george murphy wrote:
>
> Peter Ruest wrote:
>
> > George Murphy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I find such a proposal vaguely troubling, though I can't easily
> > > > put my finger on the difficulty. If
> > > > some wave packet collapses are "left to chance" then we've dropped the
> > > > principle of sufficient
> > > > reason. Perhaps we need to. But then to say that God determines the
> > > > results of some of these
> > > > collapses means that there is a sufficient reason for the results of
> > > > those measurements. Thus God
> > > > could provide a reason for all the other measurements, but doesn't.
> > >
> > > PR: Again, the principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical
> > > supposition, not a requirement of logic. But even if it were true, it
> > > wouldn't follow that God would have to "provide a reason" for _all_
> > > measurements. If we look at it from a theological viewpoint, God may
> > > decree that a certain mutation happens, in a second case he may decree a
> > > spectrum of possible mutations, and in a third case he may just do
> > > nothing, having decreed the mutation mechanisms with their stochastic
> > > properties at the beginning of life.
> >
> > GLM: Again, you're focussing on biological issues but the problem is
> > broader than that. It involves every case of an electron being observed in
> > one place rather than another. I agree that we aren't required to accept the
> > principle of sufficient reason but it seems to me, as I said, "troubling," to
> > have to drop it and say that some things happen for no reason at all. & this
> > is especially so because we would not be saying simply that there is no
> > natural cause that it happens that way. We would be saying that God is not
> > even the cause of that event.
> >
> > PR: OK, let me try a hand at "collapsing wave packets"! What would it
> > mean if God didn't collapse certain wave packets individually, namely
> > those he doesn't care about, because any result of their collapsing
> > would not make any difference in his plans? Instead, they could collapse
> > in a genuinely random manner, God having specified, at the big bang, a
> > global "hidden variable" describing the pattern to which their
> > collapsing has to conform (or would that not even be a hidden variable,
> > but the known probability distribution?). So, these really random events
> > would not "happen for no reason at all". God would truly be the Author
> > of the results specified individually at any given time in the history
> > of the universe, as well as the Author of those specified collectively,
> > as a Gaussian or other distribution, at the big bang.
> >
> > If such a scheme could be acceptable in physics, maybe an analogous
> > distinction of individual vs. collective specifications could be applied
> > to biological mutations. God would be the Author of all elementary
> > events having usual probabilities, as well as the Author of
> > transastronomically improbable ones, which he would specify individually
> > and purposefully, thus introducing additional information into the
> > system at specific places and times.
>
> A lot of attempts have been made to introduce hidden variables into QM but
> very severe constraints have been placed on such theories. If a vialble hidden
> variable theory could be constructed then at a fundamental level we'd being
> dealing with a deterministic physics again - although perhaps quite different
> from the classical variety, with non-local interactions &c. Theologically one
> would think of God concurring with the processes described by the hidden
> variables, & then in your scenario we'd have to ask what God does differently
> in a few biologically significant events. It seems to me that we'd have to
> fall back to an interventionist or "miraculous" explanation for them - i.e.,
> for some events the laws that normally describe the hidden variables would be
> violated.
If you come to these conclusions, I have used the concept of a "hidden
variable" in the wrong way. What I meant was to suggest that God may
have decreed genuine chance outcomes for most elementary events, yet
reserve for himself the liberty of making a selection among all possible
outcomes for certain events he deems of particular importance for a
certain goal. In this way, the whole system would not be deterministic,
and God's selective acts would not constitute any "miraculous"
interventions violating any of his laws (they could not be detected by
science).
Peter
> It probably seems that all I'm doing here is pointing out problems.
> Exactly! I think that getting a coherent view of how God acts (or doesn't act)
> at the quantum level is a significant theological puzzle, connected with the
> fact that we don't have an adequate understanding of the measurement problem in
> QM as a problem of physics.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 13:32:33 EST