Quantum Physics and Free Will, Omniscience, and Determinism

[aquohn]

Alright, I am about to present a controversial original viewpoint. I hope that readers take time to think about the implications, and give rational reasons for/against this.

Being a philosopher, Catholic, and physicist, I have considered deeply the theological implications of the field known as quantum physics. Quantum physics is a highly complicated field, no attempt at explanation will be made here. Interested readers are welcome to check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics.

Well, basically, in layman’s terms, the overwhelming evidence is in favour of a model of the universe where things are decided non-deterministically. In other words, it is impossible to know the outcome of certain things from initial conditions. Additionally, the act of measurement of certain things will force them to behave differently than if they had not been measured (and evidence indicates that this is simply because we obtained knowledge of it), and this seems to be a feature of reality itself: reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Now this seems to be a very human-centred position, which is good (for Catholics), since we are made in the image of God and ipso facto hold a special position in this universe. Additionally, a mildly technial argument can show that there has to exist an external consciousness (read: God) for the universe to exist.

Now all this is fine and good, until one remembers that God knows everything, including that which will happen in the future. This simply cannot occur in a non-determinsitic universe (cf. Laplace’s demon), and conflcits with the problem of systems behaving differently when people obtain information about them. Circumventing this with the ‘God can do anything’ card is like saying that God can create a square circle: it doesn’t magically become possible just because we say ‘God can’.

So, therefore, I propose an amendment to the Catholic Church’s stance on omniscience, which happens to kill a few annoying problems such as ‘why would God create us?’, ‘why would God need us to pray if he already has a ‘plan’ ahead for us?’, ‘how do we reconiccle free will with omniscience’, etc.: God does not know what is in the future.

Before people decry me for heresy, allow me to offer a technical argument in my defence. If God knows everything that is going to happen, he knows exactly when and how I will die. But if I am placed in a situation where my life and death rest on a quantum event (cf. Schrodinger’s Cat), then God cannot know exactly when I will die.

God knows everything in existence at any moment, but he cannot predict how it would evolve since it is non-deterministic. He can influence it (though he doesn’t do it in very spectacular ways anymore, cf. Elijah at Mt. Sinai), but not predict its evolution. Wouldn’t it be better if we could write our own world, our own damnation and salvation (to an extremely small extent, but still)? Wouldn’t such a creation have more value? Wouldn’t it be a better test of ourselves.

As I said, a controversial viewpoint. But feedback would be appreciated.

 

[DexUK]

Those elements of your description that are non-deterministic are so only because we lack the means to determine their state without changing them. It’s not that they are in an actually unknown state to God, who’s observation of, say, quarks, is not on our level.

All things are known to God because all things were created by God. And God is outside time and space because God created time and space. God is not limited in his capacity to understand in the way that we are limited. He is in and around everything, including time itself.

We are limited to a linear existence. We can only experience one point of the dimension of time within the three physical dimensions we’re used to. God is wholly without limitation. It is therefore quite wrong to try to ‘box God in’ in the way you do.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I echo the first respondent. It is a basic tenet of Catholic theology that God supercedes the natural order. Specifically, that he is outside of time, and therefore all things are present to him. Indeterminism (which, for the sake of proper terminology, is what you should be saying instead of “non-determinsm” ) can only be applicable in a closed system that includes time.

Even still, the idea does present something of a paradox to the human mind. It’s times like these when it is good to remember that that human mind is finite and there are certain things we just cannot understand. The best hypothesis I have presented to myself when questioning this matter is that God’s act of creation and his understanding of its results exist independently of one another. That is to say that God could create a system with the ability for its constituent parts (read: us) to act independently of Him, but at the same time know the course those things will ultimately follow.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The problem with the notion of considering quantum and theoretical physics and concluding that the universe is non-deterministic is this: just because something looks random does not mean it is random. I wouldn’t assume that a leaf blowing across my path randomly appeared from thin air just because I didn’t see it fall from a particular tree, and likewise, we shouldn’t assume that happenings are random/non-deterministic just because we can’t see the infinitely complex mechanisms behind reality.

Reality is the manifestation of God and his knowledge. He is infinite and beyond our understanding. How then could we ever fully comprehend the inner workings of the universe?

 

[Bobber90]

Alright, I am about to present a controversial original viewpoint. I hope that readers take time to think about the implications, and give rational reasons for/against this.

Being a philosopher, Catholic, and physicist, I have considered deeply the theological implications of the field known as quantum physics. Quantum physics is a highly complicated field, no attempt at explanation will be made here. Interested readers are welcome to check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics.

Well, basically, in layman’s terms, the overwhelming evidence is in favour of a model of the universe where things are decided non-deterministically. In other words, it is impossible to know the outcome of certain things from initial conditions. Additionally, the act of measurement of certain things will force them to behave differently than if they had not been measured (and evidence indicates that this is simply because we obtained knowledge of it), and this seems to be a feature of reality itself: reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Now this seems to be a very human-centred position, which is good (for Catholics), since we are made in the image of God and ipso facto hold a special position in this universe. Additionally, a mildly technial argument can show that there has to exist an external consciousness (read: God) for the universe to exist.

Now all this is fine and good, until one remembers that God knows everything, including that which will happen in the future. This simply cannot occur in a non-determinsitic universe (cf. Laplace’s demon), and conflcits with the problem of systems behaving differently when people obtain information about them. Circumventing this with the ‘God can do anything’ card is like saying that God can create a square circle: it doesn’t magically become possible just because we say ‘God can’.

So, therefore, I propose an amendment to the Catholic Church’s stance on omniscience, which happens to kill a few annoying problems such as ‘why would God create us?’, ‘why would God need us to pray if he already has a ‘plan’ ahead for us?’, ‘how do we reconiccle free will with omniscience’, etc.: God does not know what is in the future.

Before people decry me for heresy, allow me to offer a technical argument in my defence. If God knows everything that is going to happen, he knows exactly when and how I will die. But if I am placed in a situation where my life and death rest on a quantum event (cf. Schrodinger’s Cat), then God cannot know exactly when I will die.

God knows everything in existence at any moment, but he cannot predict how it would evolve since it is non-deterministic. He can influence it (though he doesn’t do it in very spectacular ways anymore, cf. Elijah at Mt. Sinai), but not predict its evolution. Wouldn’t it be better if we could write our own world, our own damnation and salvation (to an extremely small extent, but still)? Wouldn’t such a creation have more value? Wouldn’t it be a better test of ourselves.

As I said, a controversial viewpoint. But feedback would be appreciated.

Fascinating post and a stimulating topic, I just want to question the minor point about anthropocentrism. I thought that the exact position/velocity of a particle was impossible to determine because of the physical effects of detecting it - the impact of photons/electrons disturbing its course - not because of our having knowledge per se. But then I’m also remembering the wave/particle duality, and maybe that behaves in an even more freaky way. I agree with your conclusions tho, that if the universe is not deterministic, it is impossible to predict certain outcomes.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Fascinating post and a stimulating topic, I just want to question the minor point about anthropocentrism. I thought that the exact position/velocity of a particle was impossible to determine because of the physical effects of detecting it - the impact of photons/electrons disturbing its course - not because of our having knowledge per se. But then I’m also remembering the wave/particle duality, and maybe that behaves in an even more freaky way. I agree with your conclusions tho, that if the universe is not deterministic, it is impossible to predict certain outcomes.

As to the location of particles, if I’m remembering correctly, the problem with determining it as such is nonlocality; that is, they are actually in multiple places at the same time. If I’m not mistaken this ties into the wave/particle duality.

 

[Bobber90]

As to the location of particles, if I’m remembering correctly, the problem with determining it as such is nonlocality; that is, they are actually in multiple places at the same time. If I’m not mistaken this ties into the wave/particle duality.

True. But that nonlocality of particles in itself doesn’t tell us whether it is the act of trying to detect or the fact of holding knowledge about a particle that causes the particle to alter. I find it highly odd to think that a particle would be affected by information about it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

True. But that nonlocality of particles in itself doesn’t tell us whether it is the act of trying to detect or the fact of holding knowledge about a particle that causes the particle to alter. I find it highly odd to think that a particle would be affected by information about it.

Ah, yes. Beneath the mysterious veil of existence lies only more veils.

Things like this are what make me scoff at materialist philosophies. They reduce everything to what can be measured by human senses. There are some organisms that do not possess sight, others no sense of sound, etc. Heck, plants share virtually none, if any, of our sensory capabilities. Why, then, do scientists assume we are in possession of every possible faculty of comprehension?

 

[Bobber90]

Ah, yes. Beneath the mysterious veil of existence lies only more veils.

Things like this are what make me scoff at materialist philosophies. They reduce everything to what can be measured by human senses. There are some organisms that do not possess sight, others no sense of sound, etc. Heck, plants share virtually none, if any, of our sensory capabilities. Why, then, do scientists assume we are in possession of every possible faculty of comprehension?

Haha! I’m not sure that’s entirely fair though, Dawkins does have a talk on ted.com where he says the universe is likely queerer than we can imagine, because of the constraints on the way we imagine which exist as a result of our particular evolution of senses for our environment. He compares the way bats would ‘see’ the world, for example.

We can still get machines to do the perception for us, so we’re not totally incapacitated, and what’s wrong with a materialist philosophy that acknowledges human’s can’t see around corners? The limits of human senses are important to all philosophies!

 

[aquohn]

Hoo, that was fast.

Alright, to make it easier, I strongly recommend all readers to read the article provided. It provides an excellent, well-rounded, and accessible introduction to the topic.

Anyway, on to the main stuff. The first two respondents: to be honest, your arguments sound a bit like cop-outs. An atheist would tear them down. Just saying.

On the other hand, you still need to explain the determinism and free will issue. The Cathechism articles are not particularly helpful. How can God know exactly what we are going to do, predestine only some people to go to heaven and not to hell, and give us free will all at the same time? Molinism is a cunning riposte, but fails under quantum physics. I still stand by my position that quantum physics qualifies the universe as indeterministic (nods at prodigalson2011), and it would help if you actually attempt to examine the reasons why most scientists accept indeterministic models (nods at ivebeenshown). Trust me, they are highly compelling. God must hate us if the hudnreds of Bell test violations are flukes.

And of course the correspondence principle comes into play for my theory. It answered the questions ‘why would God create us?’ (highly valuable universe if he does not know exactly how it would play out; you’d rather watch a new movie than one you know completely, down to the slightest jitter of a quark, and besides, such a unvierse is devoid of free will by definition), ‘why would God need us to pray if he already has a ‘plan’ ahead for us?’ (simple: he doesn’t), and of course ‘how do we reconcile free will with omniscience’. You’d have to answer all of them too. and cop-outs don’t stand too well in actual debates with atheists. I know what it feels like.

Those who raise the point of Heisenberg’s microscope (the observer effect is entirely due to the physical effect of the observation), ignore, yes, wave-particle duality (I’m not sure how non-locality [entagnlement] and multiple particles from one got involved; those are different concepts altogether and largely irrelavent for the purposes of argument; I redirect the confused reader to Wikipedia). Specifically, the Wheeler’s delayed choice experiement and quantum eraser variants of the double-slit experiement (once again, Wikipedia to the rescue), show that attempts at measurement can be reversed. I interpret the threshold for irreversibility to be human perceivability (as a matter of fact, I am currently planning an experiement to confirm this conclusion of the above experiements), as I believe the true agents of wavefunction collapse to be human souls, created, of course, by God. No doubt it is extremely weird to think that mere knowledge of facts by humans constructs the universe (those seasoned in science would know), summarise quantum physics and present it to any man on the street. They will no doubt agree it is very weird, or even laugh at you. But quantum physics has been tested extensively; its ‘weirdness’ experimentally verified and relied upon for the existence of much of modern technology (including this thing I’m putting keystrokes into). Unless, of course, God is trying to pull a divine joke on us, I highly doubt quantum theory is incorrect, despite what the man on the street might say. What makes us so sure that this viewpoint is wrong?

 

[Bobber90]

Thanks for the pointers, I’ll give wikipedia a go. What kind of experiment would be able to tell the difference between the influence of observing and the influence of knowing, on a particle? You can’t have one without the other: you can’t observe not-observing, and you can’t know without observing. Like how it is impossible to see the full front of both eyelids at once (in their normal place) with your own eyes!

 

[carn]

Being a philosopher, Catholic, and physicist, I have considered deeply the theological implications of the field known as quantum physics. Quantum physics is a highly complicated field, no attempt at explanation will be made here. Interested readers are welcome to check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics.

Additionally, the act of measurement of certain things will force them to behave differently than if they had not been measured (and evidence indicates that this is simply because we obtained knowledge of it), and this seems to be a feature of reality itself: reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately i have to advise you to carefully reread the books about physics.

Our knowledge is completely irrelevant for what is going on physically.

This misunderstanding unfortunately is widespread, since in describing what is going on the term “measurement” is used. But it does not matter whether its a measurement. If though some bizzare cricumstances (e.g. em-fields around black holes) particles are accelerated as fast as they are currently accelerated in CERN and collide with some similar fast particles, then exactly the same thing will happen as is currently happening in CERN.

The presence or absence of detectors and the presence or absence of humans noticing the detector output does not influence in any way the reaction going on.

Regarding the topic though this actually helps your arguments, current physics does not only claim we cannot know, where under some circumstances a specific particle is, it claims that under such circumstances particles do not have a defined property “position”, but only a function containing a range of options.

Or to formulate it differently:
Physics claims that if you ask the universe “Where is particle X?” the answer often would be: “The question has currently no answer.”

Which of course reinforces the philosophical problems raised in the OP:

Current physics suggest that omniscience does not include knowledge about exact particle positions under many circumstances, because exact particle positions are many circumstances simply do not exist and therefore nothing can be known about them.

As omniscience only includes knowledge about what might be the potential positions of a particle in case of something going on being dependent upon particle position, the simple omniscience limited to this universe, aka knowing everything potentially be known about the material universe to the finest detail, cannot include certain knowledge about the future.

(Of course for God this problem might be resolved by Him being outside time.)

 

[carn]

What kind of experiment would be able to tell the difference between the influence of observing and the influence of knowing, on a particle?

There is no such effect that our knowledge the result of any experiment. If humans vanish today and the experiment of physicists continue to run automatically, they will record the same.

 

[carn]

Good, now i can make appeal to authority:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Criticism
"Heisenberg says,

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[20]
"

What he should have said more precisely is that not only the observer cannot only be an apparatus, but anything. E.g. if some radioactive material is inside a cell near the DNA and decays with the product hitting the DNA without hitting anything else beforehand and damaging it, then the “measurement” is the interaction between DNA and decay product. And the decay happened just as a decay in a physic lab detected by a Geiger counter.

 

[aquohn]

Good, now i can make appeal to authority:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Criticism
"Heisenberg says,

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[20]
"

What he should have said more precisely is that not only the observer cannot only be an apparatus, but anything. E.g. if some radioactive material is inside a cell near the DNA and decays with the product hitting the DNA without hitting anything else beforehand and damaging it, then the “measurement” is the interaction between DNA and decay product. And the decay happened just as a decay in a physic lab detected by a Geiger counter.

That is just one, widespread, interpretation of quantum physics. It does not make it the right one. And if the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ idea is correct, then I have demonstrated (as has someone else on this forum somewhere else) that it porves God must exist.

I have never read any texts advocating the ‘consciousness causes collapse’ theory. It is held by only a few physicists (including me). It just happens to be my favoured interpretation, because it directtly proves the neccessity of God.

And actually, if you study the Wheeler and quantum eraser experiments properly, you realise that such an interaction is present, with the measuring devices which force it to adopt a wave or particle nature respectively. However, this nature can be erased by making it interact later with human-readable measuring devices, such as a screen. This strongly suggests that measurements of an object as a particle or a wave only affect reality if they are perceived by humans, once again reinforcing consciousness causes collapse. This problem of what constitutes a measurement is extremely interesting, and listed on Wikipedia is “quantum mechanics in the correspondence limit”, or quantum chaos.

As a matter of fact, your assertion that quantum effects will continue even if there is no-one around to verify them is one possible approach to testing the hypothesis. The main diffculty is shielding all information from passing in and out of a closed system.

Once more, I suggest all critics to read the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
(should be light reading if one has finished the introductions article)
And, clarificationally:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

 

[carn]

Deited and send as PM, as it is irrelvant to the thread theme, which is that God created a universe, wherein the position of a particle is not defined until certain circumstances are met. (Me and aquohn in disagreement about what these circumstances are).
And yet the future of the universe depends upon what these positions are, when the time arrives where it is relevant.

How can God still know the future?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I still stand by my position that quantum physics qualifies the universe as indeterministic

Perhaps you can say that physical objects are indeterministic, but you cannot say that the act of reality is not present to every act. A physical thing is always actually somewhere in existence; it cannot be absolutely nowhere in existence. God is the act by which a thing is real. Thus it is impossible for Gods knowledge not to be present to the actual position of any object; otherwise the object would not be real.

1. God is the act of reality (esse), is non-physical, and thus transcends all space-time in the sense of not being limited to a particular point or place.
2. God perfectly knows his own reality
3. All contingent beings participate in the act of Gods reality
4. Therefore God timelessly knows the position of all objects, insofar as the fact that God perfectly knows his own act of reality.

 

[carn]

Thus it is impossible for Gods knowledge not to be present to the actual position of any object; otherwise the object would not be real.

1. Therefore God timelessly knows the position of all objects, insofar as the fact that God perfectly knows his own act of reality.

The point is that the sentence “the electron is at the moment in the left of the two slits” is under certain circumstances (which can be reproduced in lab and also could happen naturally), is completely without any meaning (at least it seems to be that way).

Its like saying “glubber is donatically tranpondent”. This term has absolutely no meaning. And physics indicates the same is true under some circumstances for particles.

Does God know whether “glubber is donatically transpondent”?
Does God know whether “the electron is at the moment in the left of the two slits?”

I do not think there is reason He should know the answers to such non-sensical questions.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Why would quantum indeterminancy lead to global indeterminancy?

 

[tafan]

Alright, I am about to present a controversial original viewpoint. I hope that readers take time to think about the implications, and give rational reasons for/against this.

Being a philosopher, Catholic, and physicist, I have considered deeply the theological implications of the field known as quantum physics. Quantum physics is a highly complicated field, no attempt at explanation will be made here. Interested readers are welcome to check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics.

Well, basically, in layman’s terms, the overwhelming evidence is in favour of a model of the universe where things are decided non-deterministically. In other words, it is impossible to know the outcome of certain things from initial conditions. Additionally, the act of measurement of certain things will force them to behave differently than if they had not been measured (and evidence indicates that this is simply because we obtained knowledge of it), and this seems to be a feature of reality itself: reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Now this seems to be a very human-centred position, which is good (for Catholics), since we are made in the image of God and ipso facto hold a special position in this universe. Additionally, a mildly technial argument can show that there has to exist an external consciousness (read: God) for the universe to exist.

Now all this is fine and good, until one remembers that God knows everything, including that which will happen in the future. This simply cannot occur in a non-determinsitic universe (cf. Laplace’s demon), and conflcits with the problem of systems behaving differently when people obtain information about them. Circumventing this with the ‘God can do anything’ card is like saying that God can create a square circle: it doesn’t magically become possible just because we say ‘God can’.

So, therefore, I propose an amendment to the Catholic Church’s stance on omniscience, which happens to kill a few annoying problems such as ‘why would God create us?’, ‘why would God need us to pray if he already has a ‘plan’ ahead for us?’, ‘how do we reconiccle free will with omniscience’, etc.: God does not know what is in the future.

Before people decry me for heresy, allow me to offer a technical argument in my defence. If God knows everything that is going to happen, he knows exactly when and how I will die. But if I am placed in a situation where my life and death rest on a quantum event (cf. Schrodinger’s Cat), then God cannot know exactly when I will die.

God knows everything in existence at any moment, but he cannot predict how it would evolve since it is non-deterministic. He can influence it (though he doesn’t do it in very spectacular ways anymore, cf. Elijah at Mt. Sinai), but not predict its evolution. Wouldn’t it be better if we could write our own world, our own damnation and salvation (to an extremely small extent, but still)? Wouldn’t such a creation have more value? Wouldn’t it be a better test of ourselves.

As I said, a controversial viewpoint. But feedback would be appreciated.

If God is outside the universe (including time), why does non-determinism preclude him from knowing what will happen in the future? God’s omniscienct knowledge of the future is not that of a watchmaker who knows how the device will work in the future because he understands its current state and its mechanism for working, and hence can accurately predict its state in the future. He is not predictive. God’s omniscient knowledge is because he is outside of time and can see all events “at once”.