are Wolfgang Smith (link), and Robert John Russell (link).

We need young Catholics to pursue graduate studies in physics so that a reasonable metaphysics is given a voice in science.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Detales]

Actually, Aquinas had it right and only made the final and correct leap, solving his own objection to solipsism, about three months before he died. That leap was the cause of his exclamation that all his work was “as straw” and made him wish to burn it. This is common among those who reach such a realization, but fortunately we were spared his work. In the Light of that leap we find the words of Jesus as reported in the Bible, especially the statements referring to Identity, to have an entirely different meaning and referent than is ordinarily taught by any of the exoteric, ascending schools of theology, including the RC version.

What we need is not more young Catholics failing to understand Aquinas’ meaning, but more folks of any age joining those who have for ages arrived independently at the same conclusion as did Aquinas and his Kind. Barr and Bohm may very well provide a path of inquiry in this direction, as well as such as Merrell-Wolff and many others.

 

[a_priori]

Once again we may note that no proof of God that is contained in mentality is possible on the simple grounds that the lesser cannot include, prove, or necessitate the greater from those limited basis.

True

 

[itinerant1]

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is essentially solipsism: the mind creates the rest of reality. Dr. Stephen Barr eludes to this in his book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (link): “[The Copenhagen interpretation] raises the interesting question of whether we can talk about what happens if no one ever observes it. What if the universe had never given rise (and never were to give rise) to sentient beings such as ourselves? What then would the wavefunctions refer to? What would the laws of physics mean without observers?” (page 244) However, Dr. Barr doesn’t propose a solution to this.

Aquinas argued that the problem with solipsism was that solipsists can’t explain their own existence: Summa 1, q.2: “There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible…Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

Unfortunately, most physicists today are solipsists. Among the few exceptions are Wolfgang Smith (link), and Robert John Russell (link).

We need young Catholics to pursue graduate studies in physics so that a reasonable metaphysics is given a voice in science.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

It looks like you are on the right track with understanding the fallacy of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The fallacy is to take a limitation of an operational procedure of observation and making it into an ontological principle. That is, the principle of indeterminacy says that what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. Heisenberg falsely and ridiculously asserted that he had disproved the law of causality. Such utter nonsense is not even questioned by the majority of today’s physicists.

 

[rvilbig]

It looks like you are on the right track with understanding the fallacy of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The fallacy is to take a limitation of an operational procedure of observation and making it into an ontological principle. That is, the principle of indeterminacy says that what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. Heisenberg falsely and ridiculously asserted that he had disproved the law of causality. Such utter nonsense is not even questioned by the majority of today’s physicists.

Can you direct me to a reference in which Heisenberg claims to disprove the law of causality. Do note that the Copenhagen interpretation is distinct from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the Copenhagen interpretation is an explanation of the cause of wavefunction collapse and is entirely philosophical, whereas the uncertainty relationship is a mathematical consequence of the non-commutativity of position and momentum and is empirically verified.

Personally, I think Heisenberg was a pretty decent philosopher as far as physicists go. He recognized that what he had discovered in QM was simply a verification of Aristotelean mechanics. He wrote that the wavefunction “meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of ‘potentia’ in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality” (Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, page 15).

If quantum mechanics is compatible with Aristotelean mechanics, then it is certainly compatible with Catholicism, as Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly demonstrated. Indeed, if matter exists in a state of potency, something must bring it to act. As Aquinas writes: “whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality.” (Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 3, a. 1 ), and since “God is pure act, without any potentiality” (ibid I, q. 3 art 2), it follows that God can reduce the potentialities of nature to act according to his plan. Really, what Heisenberg has offered us is the opportunity to return to Thomism and an orthodox understanding of God’s immanence.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com