Harmonizing quantum mechanics with Christianity

[Ben_Shipman]

To the extent I understand QM, nothing is determined until it is observed, and “observation” is not a well-defined term, but most often refers to information entering consciousness.

This suggests that most of the universe is ‘fuzzy’ and awaits observation by some sort of consciousness to collapse it into a precise configuration.

Does this seem like a problem? Or have I misconstrued something?

There are alternative, ‘spontaneous collapse’ theories that do not require an observer, but as they lack experimental confirmation, I want to know if intellectually resorting to them is well-motivated.

 

[vz71]

To the extent I understand QM, nothing is determined until it is observed, and “observation” is not a well-defined term, but most often refers to information entering consciousness.

This suggests that most of the universe is ‘fuzzy’ and awaits observation by some sort of consciousness to collapse it into a precise configuration.

Does this seem like a problem? Or have I misconstrued something?

There are alternative, ‘spontaneous collapse’ theories that do not require an observer, but as they lack experimental confirmation, I want to know if intellectually resorting to them is well-motivated.

So how is it the universe remains so in the full consciousness and under the observance of God?

I suspect more is not known then is known here.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

Well, God simply knows what is. He doesn’t have to observe it in the quantum mechanical sense.

The question is, what is? Or even what is “is”? Your present is different from my present, if you are in a different relativistic reference frame.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. For example, the book
: The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Peter R. Holland argues that quantum processes may be visualized without ambiguity.

 

[You]

I’m not sure it means that observing determines an event. Maybe its a technical problem of having to put another physical material lump of matter into the system to measure it that changes how the whole system is functioning. So making an observation really means you are not looking at the original system but one that changes depending on where you put the new physical lump to observe it…

 

[Ben_Shipman]

I’m not sure it means that observing determines an event. Maybe its a technical problem of having to put another physical material lump of matter into the system to measure it that changes how the whole system is functioning. So making an observation really means you are not looking at the original system but one that changes depending on where you put the new physical lump to observe it…

Putting a lump of material into the system entangles the system with something large, but that doesn’t explain why the wavefunction of the system + lump should collapse into one configuration. It would explain, via decoherence, why we can only see one configuration, since we are big lumps ourselves, but that is only if you accept the Many Worlds Interpretation, which seems to me to be at odds with a Christian view of self-determination and free will.

There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. For example, the book
: The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Peter R. Holland argues that quantum processes may be visualized without ambiguity.

The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is deterministic, and thus seemingly incompatible with free will.

 

[Beryllos]

To the extent I understand QM, nothing is determined until it is observed, and “observation” is not a well-defined term, but most often refers to information entering consciousness.

This suggests that most of the universe is ‘fuzzy’ and awaits observation by some sort of consciousness to collapse it into a precise configuration.

Does this seem like a problem? Or have I misconstrued something?

There are alternative, ‘spontaneous collapse’ theories that do not require an observer, but as they lack experimental confirmation, I want to know if intellectually resorting to them is well-motivated.

I think a lot of people have misconstrued that. “Observation” in quantum mechanics certainly does not imply mind, thought, information, will, or consciousness. What it really means is physically interacting with the object, for example by applying a force, shining light on it, or putting something in its path. That changes the state of the object, and may also, but not necessarily, permit an observer to detect the object or to know something about the state of the object.

I think the simplest way to refute the QM-consciousness fallacy is to remind ourselves that observation in QM is a strictly physical event involving matter and/or energy. It could be accomplished by a photographic film, a voltmeter, a robot, or a person. In the QM view, a person, even a conscious observer, is merely a collection of matter and energy. There is no place in the theory, no term in the equation, for thought or consciousness.

 

[Tomdstone]

The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is deterministic, and thus seemingly incompatible with free will.

I don’t see free will described by any model of physics. Quantum mechanics or classical mechanics were not designed to deal with free will or Christian theological questions such as the Trinity or the consciousness of God.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

I think a lot of people have misconstrued that. “Observation” in quantum mechanics certainly does not imply mind, thought, information, will, or consciousness. What it really means is physically interacting with the object, for example by applying a force, shining light on it, or putting something in its path. That changes the state of the object, and may also, but not necessarily, permit an observer to detect the object or to know something about the state of the object.

I think the simplest way to refute the QM-consciousness fallacy is to remind ourselves that observation in QM is a strictly physical event involving matter and/or energy. It could be accomplished by a photographic film, a voltmeter, a robot, or a person. In the QM view, a person, even a conscious observer, is merely a collection of matter and energy. There is no place in the theory, no term in the equation, for thought or consciousness.

When I say observation, I’m talking about wavefunction collapse, not decoherence. Decoherence is what happens when quantum superpositions interact with large objects like measurement devices. The different possibilities cease to interfere with each other. Wavefunction collapse means, if I understand correctly, that some possibilities cease to exist.

Decoherence is implied by the math of quantum mechanics, and with decoherence alone you get that once a measurement device interacts with a superposition, it should end up as a large, decoherent superposition itself. That doesn’t seem to happen. Instead you see only one possibility realize itself.

Wavefunction collapse is assumed in standard quantum mechanics, but it isn’t explained. The Many Worlds Interpretation explains it as an illusion, and at the cost of negating choice in the conventional sense. Collapse seems to be necessary - the question is when does it occur, and why?

I don’t see free will described by any model of physics. Quantum mechanics or classical mechanics were not designed to deal with free will or Christian theological questions such as the Trinity or the consciousness of God.

Indeed not, but they should still be compatible with free will and God, if all of these concepts are real, since one truth must be compatible with another.

 

[fisherman_carl]

To the extent I understand QM, nothing is determined until it is observed, and “observation” is not a well-defined term, but most often refers to information entering consciousness.

This suggests that most of the universe is ‘fuzzy’ and awaits observation by some sort of consciousness to collapse it into a precise configuration.

Does this seem like a problem? Or have I misconstrued something?

There are alternative, ‘spontaneous collapse’ theories that do not require an observer, but as they lack experimental confirmation, I want to know if intellectually resorting to them is well-motivated.

Its interesting to note that This idea of observation effecting what is observed seems to be reflected in Rupert Sheldrake’s extended mind theory. That is he theorizes the mind extends to that which is being observed. Its why when you look at someone from behind they often turn around as if somehow they know you looked at them.

youtu.be/JnA8GUtXpXY

 

[Beryllos]

When I say observation, I’m talking about wavefunction collapse, not decoherence.

Yeah, me too.

Wavefunction collapse means, if I understand correctly, that some possibilities cease to exist.

That’s not the way I see it. Consider a diffraction experiment, for example. In your view, the electron is a particle, and must be either here or there. In my view, the electron is a wave, and it is everywhere at once, like a wave should be. The detector, let’s say a phosphor screen, forces the electron to localize. Then we can speak of probabilities that the electron will be absorbed either here or there, but that doesn’t mean it was either here or there and we just didn’t know which.

There is some math that says the wave can be expressed mathematically as a superposition of infinitely many particles with the right amplitudes and phases, but that is an arbitrary mathematical representation. One could come up with other sets of functions (any complete, orthogonal basis set would do – take wavelets, for example) and express the wave function in that basis set, but that doesn’t mean the electron really is one of those functions. It is much simpler (as in Occam’s Razor) and more natural to simply express it as a diffracting wave.

Wavefunction collapse is assumed in standard quantum mechanics, but it isn’t explained… Collapse seems to be necessary - the question is when does it occur, and why?

Indeed, that is a key to a good understanding of QM. I’ll see if I can look up some resources for you.