Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Eric Holloway: Quantum mechanics shows that our universe has purpose

Spread the love

He argues that a recent study shows that not only can two physically separated particles influence each other, they can influence each other through time and that it identifies a Mind behind the universe:

Recent open-access research on quantum physics adds an interesting new wrinkle to this dilemma: Not only can two physically separated particles influence each other, they can influence each other through time. That is, physicists can extend entangledness through time.

Instead of eliminating the mystery of final causality, the experiments deepen the mystery. There must be an observer in order for the entangled causality to occur and physical processes cannot observe anything. So the very occurrence of reverse causality at the physical level means there is top down influence from the human level to the physical level. Not only is quantum physics unable to explain human final causality, it cannot explain its own final causality by itself. Its final causality is a trickle down effect from the human level. Eric Holloway, “Quantum mechanics shows that our universe has purpose” at Mind Matters News

Readers? Is Eric Holloway right? Read the whole thing.

If you are interested in the quantum world and its implications, here are some other reflections you may enjoy:

Quantum randomness gives nature free will. Whether or not quantum randomness explains how our brains work, it may help us create unbreakable encryption codes (Robert J. Marks)

Can free will really be a scientific idea? Yes, if we look at it from the perspective of information theory (Eric Holloway)

and

Can physics prove there is no free will? No, but it can make physicists incoherent when they write about free will (Michael Egnor)

5 Replies to “Eric Holloway: Quantum mechanics shows that our universe has purpose

  1. 1
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    “….There must be an observer in order for the entangled causality to occur and physical processes cannot observe anything….”

    No no no no NO ! Murray Gel-Mann (discoverer of the quark, among other accomplishments) showed long ago that interaction with other matter is all that is needed to decohere a superposition or an entanglement. An “observer” is not needed. Why do you think quantum computer bits must be held in super-cooled conditions? So they won’t interact with OTHER MATTER.

    Search the linked article for the word “observer” . You won’t find it.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Pater Kimbridge at 1 claims,

    No no no no NO ! Murray Gel-Mann (discoverer of the quark, among other accomplishments) showed long ago that interaction with other matter is all that is needed to decohere a superposition or an entanglement.,,,

    And yet Murray Gell-Mann “showed’ no such thing via empirical demonstration. He merely, via analysis of the mathematics, held that “More than one consistent history might emerge from the quantum cloud,”

    SFI Distinguished Fellow Murray Gell-Mann and External Professor James Hartle are featured in a Science News cover article, “Clash of the Quantum Titans,”
    “What quantum mechanics really means, where it ultimately comes from, why it denies the cause-and-effect certainty of traditional physics are all questions that haunt the deepest scientific thinkers — and divide them almost as badly as 21st century political parties,” the article says. “Physicists simply can’t agree on how to interpret quantum physics.”,,,
    After reviewing the history of quantum mechanics and the notion of decoherence, it describes some of Gell-Mann’s and Hartle’s work over the last two decades.
    “In their approach, multiple realities in the quantum fog condense into various chains of events, each chain approximately observing the cause-and-effect rules of classical physics. In other words, people perceive the world as classical and predictable, rather than quantum and probabilistic, because they occupy a realm where predictable patterns have decohered from the coherent cloud of quantum possibilities. Each such chain of events would constitute a consistent history. More than one consistent history might emerge from the quantum cloud,. similar to the many worlds of Everett’s interpretation…
    “consistent histories decohere from within.”,,,, Gell-Mann says.
    https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/quantum-weirdness-gell-mann-hartle

    For Gell-Mann to analyze the mathematics and postulate that “More than one consistent history might emerge from the quantum cloud,” is a long, long, way from ‘showing’, i.e. empirically demonstrating, anything.

    Moreover, for Gell-Mann to claim that,

    “consistent histories decohere from within.”,

    And for Pater Kimbridge to state that,

    An “observer” is not needed. Why do you think quantum computer bits must be held in super-cooled conditions? So they won’t interact with OTHER MATTER.

    ,, For them to state those things is for them to reveal that they have a profound misunderstanding of the exact mechanism of ‘decoherence’. The mechanism of decoherence in and of itself involves ubiquitous entanglement,, As Charles Bennett, (of quantum teleportation fame), himself stated, “Entanglement is ubiquitous: Almost every interaction between two systems creates entanglement between them… Most systems in nature… interact so strongly with the environment as to become entangled with it almost immediately.”

    Information is Quantum – Charles Bennett – video
    39:30 minute mark: “Entanglement is ubiquitous: Almost every interaction between two systems creates entanglement between them… Most systems in nature… interact so strongly with the environment as to become entangled with it almost immediately.”… 44:00 minute mark: “A classical communications channel is a quantum communication channel with an eavesdropper (maybe only the environment)… A classical computer is a quantum computer handicapped by having eavesdroppers on all its wires.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-cunningham-offers-information-is-quantum/

    And entanglement has been proven, over and over again, to be a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time affair,,

    Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he’d be a convert today – June 13, 2014
    Excerpt: In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein’s hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated!
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-e.....today.html

    ,,, a beyond space and time affair that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain the effect of quantum entanglement in the first place. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, ““Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Atheistic materialists simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local decoherence of quantum coherence and/or entanglement. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Thus for Gell-Mann to claim that, “consistent histories decohere from within” is for him to reveal that he does not understand that decoherence involves ubiquitous entanglement and that entanglement, in and of itself, necessarily entails that the system is not becoming decohered ‘from within” itself, but is becoming decohered ‘from without itself”. Indeed, becoming decohered from without space-time itself.

    Pater Kimbridge might try to hold that decoherence, even if it does involve a beyond space and time cause, still proves that human observation is, for all intents and purposes, inconsequential.

    In fact, Pater Kimbridge specifically claims that,,,

    An “observer” is not needed.,,,, Search the linked article for the word “observer” . You won’t find it.

    And yet in the very first sentence of the introduction of the article we find the term “observable quantities”

    Introduction
    Quantum mechanics forces us to question the view that physical quantities (such as spin, positions or energy) have predefined values: Bell’s theorem shows that if observable quantities were determined by some locally defined classical variables, it would be impossible to accomplish certain tasks—such as the violation of Bell’s inequalities—whereas such tasks are possible according to quantum mechanics1,2 and have been realised in experiments3,4,5,6.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11579-x

    I could probably find more examples in the article, but when the very first sentence in the introduction proved my point and disproved Pater Kimbridge’s claim, I’m more than satisfied that Pater Kimbridge’s claim is false.

    As well, the following video also explains why decoherence does not solve the measurement problem: i.e. The irresolvable problem of deriving the “Born rule” within the MWI is discussed at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video,

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    Moreover, if decoherence really explained the measurement problem, then how in blue blazes is it even remotely possible that a photon is able to survive all the way to detection at the retina? The following paper found that the human eye can detect the presence of a single photon. The researchers stated that “Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,

    Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
    Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,,
    it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
    The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
    “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

    On top of that, they are now seeking to “probe our understanding of quantum reality” by using human eyes themselves as detectors.

    The Human Eye Could Help Test Quantum Mechanics
    Experiments to confirm we can see single photons offer new ways to probe our understanding of quantum reality
    By Anil Ananthaswamy on July 10, 2018
    Excerpt: Now, “there’s absolutely no doubt that individual photoreceptors respond to single photons,”,,,
    In 2016 a team led by biophysicist Alipasha Vaziri, then at the University of Vienna, reported using single-photon sources to show “humans can detect a single-photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.”
    Kwiat’s team,,, wants to improve the statistics by doing a much larger number of trials with many more subjects.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

    As should be needless to say, the fact that the human eye, composed of trillions upon trillions of molecules, is not decohering a photon until it reaches the retina is proof, number 1, that Pater Kimbridge’s claim that “interaction with other matter is all that is needed to decohere” is a patently false claim. And, number 2, is also proof that Pater Kimbridge’s claim that “An “observer” is not needed” is also a false claim in that decoherence is prevented from happening until ‘observation’ by the retina.

    In fact, in direct contradiction to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists. (presuppositions that hold that there are no influences coming from outside space-time itself), non-local, beyond space and time, quantum effects are now found to be ubiquitous throughout the entire human body:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    To drive this point home even further, even though a system is non-locally becoming decohered from without space-time itself, that still does not negate the importance of human observation is quantum mechanics.

    As Stephen M. Barr explained, “If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump.”

    Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr – July 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the ‘observer’ in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump.
    That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.
    https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

    And as Steven Weinberg explained, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Experimental test of local observer-independence – 2019
    Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

    Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least appox. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.

    First off, and most importantly, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Thus in conclusion, decoherence, in and of itself, requires a beyond space and time cause, and thus cannot possibly be decohering ‘from within’. Moreover, decoherence does not negate the importance of human observation in quantum mechanics, (Barr, Weinberg). On top of that, free will is found to be integral in quantum mechanics, (Zeilinger), and the fact that free will, i.e. Agent Causality, is found to be integral in quantum mechanics allows a very plausible resolution for the quote/unquote ‘theory of everything’ to be found.

    Supplemental note: Fundamental defining attributes of the immaterial mind are found to be extremely tightly correlated with numerous lines of experimental evidence that we are now getting from quantum mechanics:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Eric’s comment, in his article, on “final causality” vs. “efficient causality”.

    I ran across this following interesting comment via a quick google search on the topic of “final causality” vs. “efficient causality”.

    Final Causation, var. Final Causality
    Excerpt: Efficient causation is that kind of causation whereby the parts compose the whole; final causation is that kind of causation whereby the whole calls out its parts. Final causation without efficient causation is helpless; mere calling for parts is what a Hotspur, or any man, may do; but they will not come without efficient causation. Efficient causation without final causation, however, is worse than helpless, by far; it is mere chaos; and chaos is not even so much as chaos, without final causation; it is blank nothing.
    http://www.commens.org/diction.....-causation

    Along that same line of reasoning, here is an interesting comment from Pastor Joe Boot,

    “If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no prexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot – quote taken from 13:20 minute mark of the following video:
    Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video
    https://youtu.be/wqE5_ZOAnKo?t=797

    It is also interesting to note that this line of reasoning also comports to what is found in Godel’s incompleteness theorem:

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    It is also interesting to note that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is no longer just some abstract mathematical proof, but Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to quantum physics: And has now shown that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

Leave a Reply