From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 10:50:08 EDT
Should we not be careful to recognize that "make the wave packet
collapse" language refers only to a mathematical model, and thereby the
behavior of reality and not the reality itself? Maybe everyone does that
reflexively, and this is of no particular concern. I guess it just seems
a bit askew when we talk about the possibility of thought making the
wave equation collapse. JimA
,
George Murphy wrote:
>Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>
>>My friend Howard asks for a science and religion topic. I hope this
>>qualifies. I have pondered the implications of a Scientific American
>>article which I read on the plane on the way back from the UK. The article
>>is Max T Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," Scientific American May 2003, p.
>>40-51.
>>
>>The article notes that the region of the universe which we can observe, is
>>cT big, where c is the speed of light and T is the age of the universe. This
>>is approximately 10^26 meters away in all directions. Now, each second this
>>region grows by c meters bringing a part of the universe which was
>>previously unobservable within view. Thus this clearly implies that the
>>real universe is much larger than what we can see. And here is where the
>>issue gets interesting, at least to me.
>>Someone at a point in another region of space is equally limited in his view
>>of the universe. and if you place observers as in separate regions, as
>>illustrated by
>>
>>http://home.entouch.net/dmd/parallel.bmp
>>
>>each centered in his own universe equal in size to our own but only touching
>>our universe, you get regions of space which are causally disconnected from
>>each other which have a different arrangment of the matter. Each volume can
>>be termed a 'Hubble volume' Using quantum one can count the permutations of
>>matter which can occur in each of these Hubble volumes. It turns out that
>>the matter can be arranged in 2^(10^118)) different patterns. After that,
>>the patterns must repeat! That means that if the universe is bigger than
>>this many Hubble volumes, duplication of an entire Hubble volume occurs.
>>Thus, if our universe is duplicated, it means that there is another you and
>>another me out there in a galaxy far far away.
>>
>>The universe doesn't have to be infinite for this to occur. It can be quite
>>finite, just extremely large. Thus one doesn't have to grant infinite power
>>or extent to the created universe. And this brings us to the theological
>>issue.
>>
>>How would God be able to predetermine events in a universe based upon
>>quantum? As far as one can tell there are no hidden variables i.e. no
>>underlying rules which govern quantum events. They appear to be chance
>>related, unpredictable.
>>
>>But if, the universe was rigged so that every possible permutation occurred,
>>then the universe is entirely predictable. Only the location in the greater
>>universe of a particular Hubble arrangement isn't predictable.
>>
>>This is something most Christians probably won't like because it is a
>>trivial predeterminism, unless one considers that creating a universe that
>>big can't possibly be trivial. One thing I like about this view is that it
>>doesn't have to depend upon Hugh Everett's many world's hypothesis solution
>>to the collapse wave function.
>>
>>Theologically, the objection, I suspect will be that it diminishes God.
>>Does it?
>>
>>
>
> It diminishes God only if one thinks that the model of God as absolute monarch
>is necessary. But if God's action in the world is distinguished by kenosis (as the NT
>suggests) then God's not having complete control of all events is the kind of thing we
>might expect. (BTW this would be part of an answer to the question I posed yesterday
>about distinctive Christian insights on relision-science issues.)
> But this still leaves the question "What makes the wave packet collapse?" (The
>Everett idea isn't an answer to this question but a way of avoiding "collapse" in favor
>of a splitting of the universe.) It doesn't seem satisfactory (Leibniz' principle of
>sufficient reason) to say "It just happens." & having some ultimate cause other than
>God is unsatisfactory.
>
> Or - one can argue that God acts at the quantum level to collapse wave packets
>for some or all events in such a way that there is no contradiction with our statistical
>laws of quantum theory. Bob Russell has recently made use of this idea to speak about
>God's action in, and direction of, the evolutionary process at the molecular level. (An
>article of his will be in the collection of essays edited by Keith Miller, _Perspectives
>on an Evolving Creation_ which will be out from Eerdmans later this summer.) One
>problem with this is that, unless there are hidden variables, God has to act directly on
>quantum events.
> Another way to play it is to appeal to the idea that it is the entrance of
>consciousness into the measurement process that makes the wave packet collapse. If one
>then asks what makes the wave function of the observer's mind collapse &c one is led
>finally to the claim that there must be some ultimate intelligence which makes all
>observations definite, and thus to something like a QM proof of the existence of God
>(Belinfante). It can be asked whether God can be said to "observe" the universe in the
>same sense that one uses the term in QM. Again I think there is the possibility of a
>distinctive insight from Christianity, that the mind of God is uniquely linked to a mind
>within the universe & all its perceptual apparatus via the Incarnation.
>
> I dealt with some of these questions - though certainly not definitively - in my
>article "Does the Trinity Play Dice?" in the March 1999 issue of _Perspectives on
>Science and Christian Faith_.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 10:50:29 EDT
