I'm no quantum physicist. That option closed down for me early on, when I was kicked out of my high school physics class because I was paying more attention to my girlfriend sitting behind me than to whatever the teacher was saying.
But I've made up for that by reading lots of books about quantum theory, many of them in the course of researching my first book about the connection between ancient mysticism and the new physics, "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder" -- which I got back in print via a rewrite that took out the preachy parts.
I no longer believe in most of the mysticism in that book, but the scientific stuff is still valid, by and large. I keep up with current developments in quantum theory through my subscriptions to Scientific American and New Scientist.
The August 28 issue of New Scientist is a special issue about Quantum Frontiers. The stories on this subject were all interesting and clearly written for non-physicists like me.
What's crystal clear is that most people who claim quantum theory proves something mystical or spiritual about the cosmos don't know what they're talking about.
Quantum theory is mysterious, for sure.
So far science hasn't figured out how it relates to relativity theory, which explains how gravity works. The other forces of nature are amenable to explanation by quantum theory, but not gravity. This means that there's a good chance a deeper explanation of nature needs to be found that unifies relativity theory and quantum theory.
Frequently New Age types claim that quantum theory has shown that consciousness creates reality. This isn't at all proven. Yes, the quantum measurement problem is real. Somehow various probabilities of a particle having certain properties, like being in a specific location, are converted to a single actuality when a measurement occurs.
This is called the collapse of the wave function.
The mathematics of quantum theory are marvelously accurate. That's why modern technologies like computers and cell phones have become so ubiquitous. However, physicists don't agree about the philosophical side of quantum theory. Meaning, the explanation of what's going on behind the mathematics.
Here's a graphic from the New Scientist special issue that does a great job of summarizing the various ways scientists have tried to explain what quantum theory means.
I like the objective collapse theory, in part because it doesn't involve a conscious observer collapsing the wave function. As the entry for this in the table above says, that explains how the universe was able to be real before consciousness came on the cosmic scene.
Here's a story in the special issue on this subject: "Do we distil reality from the quantum fog, or does it exist without us?"
Download Do we distil reality from the quantum fog or does it exist without us? | New Scientist
QUANTUM stuff, whether single atoms, electrons or photons of light, is notorious for seeming to be here, there and everywhere – and indeed everything – all at once. It exists as clouds of possibilities, manifested in a beast you can’t get around when contemplating quantum mysteries: the wave function.
On one level, the wave function is just a mathematical expression that lets you calculate the probability a particle will manifest in a particular location, say. The mystery is the way the maths says that, once you look at it, the wave function “collapses” to leave something definite we can all agree on. This creates the picture of the world that our classically trained eyes see. But how does the mathematics relate to the reality before the measurement – and what exactly, if anything, does the act of measurement change?
Erwin Schrödinger expressed the unease we might feel about apparently “making” reality when he mused about a cat inside a box that might or might not have been killed by a random quantum process inside it. Before you look, he asked, is the cat dead and alive at the same time?
The orthodox take on quantum theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation, says yes: the maths adds up, so just shut up and calculate. “From a practical point of view, it works perfectly,” says Angelo Bassi, a theoretical physicist at the University of Trieste in Italy. “But from a fundamental point of view, why should the wave function collapse?”
Some physicists argue that it all makes complete sense if you think of the wave function as a way to predict what might happen. It changes with time, just like a weather forecast. “The universe is not made of wave functions, just as it is not made of weather forecasts,” says Christopher Fuchs at the University of Massachusetts, a leading advocate for an interpretation of quantum theory known as quantum Bayesianism, or QBism.
For QBists like Fuchs, quantum theory is a tool for us to better navigate the world, not a description of the world as it exists independent of our presence. So of course the wave function collapses – and how could it be anything other than us doing the collapsing?
Or you can go to the opposite extreme and say that the wave function doesn’t collapse at all. In the many worlds interpretation, every possible outcome of a measurement encoded in the wave function happens in different universes. No one collapses anything at the point of measurement – the world just splits, carrying us with it into one particular branch.
If you prefer an answer that gives us a hope of understanding physical reality, and doesn’t invoke a multiverse that we can never hope to observe, there is yet another option: that wave functions collapse spontaneously, without the influence of observers. This “objective collapse” was first proposed in the 1970s, but has enjoyed a revival in recent years largely because it promises to submit to empirical testing. “The other interpretations simply aim at reinterpreting the wave function,” says Bassi, who is a proponent.
In this picture, the chances of an atom’s wave function collapsing on its own is so small that you might have to wait billions of years to see it. Group enough of them together, however, and it rises dramatically. The cumulative effect would be a kind of faint background “noise” of collapsing wave functions that a sensitive enough detector might pick up.
“Testing the large-scale limit of quantum mechanics”, or TEQ, is a project that aims to do just that, and perhaps write the observer out of quantum theory for good. Designed specifically to look for collapse noise, the project involves levitating a bead of glass a few nanometres wide using electric fields, watching its motion closely. The latest version was delayed, but Hendrik Ulbricht at the University of Southampton, UK, who is leading the experiment, expects results within a year. “We are all very excited,” he says.
Looking for noise isn’t something physicists typically do. “Usually, we suppress the noise as much as possible, because the physics is in the signal,” says Ulbricht. But there is an interesting precedent. When astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias first detected an all-pervasive background radio signal in 1964, they thought it might be coming from New York City, from other galaxies or even from nearby pigeons. Finally, they realised they had discovered the cosmic microwave background, relic radiation left over from the big bang. “There could be a similar story with these collapse models,” says Ulbricht.
So, sounds like the ultimate goal is to be in a constant state of wave collapse—Nirvana. :)
Posted by: Sonia | September 09, 2021 at 04:27 AM
@ Sonia : [ So, sounds like the ultimate goal is to be in a constant state of wave collapse—Nirvana. :) ]
No, I think Nirvana is groovin' in the wave of love... like Brian in
physics class. That is, till the teacher eyeballs what's going on,
and brings on that pesky downer called "wave collapse".
Posted by: Dungeness | September 09, 2021 at 05:03 AM
And like Schrödinger‘s cat, you won’t know if there is or isn’t life after death till you look in the box.
BTW, wave collapse is cool. 😎
Posted by: Sonia | September 09, 2021 at 05:46 AM
That chart was a lovely, concise summary of the different interpretations (and non-interpretation) of QM. Thanks for posting!
I'm no expert, exactly the opposite, but my own take is that we probably don't know enough to actually come out with an interpretation of this business with any degree of accuracy. No doubt one day we'll get there. Fascinating, mind-bending stuff.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 09, 2021 at 06:53 AM
"The mathematics of quantum theory are marvelously accurate. That's why modern technologies like computers and cell phones have become so ubiquitous."
How can this be? How can the universe have spontaneously arisen out of nothing, and with rules of order, and producing life on just one planet?
There can't be anything mystical about this? The scientists don't have an explanation for origins. When they produce one, then the possibility of the mystical can be laid to rest.
Posted by: Tendzin | September 10, 2021 at 10:39 AM
Pardon me, Tendzin, this is the second time I'm commenting, uninvited, on something you've said here. But this is so entirely straightforward.
First, there isn't any reason to think it's necessarily just the one planet that harbors life.
Second, the "how" of the Big Bang is something we don't know so far. We well might, one day. (Or, of course, not. Only time will tell.)
And third, why lay to rest the possibility of the mystical, ever? That possibility remains, and there's no reason why it should ever cease to remain. To be explored by those who're interested. What is less than rational is to conclude prematurely that that possibility is anything more than just that, a possibility.
Anything's possible. And anyone can research any possibility they like. It could be microcosm-within-macrocosm fractals infinitely both ways, for instance, for all we know. Cool subject for research, whether from within a lab coat inside a lab, on in the nude inside some solitary cave, if you'll excuse the attempt at a joke, for whoever has the inclination and the resources (time, and/or money, and/or infrastructure).
Absolutely, to claim the absence of even the possibility of some mystical reality, that's closed-mindedness. But to claim anything beyond just possibility, until such time as such is evidenced --- "possibility", in the sense that anything at all is possible, not excluding unicorns and dragons (who knows, maybe some form of reptilian life back in the mists of time?) --- that is what is the stuff of woo.
And no, the God of the Gaps is always a fallacious argument.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 10, 2021 at 01:45 PM
The world of appearances...this is really what Brian is trying to validate and explain. But here is the time-tested realization of the mystics: The world of material appearances is a COVER OVER REALITY and NOT REALITY ITSELF. The covers are always mutating and changing, as well as having a beginning and end. Thus, the covers cannot be absolutely real.
They say that REALITY IS COVERED OVER (there are five layers or covers) by that which is only temporarily assumed to be real (Brian's world of material existence which he assiduously defends as being "real"). Mystics explain this temporary miasma and hypnotic enthrallment of the human mind with the external material world as "mithya". For a detailed explanation of WHY the covers are NOT REAL, please peruse the following analysis: https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/moksha/moksh_09.html
Here is a limited but fairly good explanation of "mithya" - "In the section where this occurs, Gaudapada is refuting the various suggestions about what makes an object ‘real’. One of these is that, if an object has utility, then it must be real. Thus, for example, I see a glass of water on the table; I pick it up and drink it and my thirst is quenched. Therefore that glass of water must have been real. But the glass of water seen in a dream quenches the thirst of the dreamer. On waking, however, it is realized not to have been real. In fact, the waking glass of water is totally useless to the dreamer. Accordingly, utility cannot be a relevant factor in determining what is real. (Otherwise, we would have to conclude that reality was relative.) What we have to say is that the dream world is useful to the dreamer and the waking world to the waker. Both worlds are ‘relatively real’ but neither is absolutely real. Hence there is the need for a new word to describe them – mithya."
Admittedly, these explanations are intellectual but I believe they offer some historical authenticity to the search for Reality. The conclusion of the mystics is unanimous and valid, in my humble opinion. If a thing changes, or if it has beginning and end - IT CANNOT BE REAL IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE...
It is mithya.
Posted by: albert | September 11, 2021 at 07:45 AM
We do distill reality from the complexity we see. What we see is a single point of view refined and sharpened by our brain. Distilled into a tiny sample, a snapshot. But reality contains an infinite number of points of view. And it isn't discrete but continuous. It is the same reality. Like a hologram.
We must make it static to see it, witness it, measure it. But it is infinite and continuous.
It is one reality. But that one reality has infinite perspectives.
We don't alter that reality by looking at it. We capture a unique set of data points at the moment we look, or sample. And those are always on Flux. So, look again and get another slightly different picture.
Same reality. Our viewing perspective is limited, so we see on series what is actually there simultaneously.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | September 11, 2021 at 10:00 AM
@Appreciative Reader
By all means, please comment on anything I write here, I welcome feedback from you or anyone here.
To your comment, I would say that science and religion are (or should be) the study of possibilities. The thing about possibilities of any kind is that they cannot arrive without a cause. So if we speculate on what's possible, we can only do so within the parameters of the known.
But if all that's known (from the whole of respected scientific study) gives us no clue as to the origins of the universe, and of life itself, we're still left with the question of primal cause. That is, something or someone created this universe and life. I'm no scientist, but the very basis of scientific study in both biology and physics is that nothing can arise without a cause.
What then could be the cause of the origins of the material universe, and of life on earth? We're talking now of the question of primal creation. We can talk of quantum mechanics, but if we do we're only discussing the possible mechanism of what was created, and not who or what created it. Quantum mechanics isn't an answer to the question of the origins of the universe and of life.
Anyway, this is the angle that interests me: the as-yet inexplicable existence of the universe and life on earth is prima facie evidence of a creator. No proof, but (to me) compelling evidence.
Posted by: Tendzin | September 11, 2021 at 06:00 PM
Hi Tendzin
Physical science is restricted by time.
Remove the dimension of time, and cause and effect are arbitrary.
In quantum mechanics, an event once measured reveals a different cause. In other words, testing alters both the outcome and the cause which took place before the testing!
The dimension of time itself is not static. It appears to us to move forward.
Therefore the assumption of a distinct creator predating the creation may not be necessary nor factually correct.
The genius of the creation appears to be creating more genius, more design all the time right along with the evolving creation.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | September 11, 2021 at 06:46 PM
But you do realize, Tendzin, don't you, that your assumption of a primal cause is no more than an assumption? An arbitrary and random assumption?
And even if you should go with the (entirely unsupported) assumption of there being a primal cause, how would you know that God is that primal cause? Even if we do arrive at God as the cause of this universe --- not that we do that at all, but just suppose we do, for the sake of argument --- even then, on what basis do you say, on arriving at God, "Thus far and no further", as far as the cause-and-effect cycle? Who is to say that there isn't a cause for that God also? And so on and so forth ad infinitum?
You're clearly channeling Aquinas here. Aquinas's "five ways" were, frankly, a load of bull. Back in the dark dank ignorant times he lived in, maybe that was the best even a bright spark could do, but it should take no more than an elementary grounding in logic and philosophy and science today to recognize his words as utterly confused and entirely mistaken.
Aquinas is a textbook example of fallacious special pleading and question begging. Here's a link to a short but comprehensive takedown of his celebrated (but in reality wholly laughable) "five ways": https://homeweb.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html
https://homeweb.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 11, 2021 at 11:51 PM
@ Spence : [ The dimension of time itself is not static. It appears to us to move forward. ...Therefore the assumption of a distinct creator predating the creation may not be necessary nor factually correct. ]
Mind blowing, Spence. As I understand mysticism, time
only appears to move forward. It's illusory though and is
predicated on hope, fear, or anticipation flowing into the
thought stream first. A creative force is similarly antecedent
to the emergence of creation. Or do I miss the point?
[ The genius of the creation appears to be creating more genius, more design all the time right along with the evolving creation. ]
I seem to remember Ishwar Puri saying creation happens
"at once" in a state of "no-time". Design changes/redo's
of the blueprint are all done a priori. Patterns of evolution
change right along in lockstep. The old edifice vanishes
and seemingly out of nowhere a genius makeover stands
there instead. It gets really radical when a grand dissolution
occurs...
Posted by: Dungeness | September 12, 2021 at 04:52 AM
@AR
"But you do realize, Tendzin, don't you, that your assumption of a primal cause is no more than an assumption? An arbitrary and random assumption?"
Tell me what else arises without a cause, and I'll agree I'm making an arbitrary and random assumption that the universe and life arose without a cause.
"And even if you should go with the (entirely unsupported) assumption of there being a primal cause, how would you know that God is that primal cause?"
I said someone or something must be responsible for a primal cause of the universe and of life. If there's evidence to the contrary I'm open to it, but as far as I know, science hasn't produced any such evidence or explanations as to how something arises from nothing. When posed with this question, I'm told that Richard Dawkins theorized that an alien intelligence may be responsible for the universe and life. But that begs of the question of what created the alien intelligence.
"Who is to say that there isn't a cause for that God also? And so on and so forth ad infinitum?"
That line of reasoning & your notes about Aquinas still leads us back to the question of the origins of the universe and life itself. Why have faith the universe and life spontaneously arose from nothing in an act of inexplicable cosmic origination, but rule out the possibility (which I thought we were open to?) of mystical reasons for Existence. Science has yet to produce any answers to the questions of the universe's origins and life, and so if we're speaking about logic, it seems very logical to me to assume that everything that has been created can be traced to someone or something that was its creator.
Posted by: Tendzin | September 12, 2021 at 08:53 AM
"Tell me what else arises without a cause, and I'll agree I'm making an arbitrary and random assumption that the universe and life arose without a cause."
(a) Some particles in QM. (Qualifiction: I'm no expert, and am only repeating half-understood bits and pieces in saying this. But still, it's true, you know, Tendzin. Although I couldn't elaborate on this, not without looking it up further.)
(b) Components within the universe seem to follow cause and effect. Why shouldn't they keep doing that ad infinitum? I take your point that the Big Bang must have been brought about by some kind of potentiality. Stands to reason, unless of course it was one of those quantum things. But there's no reason to suppose something outside of the system caused it, or indeed that there is something outside of the system at all.
(c) In any case, I don't think it makes sense to assume things, and look for evidence to reject that assumption. That's turning the principle of the burden of proof on its head.
-------
"I said someone or something must be responsible for a primal cause of the universe and of life. If there's evidence to the contrary I'm open to it, but as far as I know, science hasn't produced any such evidence or explanations as to how something arises from nothing."
There's evidence for it, though, in QM.
Besides, what science hasn't yet answered, it well may, one of these days.
In any case, that science hasn't answered some questions, does not give us leeway to fit in unevidenced flights of fancy in those gaps, does it?
-------
" When posed with this question, I'm told that Richard Dawkins theorized that an alien intelligence may be responsible for the universe and life. But that begs of the question of what created the alien intelligence."
If Dawkins did give that answer to that question, then I agree, he seems to have sidestepped the issue and changed the subject, instead of squarely answering the question asked (or admitting that he did not know).
-------
"Why have faith the universe and life spontaneously arose from nothing in an act of inexplicable cosmic origination, but rule out the possibility (which I thought we were open to?) of mystical reasons for Existence. "
(a) It isn't either-or. There's lots of things we don't know. When we don't know a thing, it's good and right we admit we don't know it. Makes no sense to posit random things, just because we don't know something.
How did the Big Bang come about? Fact is, we don't quite know. Researching the issue is fine and great, whatever the means used, but as far as conclusions drawn, why not let it go at admitting we don't know? I mean, why posit some random prime mover? And why assume that prime mover does not need any further cause itself? And if that prime mover can, ad hoc, be assumed to have no antecedent causes, then that's no less a leap than assuming that the universe itself is causeless (indeed it's more of a leap, in that we're positing an additional factor, for which we have no evidence).
(b) If all we're doing is suggesting the *possibility* of something, then that's a different matter. No reason why not, if all you're doing is merely suggesting a hypothesis. It's troublesome only if that hypothesis is believed in pending evidence.
I'd concluded from your words that you were doing the latter. If you tell me I'd misunderstood your meaning, and that you'd actually meant to convey the former, well then that's all good then.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 12, 2021 at 11:22 AM
@ [ I seem to remember Ishwar Puri saying creation happens
"at once" in a state of "no-time". Design changes/redo's
of the blueprint are all done a priori. ]
Oops, " a priori" should be "ab initio".
Posted by: Dungeness | September 12, 2021 at 12:34 PM
Yes Dungeness
Before matter there was no time. Both physics and the Holy Bible claim the same.
St. Paul wrote that time was created for us.
So there can be no creator before matter existed. What was before anything we can measure? Surely something was before, say some. But without time there is no before.
Cause and effect only exist where time exists.
And yet time consists of infinite points of no time.
In the heart of our moving universe is the unmoving.
The Bible says God said on the seventh day the work was done. Christ said much the same.
It is done. That was a long, long time ago, and now, and tomorrow.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | September 12, 2021 at 12:55 PM
@ Spence : [ St. Paul wrote that time was created for us...
So there can be no creator before matter existed. What was before anything we can measure? Surely something was before, say some. But without time there is no before. ]
So there was a creative force manifesting a creation but
in ... infinite points of no-time... is all. Not something that
can be shoehorned into space-time and tagged as "God,
who one fine day created a universe". No wonder ancient
sages say only "neti, neti" (not this, not that) when asked
for an explanation.
Posted by: Dungeness | September 12, 2021 at 03:13 PM
@AR:
QM says particles seem to appear out of nothing. Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know (ie measure) the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle's position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence.
OK, but this apparent phenomenon of QM isn't the same thing as an explanation for the origins of the universe out of nothing, or the origins of biological life.
I don't know on what basis you say "there's no reason to suppose" something or someone created the universe. Unless there's a valid theory for the origin of the universe and life's existence, then the possibility of a creator is at least as valid as the possibility that everything there is just spontaneously arose from void.
Much has been said over the last 200 years about how religion can stand in the way of scientific inquiry Definitely valid criticisms too, in my opinion. But the other side of the token has been the presumption by the scientific community since at least the 1960s that everything we know points to a Godless universe. Given what we don't know about fundamentals like the universe's origins of where life came from, and the incredible complexity of the universe, the inexplicable harmony of so many factors that make life and much else possible, I would counter that the alleged scientific proof of atheism is founded on premature conclusions.
Posted by: Tendzin | September 13, 2021 at 01:32 PM
@Tendzin
"OK, but this apparent phenomenon of QM isn't the same thing as an explanation for the origins of the universe out of nothing, or the origins of biological life."
..........Agreed, it isn't. It's merely bald observation, that such occurs, offered up in response to your having said, in your previous comment, ""Tell me what else arises without a cause, and I'll agree I'm making an arbitrary and random assumption that the universe and life arose without a cause."
----------
"I don't know on what basis you say "there's no reason to suppose" something or someone created the universe. Unless there's a valid theory for the origin of the universe and life's existence, then the possibility of a creator is at least as valid as the possibility that everything there is just spontaneously arose from void."
..........Well, that's simply a matter of which side the burden of proof weighs on. If there's no evidence to indicate anything at all, then we simply say we don't know, rather than making assumptions.
Analogies tend to be dodgy, generally speaking, but perhaps an analogy might make my meaning clear, about what I'm saying about burden of proof. Let's say a small forest fire breaks out in some place nearby your home. We're trying to find out what caused it. Your positing of God as far as creation, is kind of like claiming, out of the blue, that a tall man with hair dyed green and wearing bright yellow clothes was the arsonist that got the fire going. And your asking for evidence to refute the God claim is like saying that in the absence of evidence that weird arsonist theory is at least as likely as any other theory, including that the brush caught fire spontaneously in the heat. (The garish appearance of our arsonist kind of corresponds with the extravagant characteristic you're attributing, if only implicitly, to your prime mover --- to wit, consciousness. Because even if it so happens that there is indeed a prime mover, but that prime over isn't conscious, then it makes no sense to call it "God", does it?)
----------
"the other side of the token has been the presumption by the scientific community since at least the 1960s that everything we know points to a Godless universe. Given what we don't know about fundamentals like the universe's origins of where life came from, and the incredible complexity of the universe, the inexplicable harmony of so many factors that make life and much else possible, I would counter that the alleged scientific proof of atheism is founded on premature conclusions."
..........It's simply a question of the burden of proof, and a simple application of Occam's Razor.
Does it really make sense to tell the firefighters and investigating officers (should there be an investigation per se at all)), that, "you don't have any evidence about that fire at this stage, so it is premature of you to rule out the hypothesis that a green-haired man wearing yellow clothes set fire to the brushland near my house"?
In like vein, it seems, well, not quite reasonable, to say "You haven't yet evidence about the exact mechanism of creation, therefore it is premature of you to rule out the hypothesis that a prime mover that is possessed of consciousness is what created everything here."
Again, this is not to rule out the possibility per se, and we are free to continue research and testing in order to validate (or invalidate) that hypothesis if we wish, using whatever means appears reasonable to one --- but certainly, as far as conclusions drawn so far, it makes no sense to bank on that particular hypothesis as a likely conclusion, at all.
----------
We're kind of repeating ourselves at this point. I don't begrudge you your faith, Tendzin, more power to you if it helps you live your life. I just wanted to explore your thinking on this, and in turn present my thoughts to you. It's fine to agree to disagree, if we still continue to disagree on this. Thanks for the discussion!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 14, 2021 at 12:04 AM