Iain says,
>the "design" goes deeper than just having non-zero Planck's constant.
Yes. My page about "Two Explanations for a universe that is Just Right
for Life" describes three types of nature-properties:
When thinking about what might happen (and not happen) if the universe
was slightly different, we can think about three types of properties:
characteristics, constants, and conditions.
The basic characteristics of our universe include matter/energy in a
variety of "elementary particle" forms (like protons,...) and maybe their
hypothetical components (such as quarks or strings), + and - charge,
wave/particle duality (which prevents matter from forming inert clumps of
+- charge) and the resulting quantizations, Pauli Exclusion Principle,
3-dimensional physical space, four basic forces (gravitational,
electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear), causal relationships like
those formulated by Newton and Einstein, and more.
Some important features of these characteristics depend on physical
constants such as the force constants that help determine the strength for
each type of force, Planck's Constant for the quantization of energy, the
charge and mass for each particle, masses and (between protons, neutrons,
electrons,...) mass-ratios.
The current state of the universe also depends on initial conditions
such as the initial spatial distribution and amounts of matter and
antimatter (and the excess of matter over antimatter), and the initial rate
of expansion during the Big Bang.
from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/many-cr.htm#top2
Regarding my claim that QM seems to be necessary for life, Iain wisely
urges humility:
>As long as this is not to imply that God couldn't have done it some other way.
My intuition is that QM (based on wave-particle duality) is needed for
a life-allowing universe. But this intuition is speculative and is offered
with appropriate humility, since I don't know much compared with scientists
who are experts in theoretical physics, and they don't know much compared
with God. (Humans are struggling to understand our universe and its
natural properties, and would be much less skilled in understanding or
creatively/critically thinking about alternate options for designing a
universe.)
>This is all very true, but I'm not sure it addresses John's anxiety
>... what John is saying, it is the randomness and uncertainty in QM that
>allows the possibility of free-will and God etc to happen...
Yes, you're correct. (In fact, I agree with everything you say in your
post.) The main reason for my post -- but probably this was not clear, so
I'm glad you wrote your post to clarify -- was to say that instead of using
QM for reasons of determinism, perhaps God used QM simply because it was
useful in designing a universe that would support life.
But since your questions, John, are about QM and determinism, some
thoughts about this are below, in two parts. I think the first part is
fairly solid, scientifically and theologically, in this paragraph:
For humans, there are natural limitations in observing (due to quantum
uncertainties) and predicting (due to the "amplifications of small initial
differences to produce divergent histories" that are studied by chaos
theory). But imagine that a natural event is being observed by an
all-knowing God who is not constrained by these limits on observation and
prediction, who therefore can predict what will occur if natural process
continues in an unguided "random roll of the dice" mode.
Iain describes the "chaos" aspect of our limitations:
>in practice, we can't even predict the motion of three bodies under
>gravity, which can be chaotic, and will give very different answers for
>extremely small changes in the starting conditions.
The second part (below) is more speculative, when we shift from divine
knowledge and begin thinking about divine control:
Instead of remaining a passive observer, an omnipotent God could
influence natural process and thereby convert one natural-appearing result
(the one that would have occurred without any divine guidance) into another
normal-appearing result (that actually occurs). One possible mechanism for
natural-appearing divine action (although it's speculative) is for God to
convert potentialities into actualities: from the multitude of quantum
possibilities that might occur, God chooses to make one of these actually
occur. In this way, God could influence (or determine) natural events by
controlling some (or all) uncertainty at the quantum level, which could be
done in a way such that events appear normal and statistically random
during this theistically guided natural process. / Many people have
speculated about this, including Robert Russel (in his chapter in
"Perspectives on An Evolving Creation") and Peter Ruest (in "Creative
Providence in Biology," PSCF, September 2001.)
Since quantum interactions occur constantly, not just during
"observations" by humans, God can control everything that occurs.
In addition, God can do miracles.
>The worry for John is Einstein's vision that "God does not play at dice" -
>that there are hidden variables that are deterministic - the dice thrower
>actually being a deterministic process that maybe only has the appearance
>of randomness because we can't see it.
IF God made nature with "hidden variables that are deterministic" (and
this is not the view in classical QM; I don't know whether the view John
describes is considered credible by QM experts), probably these only "SEEM
deterministic" because I have faith that God can also control these, that
God (not deterministic hidden variables) is in control of what happens.
Similarly, in classical physics, we might say that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is not violated, but God (not the Second Law) is in control
of what happens. So this principle -- that God controls the "laws" of
nature -- is for all science, not just QM.
I'm confident that God CAN control everything, but questions about what
God DOES (and doesn't) control have been vigorously debated since the
beginning of Judeo-Christian theology, so there is a range of early views
(from before and after Christ), then later we see the classical Calvinist
and Arminian views (plus variations), and modern views.
In this area, deep humility is justifiable. I think that QM is
consistent with a wide range of control (by God and by us) over what
happens, and that whatever "balance of control" God decides is optimal,
that's the way it is.
>My only thought on this is that perhaps it is dangerous to pin one's
>beliefs on a scientific theory - to say that we can believe in God because
>QM is probabilistic is to build one's house on sand.
Yes, whether or not QM is true or complete, it doesn't make much
difference in the practical theology that we use for living.
A more useful principle for daily living -- from the solid rock of
scripture, not the sand of science -- is illustrated in Exodus 17:11, when
Moses prayed on a hill above the field where Joshua was defending Israel
against attack: "As long as Moses held up his hands [to ask for and receive
God's power and blessing for Joshua's action] the Israelites were winning,
but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning."
Eventually, the combination of faithful prayer (by Moses) and faithful
action (by Joshua) brought victory. One interpretation and application of
this passage is that God wants us to pray as if everything depended on Him,
and to take responsible action (in line with His commandments) as if
everything depended on us. For practical everyday living, this seems (at
least for me) much more useful than QM.
>Before QM was discovered, Newton's clockwork universe was entirely
>deterministic, and in principle predictable, yet it didn't prove a barrier
>to Newton's faith and the many believing scientists who followed him.
QM isn't necessary for theology, and many generations of Christians
(before Newton, and between Newton and QM) lived quite well without it
(before the mid-1920s) and it's not anything essential. As I said above,
"whatever balance of control [by God and by us] that God decides is
optimal, that's the way it is."
Basically, the essentials of Christian living aren't complicated or
technically difficult, and they don't depend on the latest science: we
should love God and each other, and live by faith.
>"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
>ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
>
>.. so whether or not the universe is "in principle" deterministic, God has
>placed us in a universe where that complete knowledge is way beyond our
>grasp. Only God knows what will happen, and all we can say is that He
>wants us to put our trust in Him, in matters of faith, and not in science.
Amen.
Craig
Received on Tue Mar 15 17:16:45 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 15 2005 - 17:16:46 EST