A Proof Of God Using Quantum Physics

[JDaniel]

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.

That would make perfect sense. After all, God is the Prime Mover, in this world; there’s no question of that. This means that everything that is moved is moved by something other than itself; and, in every series of essentially subordinated movers, we cannot revert to infinity - including such movements as complex as coming-to-be.

But, where is it then that God interacts (makes "contact’) with reality (real beings)? We don’t “see” Him at the macro level. We don’t “see” Him in the laboratory. Not only are we enjoined from experiencing Him due to, among other things, His immense size, in a way, but, because of the sheer simultaneity of and numerical volume of His actions.

So, how does a Supreme Being interact with physical reality? (I know, “very gently!”) And, where does such interaction occur?

If God is the agent, and real, physical things are the patients, interaction would have to occur where every single minute bit of real tissue could be touched, or, manipulated, by an agent that was pure spirit.

According to St. Thomas (via Aristotle), such motions are of a primary manner, and require the movement of the whole being such that the whole being could not move itself in this manner. Such contact between God and a lesser thing would, of necessity, require a kind of “contact” with the entirety of the lesser being - without its destruction, at the minutest level.

jd

 

[Anselm33]

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.

You might want to read Raymond Chiao’s article, “Quantum Non-Localities” in Quantum Mechanics–Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, volume 5 of the series of conferences called by John Paul II (I think Vatican Observatory Publications or Center for Theology and Natural Science are the publishers). In this he uses the results of delayed choice experiments to invoke a universal observer, i.e. a neo-Berkeleyan postulate of God as the eternal observer.
By the way, “proof” is a term I would reserve for logic and mathematics–demonstration is perhaps a more apt term.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I believe in God. I don’t believe in wave-functions.

I think that wave-functions are useful inventions to correlate observations, and nothing more. After all, wave-functions are complex; they contain imaginary numbers. Where does the imaginary part of a wave-function exist?

No, I don’t buy this argument because it involves a very incomplete picture, and metaphysical assertions on things I don’t believe exist.

 

[buffalo]

I believe in God. I don’t believe in wave-functions.

I think that wave-functions are useful inventions to correlate observations, and nothing more. After all, wave-functions are complex; they contain imaginary numbers. Where does the imaginary part of a wave-function exist?

No, I don’t buy this argument because it involves a very incomplete picture, and metaphysical assertions on things I don’t believe exist.

I believe in God too. If one follows the findings of quantum physics to its conclusion, it leads to consciousness and ultimately God. Observers collapse the wave function.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I believe in God too. If one follows the findings of quantum physics to its conclusion, it leads to consciousness and ultimately God. Observers collapse the wave function.

I don’t think that observers really collapse wave-functions because I don’t think wave-functions actually exist.

Instead, I think that observers, in observing (in the interaction between light and matter), do something to what they are observing on the microscopic level, and the empirical results of this are described in words as “collapsing the wave-function”.

I don’t think quantum mechanics requires consciousness or God, except that it required people to make up the theory that explains a great amount of data, and that has made many positive predictions.

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=Paul_Rimmer;6916629]I believe in God. I don’t believe in wave-functions.

I think that wave-functions are useful inventions to correlate observations, and nothing more. After all, wave-functions are complex; they contain imaginary numbers. Where does the imaginary part of a wave-function exist?

No, I don’t buy this argument because it involves a very incomplete picture, and metaphysical assertions on things I don’t believe exist.

let me ask do you believe in the number 2? do you believe in the number 2-3i? do you believe that the description of an alternating current with real and imaginary parts (i.e using the square root of -1) in a circuit with capacitances, resistors and inductors is “real”? and what, finally, do you mean by “real”? If you read Chiao’s article (and other works on quantum mechanics) you’ll see that wave-functions (or state-vectors to be more universal) are as real as the number system. And if you deny that reality …well. Indeed, if I was a Platonist, I would hold the only real things are in fact ideals–numbers and greatest of all–God.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

let me ask do you believe in the number 2? do you believe in the number 2-3i? do you believe that the description of an alternating current with real and imaginary parts (i.e using the square root of -1) in a circuit with capacitances, resistors and inductors is “real”?

No, no, and no.

Within the context of good old physics, what’s “real” is what’s seen. In measurement, this means a number joined to some sort of unit, or a ratio. But the number itself isn’t real, it’s just quantifying what I happen to see.

The way I imagine science to work, very simplistically, is that we experience different events, and try to explain these events by inventing things, pretty-much out of whole-cloth. These things we invent are valued only in their self-consistency and their ability to correlate past experiences and predict future ones.

And if you deny that reality …well.

Well what?

 

[Anselm33]

No, no, and no.

Within the context of good old physics, what’s “real” is what’s seen. In measurement, this means a number joined to some sort of unit, or a ratio. But the number itself isn’t real, it’s just quantifying what I happen to see.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

This may be the way you imagine science to work, but it isn’t the way practicing scientists (including myself) think it works.

Well, I’m also a practicing scientist. I think science works this way. So do, by self-admission, Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson, Mioara Mugur-Schächte, and many others.

Many scientists disagree about how science works. The important thing is the quality of the science itself, and not really the underlying philosophy, though I think one influences the other.

Ultimately, though, this is my opinion.

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=Paul_Rimmer;6918679]Well, I’m also a practicing scientist. I think science works this way. So do, by self-admission, Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson, Mioara Mugur-Schächte, and many others.

Many scientists disagree about how science works. The important thing is the quality of the science itself, and not really the underlying philosophy, though I think one influences the other.

Ultimately, though, this is my opinion.

Right… you might want to read works by Bas Van Fraassen, also an empiricist and anti-realist philosopher. You would agree with him; I don’t.
And your choice of Hawking is interesting–his quondam colleague (who is, I think, a better mathematician and scientist), Roger Penrose, is an avowed Platonist. And of course it was Einstein, in trying to refute the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, who was the ultimate scientific realist.
But you still haven’t defined what you consider to be “real”. sensory data? or ???

 

[awatkins69]

I think Bohr and Heisenberg were also sort of Platonists.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

But you still haven’t defined what you consider to be “real”. sensory data? or ???

Well, I’m not much of a philosopher (I’m still pretty young, don’t have much time on my hands, and am of a pretty limited intelligence). I did read Jacques Maritain, and agree with his formulation. Science (what he calls “physico-mathematical science”) deals with sense-experience and correlating sense-experience only. When we talk about reality, we start doing the work of metaphysics. In those terms, I’m a committed Thomist.

It is interesting to note that Jacques Maritain also denied the objective or real existence of wave functions, holding them to be mathematical forms (abstractions from some real thing) used to correlate certain sense-experiences.

Finally, I don’t want to put too many philosophical conclusions on the end of quantum mechanical formalism, because I think it is a partial answer with some very serious problems.

 

[JDaniel]

Paul_Rimmer;6916784:

No, no, and no.

numbers aren’t real??? again I ask, what do you mean by “real”?

Anslem:

Numbers have a twofold correlation to reality: On the one hand, numbers can be merely abstract, such as 2 or 12. Or, they can have an applied sense, such as 2 bears or 12 wolves. You will not be bothered, while on a camping trip, by a 2 or a 12, from the first sense.

God bless,
jd

 

[itinerant1]

I think Bohr and Heisenberg were also sort of Platonists.

What makes you think Bohr and Heisenberg were "sort of Platonists?

 

[Geremia]

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

I have heard of the former but not the latter. Thanks, though

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

Amen! Then I won’t be a minority anymore.

Check out this that I have compiled on my website:
Scholasticism in Empiriological Sciences

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Check out this that I have compiled on my website: Scholasticism in Empiriological Sciences

Nice to know that we got somebody on the inside with some good knowledge of science. Can you please make a thread describing what “energy” actually is, and why it cannot be the first cause of all reality. In other-words, explain why energy is not “esse”. It would be nice to have somebody such as yourself set the record straight.

 

[Geremia]

Can you please make a thread describing what “energy” actually is, and why it cannot be the first cause of all reality. In other-words, explain why energy is not “esse”.

Do you mean whether energy is just a being of reason we use to understand reality or if it is an extra-mental reality?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Do you mean whether energy is just a being of reason we use to understand reality or if it is an extra-mental reality?

I mean, in the sense of saying that energy is its own esse. But i think you should start by explaining what energy actually is first, and then move on to explaining why energy cannot be said to be it own esse. Many people confuse the scientific concept that energy cannot be destroyed or created with the metaphysical concept of an essence being its own esse, or a thing being its own existence. This presents a barrier in understanding why the Thomistic view of reality is valid and is also consistent with scientific truths.

If it can be said that energy is its own esse, then there is no need to seek a transcendent cause of physical reality

I think that this will be a good topic for the forum. Thanks

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

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.

If I understand the argument , it would make no difference if cats or electrons could do so, though.

It would still mean that at some point, the universe was potentia, so an intelligent being would have had to start the process. Hi, God.

And, when He moved potentia to reality, it would mean that He could certainly “stop observing”, therefore proving that He (at the very least) loves us enough to continue observing and therefore keep our reality, reality.

IMO.

 

[Geremia]

I mean, in the sense of saying that energy is its own esse.

You mean that energy is God, something immaterial Whose essence is the same as Its existence? I think you are alluding to disproving extreme materialism (pantheism).

You might be interested in St. Thomas Aquinas’s De æternitate mundi (On the Eternity of the World).

But i think you should start by explaining what energy actually is first, and then move on to explaining why energy cannot be said to be it own esse. Many people confuse the scientific concept that energy cannot be destroyed or created with the metaphysical concept of an essence being its own esse, or a thing being its own existence.

Yes, many people confuse the world for God.

This presents a barrier in understanding why the Thomistic view of reality is valid and is also consistent with scientific truths.

This is very true. I’ve never looked at it that way, though.

If it can be said that energy is its own esse, then there is no need to seek a transcendent cause of physical reality

Yes, why not just say that the universe doesn’t have a cause? I think that would be detrimental to explaining the order of the universe. That the universe is orderly and has a rational plan is a philosophical apriorism that all scientists assume, after all.