5 ms·

Quantum arguments for God

26 points by ca98am79 18y ago

Confusion 18y ago
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that is an attempt to produce as good a description as possible of 'the world'. The key point of the previous sentence is: it is mathematics. Mathematics may allow us to make certain predictions about the physical reality surrounding us, but it is nevertheless an abstraction that does not necessarily have any direct connection with that reality. Any interpretation of mathematics in physical terms is debatable at best and completely unfounded at worst. Granted, mathematics seems to reflect nature, but this may well be a prejudiced view: phrasing it differently, it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well. Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature. Given the deep metaphysical problems surrounding the relationship between mathematics and physics, any attempt at interpreting quantum mechanical uncertainty as the psychological property 'freedom' belongs to 'completely unfounded' category, requiring lots of work before it becomes even remotely believable. Moreover, it seems it could well be a typical example of a category mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake.
- ilitirit 18y ago
  I understand and to an extent agree with the gist of your argument, but I can't agree with this: > Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature. In fact I don't understand why you would make such a statement, unless you have a very different description of nature (or failure, or both) to what I have. Mathematics has many applications beyond modelling physical reality. This topic has the potential to raise many philosophical questions, but even at the most superficial level there is a difference between "describing" and "solving". This doesn't sit quite well with me either: > it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well. Pure mathematics isn't created to describe nature. Physical applications of pure mathematical concepts are usually only found many years after they are devised.
  - Confusion 18y ago
    My belief (I call it a belief, because I haven't done rigorous research to confirm it; it is based on what I learned during studying physics) is that all early, 'basic', mathematics was invented (or discovered, I don't want to get into that) to describe nature. Initially, the natural numbers were nothing but a convention to describe and differentiate between sets of multiple objects that were to be considered equal for the purposes of discussion. IV apples vs. V apples. II rocks vs. VII garments (of course, the Romans didn't invent this, but I find it a distraction to use 'our' Arabic numerals). Another example: Newton invented differential calculus specifically to describe nature. Shortly after that field was invented, mathematics in it would be done for it's own sake, but that doesn't detract from the fact that originally it was meant to describe nature. More recently, mathematics has been invented before it was shown to be applicable to physics. What I earlier meant is that this may be a result of the origins of mathematics and doesn't prove what it seems to imply.
jimbokun 18y ago
'"It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognisable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law-breaking miracles," says Collins.' If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they? The whole point of a miracle is that the normal laws governing the universe most of the time are suspended. If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so? It seems Collins is trying to impress his atheist science friends with this idea, and it is back firing. Inherent in the religious point of view, I think, is the idea that there are limits to the knowledge that can be obtained through observation and experiment, but can be revealed to us by a God outside of nature, at least to the extent we are capable of understanding. For the more mundane truths about our world, I agree with this: "But for all its faults, science is probably the best and most honest tool we've got for finding out practical truths about how the natural world operates."
- billybob 18y ago
  <blockquote>If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they?... If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?</blockquote> Agreed. The idea that God could tinker with quantum physics without our knowing is interesting, but parting the Red Sea would still require a suspension of nature's laws. And as a Christian, I don't see any logical problem with that. A God who created the universe from nothing would be no more bound by its laws than a writer is bound by the rules of poetry. It's understandable that scientists balk at supernatural explanations - they fall outside of the scientific method of investigation. It's the same reason that "God created that evidence" won't help you in court; it's an assertion that can't be proved or disproved and therefore must be disregarded. A scientist would attempt to explain miracles by natural, observable causes, because that is the method of science. But - interestingly - the supernatural explanation could still be the true one. If God exists, He may not care to sit on our examination table.
- vegai 18y ago
  "If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?" Why do you suppose this? Perhaps it trapped itself in.
joubert 18y ago
OMG.
yan 18y ago
Jut an FYI, Francis Collins is a well-known evangelical Christian. He gets a lot of press and notoriety exactly because of his status and his beliefs. He's part of a group of religious scientists seeking to find God anywhere it may be found, in my opinion. My girlfriend took a class taught by Michael Behe, a biochemist who is a proponent of "irreducible complexity" as a proof of god. Even though the university banned him from discussing his opinions in class and distanced themselves from it[1], he still makes remarks to him knowing answers to something that is a current problem. [1] http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
- kirse 18y ago
  How the heck does "who he is" have to do _anything_ with the scientific evidence and argument he presented? This is worthless "cargo-cult" science and it's exactly what should be avoided in the scientific community. The article does it too... Laudable aim or not, the argument seems an odd one for Collins to make, given that he's such a renowned scientist and led such a pioneering project, one grounded so deeply in the principles of scientific enquiry and discipline. And thus begins the effects of "cargo cult science" which Feynman once talked about. Collins will be slowly removed from further scientific inquiry for disagreeing with his peers, his reputation will be debased, and he will be ostracized from the scientific community. All because (gasp!), the man may have a religious bent! Yet another example: It disappoints me that such a gifted scientist could make this argument. Two character attacks in less than 1000 words that have nothing to do with the science presented. How dare Collins question the status quo? How dare he try to demonstrate scientific integrity by showing any and all sides of the matter? Either you're for us or you're against us, that's how the cult of science works these days. Especially if you're religious, then clearly you're in another cult and you need to leave the science cult now. As Feynman once said, science should "...give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another." Regardless of whether Collins is right or not, I hope that everyone can see how this pitiful system of cult "science" that we have functions to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the worldview provided by scientific naturalism. The scary thing is that it has been like this for many years. Scientists are so used to being logically "right" within the empirical domain that they quickly forget their worldview holds no more water than religion does in the realm of explaining the unempirical.
TomOfTTB 18y ago
I'm a religious person in that I believe in the existence of a God but even still I think Mr. Collins ideas are unfounded. The truth about God is, if he/she does exist, that existence is outside our natural physical laws. I think religious people fall into this trap a lot. In trying to "prove God exists" they are really trying to prove atheists wrong. But the truth is, and I say this as a religious person, atheists are right. Believing in God is irrational. That's the point. Religion is built on the proverbial "leap of faith." It is in having faith that religion provides any value to its followers. So if a religious person feels the need to go around trying to prove God's existence they are sort of missing the point.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- Radix 18y ago
  As someone who was raised christian I still don't understand this. Why knowingly and purposefully believe in something that you do not hope to rationalize. (OTOH, I'm always glad to see religious people who actually and clearly follow their beliefs.) edit: removed edit
- jimbokun 18y ago
  As opposed to "irrational" I would be willing to settle for "unscientific." There might be knowledge unattainable through observation and experiment, but attainable through revelation from someone not subject to our limitations. Such a belief is obviously unscientific, but I do not think "irrational" is accurate. I think you would need to find some incompatibility between premises and conclusions to claim that.
- jeremyawon 18y ago
  i can't think of anything a leap of faith in the existence of god provides which couldn't otherwise have been rationalized. god tells one man to kill his neighbors, and another to befriend them. don't we determine the value of each religious practice by rationally evaluating their effects?
- zzzmarcus 18y ago
physcab 18y ago
Wasn't it Feynman who once said, "I think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"?
mixmax 18y ago
I never understood the whole God-thing, except as a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon. How can you believe in something that has never been validated, except by believers of the fairytale that tell you it's true? If I told someone I believed in the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus or The flying Spaghetti monster people would think I'm crazy. But they are just as well supported (anecdotes and no evidence) as the God-thing. I honestly don't get it.
- bmj 18y ago
  Because some incredibly intelligent people have spent their lives working out the implications of belief in God. Had, say, Pascal decided to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion right now.
  - albemuth 18y ago
    And did they find anything? As in something that a non believer would accept?
    - bmj 18y ago
      Apparently, since Christianity is alive and well.
- ramoq 18y ago
  Proving the existence of God is as simple as looking around you (nature, sun, water etc) My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god. - The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"
sethg 18y ago
Collins' point appears to be that we have no way of distinguishing between a situation of purely random chance and a situation where God loaded the dice of the Universe, so to speak. I agree, but this is not so much an "argument for God" as a way of making an apparently-mechanical universe consistent with theism. And "there is nothing new under the sun"; this kind of argument precedes the discovery of quantum physics. Rabbi Israel Salanter (1810-1833) said that a pious Jew is allowed to buy one lottery ticket, because that way if God wants to make you rich but doesn't want to do so with an overt miracle, He can just arrange for you to win the lottery. But if you buy another lottery ticket, that's gambling, which is forbidden.
- jlongster 18y ago
  Well said.
known 18y ago
God != Religion
- agrinshtein 18y ago
  Totally agree.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
biohacker42 18y ago
The site is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which seeks to find common ground between science and religion. You're ruining both.
nw 18y ago
We can certainly look at the natural world for clues, but how would one use math or empiricism to get at God? Can you describe God mathematically in order to plug him into a formula? Of course this is absurd. 'Science' is just a fancy word for knowledge. We don't come to know our best friends, our mothers, our bosses, through the so-called scientific method. Nor do criminal investigators solve tough cases through exclusively empirical means. Would you ask a hung jury to just be scientific about things, and the answer will become clear?

26 points by ca98am79 18y ago

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that is an attempt to produce as good a description as possible of 'the world'. The key point of the previous sentence is: it is mathematics. Mathematics may allow us to make certain predictions about the physical reality surrounding us, but it is nevertheless an abstraction that does not necessarily have any direct connection with that reality. Any interpretation of mathematics in physical terms is debatable at best and completely unfounded at worst. Granted, mathematics seems to reflect nature, but this may well be a prejudiced view: phrasing it differently, it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well. Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature. Given the deep metaphysical problems surrounding the relationship between mathematics and physics, any attempt at interpreting quantum mechanical uncertainty as the psychological property 'freedom' belongs to 'completely unfounded' category, requiring lots of work before it becomes even remotely believable. Moreover, it seems it could well be a typical example of a category mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake.

ilitirit 18y ago
I understand and to an extent agree with the gist of your argument, but I can't agree with this: > Mathematics would be a failure if it wasn't usable to model nature. In fact I don't understand why you would make such a statement, unless you have a very different description of nature (or failure, or both) to what I have. Mathematics has many applications beyond modelling physical reality. This topic has the potential to raise many philosophical questions, but even at the most superficial level there is a difference between "describing" and "solving". This doesn't sit quite well with me either: > it seems hardly amazing that something created to describe nature produces descriptions that seem to describe nature very well. Pure mathematics isn't created to describe nature. Physical applications of pure mathematical concepts are usually only found many years after they are devised.
- Confusion 18y ago
  My belief (I call it a belief, because I haven't done rigorous research to confirm it; it is based on what I learned during studying physics) is that all early, 'basic', mathematics was invented (or discovered, I don't want to get into that) to describe nature. Initially, the natural numbers were nothing but a convention to describe and differentiate between sets of multiple objects that were to be considered equal for the purposes of discussion. IV apples vs. V apples. II rocks vs. VII garments (of course, the Romans didn't invent this, but I find it a distraction to use 'our' Arabic numerals). Another example: Newton invented differential calculus specifically to describe nature. Shortly after that field was invented, mathematics in it would be done for it's own sake, but that doesn't detract from the fact that originally it was meant to describe nature. More recently, mathematics has been invented before it was shown to be applicable to physics. What I earlier meant is that this may be a result of the origins of mathematics and doesn't prove what it seems to imply.

jimbokun 18y ago

'"It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognisable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law-breaking miracles," says Collins.' If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they? The whole point of a miracle is that the normal laws governing the universe most of the time are suspended. If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so? It seems Collins is trying to impress his atheist science friends with this idea, and it is back firing. Inherent in the religious point of view, I think, is the idea that there are limits to the knowledge that can be obtained through observation and experiment, but can be revealed to us by a God outside of nature, at least to the extent we are capable of understanding. For the more mundane truths about our world, I agree with this: "But for all its faults, science is probably the best and most honest tool we've got for finding out practical truths about how the natural world operates."

billybob 18y ago
<blockquote>If they don't break the laws, then...they're not miracles, are they?... If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?</blockquote> Agreed. The idea that God could tinker with quantum physics without our knowing is interesting, but parting the Red Sea would still require a suspension of nature's laws. And as a Christian, I don't see any logical problem with that. A God who created the universe from nothing would be no more bound by its laws than a writer is bound by the rules of poetry. It's understandable that scientists balk at supernatural explanations - they fall outside of the scientific method of investigation. It's the same reason that "God created that evidence" won't help you in court; it's an assertion that can't be proved or disproved and therefore must be disregarded. A scientist would attempt to explain miracles by natural, observable causes, because that is the method of science. But - interestingly - the supernatural explanation could still be the true one. If God exists, He may not care to sit on our examination table.
vegai 18y ago
"If there is a God who created the natural laws of the universe, surely he is also capable of suspending the rules when he finds it worthwhile to do so?" Why do you suppose this? Perhaps it trapped itself in.

joubert 18y ago

OMG.

yan 18y ago

Jut an FYI, Francis Collins is a well-known evangelical Christian. He gets a lot of press and notoriety exactly because of his status and his beliefs. He's part of a group of religious scientists seeking to find God anywhere it may be found, in my opinion. My girlfriend took a class taught by Michael Behe, a biochemist who is a proponent of "irreducible complexity" as a proof of god. Even though the university banned him from discussing his opinions in class and distanced themselves from it[1], he still makes remarks to him knowing answers to something that is a current problem. [1] http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

kirse 18y ago
How the heck does "who he is" have to do _anything_ with the scientific evidence and argument he presented? This is worthless "cargo-cult" science and it's exactly what should be avoided in the scientific community. The article does it too... Laudable aim or not, the argument seems an odd one for Collins to make, given that he's such a renowned scientist and led such a pioneering project, one grounded so deeply in the principles of scientific enquiry and discipline. And thus begins the effects of "cargo cult science" which Feynman once talked about. Collins will be slowly removed from further scientific inquiry for disagreeing with his peers, his reputation will be debased, and he will be ostracized from the scientific community. All because (gasp!), the man may have a religious bent! Yet another example: It disappoints me that such a gifted scientist could make this argument. Two character attacks in less than 1000 words that have nothing to do with the science presented. How dare Collins question the status quo? How dare he try to demonstrate scientific integrity by showing any and all sides of the matter? Either you're for us or you're against us, that's how the cult of science works these days. Especially if you're religious, then clearly you're in another cult and you need to leave the science cult now. As Feynman once said, science should "...give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another." Regardless of whether Collins is right or not, I hope that everyone can see how this pitiful system of cult "science" that we have functions to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the worldview provided by scientific naturalism. The scary thing is that it has been like this for many years. Scientists are so used to being logically "right" within the empirical domain that they quickly forget their worldview holds no more water than religion does in the realm of explaining the unempirical.

TomOfTTB 18y ago

I'm a religious person in that I believe in the existence of a God but even still I think Mr. Collins ideas are unfounded. The truth about God is, if he/she does exist, that existence is outside our natural physical laws. I think religious people fall into this trap a lot. In trying to "prove God exists" they are really trying to prove atheists wrong. But the truth is, and I say this as a religious person, atheists are right. Believing in God is irrational. That's the point. Religion is built on the proverbial "leap of faith." It is in having faith that religion provides any value to its followers. So if a religious person feels the need to go around trying to prove God's existence they are sort of missing the point.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Radix 18y ago
As someone who was raised christian I still don't understand this. Why knowingly and purposefully believe in something that you do not hope to rationalize. (OTOH, I'm always glad to see religious people who actually and clearly follow their beliefs.) edit: removed edit
jimbokun 18y ago
As opposed to "irrational" I would be willing to settle for "unscientific." There might be knowledge unattainable through observation and experiment, but attainable through revelation from someone not subject to our limitations. Such a belief is obviously unscientific, but I do not think "irrational" is accurate. I think you would need to find some incompatibility between premises and conclusions to claim that.
jeremyawon 18y ago
i can't think of anything a leap of faith in the existence of god provides which couldn't otherwise have been rationalized. god tells one man to kill his neighbors, and another to befriend them. don't we determine the value of each religious practice by rationally evaluating their effects?
zzzmarcus 18y ago

physcab 18y ago

Wasn't it Feynman who once said, "I think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"?

mixmax 18y ago

I never understood the whole God-thing, except as a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon. How can you believe in something that has never been validated, except by believers of the fairytale that tell you it's true? If I told someone I believed in the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus or The flying Spaghetti monster people would think I'm crazy. But they are just as well supported (anecdotes and no evidence) as the God-thing. I honestly don't get it.

bmj 18y ago
Because some incredibly intelligent people have spent their lives working out the implications of belief in God. Had, say, Pascal decided to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion right now.
- albemuth 18y ago
  And did they find anything? As in something that a non believer would accept?
  - bmj 18y ago
    Apparently, since Christianity is alive and well.
ramoq 18y ago
Proving the existence of God is as simple as looking around you (nature, sun, water etc) My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god. - The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"

sethg 18y ago

Collins' point appears to be that we have no way of distinguishing between a situation of purely random chance and a situation where God loaded the dice of the Universe, so to speak. I agree, but this is not so much an "argument for God" as a way of making an apparently-mechanical universe consistent with theism. And "there is nothing new under the sun"; this kind of argument precedes the discovery of quantum physics. Rabbi Israel Salanter (1810-1833) said that a pious Jew is allowed to buy one lottery ticket, because that way if God wants to make you rich but doesn't want to do so with an overt miracle, He can just arrange for you to win the lottery. But if you buy another lottery ticket, that's gambling, which is forbidden.

jlongster 18y ago
Well said.

known 18y ago

God != Religion

agrinshtein 18y ago
Totally agree.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

biohacker42 18y ago

The site is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which seeks to find common ground between science and religion. You're ruining both.

nw 18y ago

We can certainly look at the natural world for clues, but how would one use math or empiricism to get at God? Can you describe God mathematically in order to plug him into a formula? Of course this is absurd. 'Science' is just a fancy word for knowledge. We don't come to know our best friends, our mothers, our bosses, through the so-called scientific method. Nor do criminal investigators solve tough cases through exclusively empirical means. Would you ask a hung jury to just be scientific about things, and the answer will become clear?