Cosmology Intelligent Design Multiverse

Sean Carroll: Where quantum probability comes from

Spread the love

Good topic for Quanta Magazine, though possibly a bit ambitious? But then it’s Sean Carroll, author of Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime , again (guy gets around), helping us understand his multiverse:

Everett’s brilliant move was simply to say, “And that’s okay” — all we need to do is recognize that each part of the system subsequently evolves separately from all of the others, and therefore qualifies as a separate branch of the wave function, or “world.” The worlds aren’t put in by hand; they were lurking in the quantum formalism all along.

The idea of all those worlds might seem extravagant or distasteful, but those aren’t respectable scientific objections. A more legitimate question is the nature of probability within this approach. In many-worlds, we can know the wave function exactly, and it evolves deterministically. There is nothing unknown or unpredictable. Laplace’s demon could predict the entire future of the universe with perfect confidence. How is probability involved at all?

An answer is provided by the idea of “self-locating,” or “indexical,” uncertainty. Imagine that you are about to measure a quantum system, thus branching the wave function into different worlds (for simplicity, let’s just say there will be two worlds). It doesn’t make sense to ask, “After the measurement, which world will I be on?” There will be two people, one on each branch, both descended from you; neither has a better claim to being “really you” than the other.

Sean Carroll, “Where quantum probability comes from” at Quanta

His universe is deterministic, presumably, because everything happens. End of story. Actually, end of all stories.


See also: See also: Cosmologist Sean Carroll: A radical multiverse is the price we pay for unifying physics. Carroll: “The price we pay for such a powerful and simple unification of quantum dynamics is a large number of separate worlds.” Right. And the price you pay for suicide is that nothing you do in this world afterward matters.

Sean Carroll: Physicists don’t even want to understand quantum mechanics
Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?

At Nature: The “bizarre logic” of the multiverse is explored in a review. Crease writes as if he would very much like to buy into Carroll’s ideas but still thinks that sanity has something to offer. Possibly, many establishment science figures teeter on that brink. In a review of cosmologist Sean Carroll’s new book, Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime

Follow UD News at Twitter!

15 Replies to “Sean Carroll: Where quantum probability comes from

  1. 1
    Axel says:

    Cosmology as Zen.

    ‘Do you know the sound of one hand clapping?’ is, I believe, a famous Zen satori ?

    Hunter S Thompson actually demonstrated one hand clapping and the sound it makes, by boxing a sneering Buddhist teacher’s ear with his cupped hand, thereby damaging the eustachian tube.

    I’m not sure, ‘a robust sense of humour’ would best describe Thompson’s gift of satori in this situation.

  2. 2
    hazel says:

    It’s a koan, not a satori.

  3. 3
    FourFaces says:

    Carroll writes in the tradition of Star Trek physicists. In other words, it’s all voodoo superstition. There is a simple reason for quantum probability and it’s not because we were told so by quantum physicists. Nature cannot calculate the exact duration of particle interactions because there is no time dimension. The only recourse, in order to obey conservation laws in the long run, is to use probability. This is why the decay of subatomic particles is probabilistic.
    There is no time dimension because it would make motion impossible. This is the reason that spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens, something that never fails to surprise and annoy scores of relativists.

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    The Special Theory of Relativity informed physicists that they had a wrong notion of space and time. Space was not absolute, nor was time. They acted ‘relative’ to one another.

    The General Theory of Relativity informed physicists that they had a wrong notion of gravitational force: it wasn’t a “force at a distance” that caused gravity, but, rather, space that is curved; that is, non-Euclidean.

    It seems to me that if you want to combine quantum mechanics, in particular, quantum field theory, and general relativity, then there is something new to be learned about space. I believe what the MWI of QM given by Everett (and, apparently, so-named by Richard Feynman) is telling us is that space is affected by–a function of, time.

    This is because Everett’s point of departure was to contrast the local environment with that of the global environment (the lab room where the QM experiment is conducted versus the quad area outside of the science building). Someone standing in the quad area (global) see’s the the “wave function” of the building as evolving strictly with time–something that he can calculate straightforwardly, while the experimenter in the lab room has set up a “wave function” between an object and a measuring device.

    Before the experiment is performed the outcome calculated is only probabalistic, not deterministic like that of the person outside in the quad. What is apparent to me, at least, is that energy density of space is a function of time. But how? Well, that’s the $64,000 question.

    What I regret is that scientists eschew a more abstract, conceptual tackling of this quandry in favor of an almost strictly mathematical one. When Einstein spent time thinking about “gedanken” experiments–thought experiments, he revolutionized physics. When he became enamored with the strictly mathematical approach, while laying some of the foundations for the “new” quantum theory, he never again had great influence in his field. I think there’s a lesson to be learned here.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Everett’s brilliant move was simply to say, “And that’s okay” — all we need to do is recognize that each part of the system subsequently evolves separately from all of the others, and therefore qualifies as a separate branch of the wave function, or “world.” The worlds aren’t put in by hand; they were lurking in the quantum formalism all along.
    The idea of all those worlds might seem extravagant or distasteful, but those aren’t respectable scientific objections. A more legitimate question is the nature of probability within this approach.,,,
    How is probability involved at all?
    An answer is provided by the idea of “self-locating,” or “indexical,” uncertainty. Imagine that you are about to measure a quantum system, thus branching the wave function into different worlds (for simplicity, let’s just say there will be two worlds). It doesn’t make sense to ask, “After the measurement, which world will I be on?” There will be two people, one on each branch, both descended from you; neither has a better claim to being “really you” than the other.
    But even if both people know the wave function of the universe, there is now something they don’t know: which branch of the wave function they are on. There will inevitably be a period of time after branching occurs but before the observers find out what outcome was obtained on their branch. They don’t know where they are in the wave function. That’s self-locating uncertainty, as first emphasized in the quantum context by the physicist Lev Vaidman.
    You might think you could just look at the experimental outcome really quickly, so that there was no noticeable period of uncertainty. But in the real world, the wave function branches incredibly fast, on timescales of 10?21 seconds or less. That’s far quicker than a signal can even reach your brain. There will always be some period of time when you’re on a certain branch of the wave function, but you don’t know which one.
    Can we resolve this uncertainty in a sensible way? Yes, we can, as Charles Sebens and I have argued, and doing so leads precisely to the Born rule: The credence you should attach to being on any particular branch of the wave function is just the amplitude squared for that branch, just as in ordinary quantum mechanics. Sebens and I needed to make a new assumption, which we called the “epistemic separability principle”: Whatever predictions you make for experimental outcomes, they should be unaltered if we only change the wave function for completely separate parts of the system.
    Self-locating uncertainty is a different kind of epistemic uncertainty from that featured in pilot-wave models. You can know everything there is to know about the universe, and there’s still something you’re uncertain about, namely where you personally are within it. Your uncertainty obeys the rules of ordinary probability, but it requires a bit of work to convince yourself that there’s a reasonable way to assign numbers to your belief.

    And just like magic, with a little mathematical sleight of hand, Carroll, via updating the wave function to the ‘imaginary observer’ in his imaginary parallel universe, makes the Born Rule falsification of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) magically go away.

    The irresolvable problem of deriving the “Born rule” (for probability distribution) within the MWI is discussed at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – InspiringPhilosophy – video
    https://youtu.be/_42skzOHjtA?t=273

    As well, others may not be so enamored with Carroll’s supposed mathematical ‘fix’ of the Born rule in MWI:

    (Born Rule) Mysterious Quantum Rule Reconstructed From Scratch – Philip Ball – February 13, 2019
    Excerpt: “What makes quantum theory puzzling is not so much the Born rule as a way of computing probabilities,” Chiribella said, “but the fact that we cannot interpret the measurements as revealing some pre-existing properties of the system.”
    What’s more, the mathematical machinery for unfolding these probabilities can only be written down if you stipulate how you’re looking. If you do different measurements, you might calculate different probabilities, even though you seem to be examining the same system in both cases.,,,
    – per quanta magazine

    Maverick branches, a proof that Everett’s (Many Worlds) theory is totally wrong – December 02, 2015
    Excerpt: To make any predictions, one must pick a basis and use the Born rule to compute the probabilities of each possible outcome. The basis of “possible outcomes” must be actively chosen by an observer. There can’t exist any “canonical” or “objective” way to pick the right basis for the Hilbert space. If the people were thinking about actual physical problems and not some idealized propagandist clichés that are designed to make the MWI paradigm look viable, even though it is not, they would know that what they claim to be possible clearly isn’t possible.
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2015.....s.html?m=1

    Besides that, MWI has been experimentally falsified. Many Worlds (MWI) denies the actuality of wave-function collapse:

    Quantum mechanics
    Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....plications

    The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

    And yet, contrary to that axiom within MWI that holds that the wave function does not collapse, the following experiment shows that the wave function does indeed collapse,,

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    Apparently that experimental refutation of MWI did not make it to whatever parallel universe Carroll may be existing in 🙂

    Of supplemental note: MWI, in spite of what Carroll may say, is still just plain insane

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017
    Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic.
    The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less.
    Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,,
    What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/

    i.e. If sanity, and empirical grounding, is to count for anything in science, then MWI should be rejected solely on the basis that it is an unrestained flight of imagination with no empirical support whatsoever..

    Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems – Philip Ball – October 18, 2018
    Excerpt: It, (The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable.
    Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am.
    Yet I have pushed hard against the MWI not so much to try to demolish it as to show how its flaws, once brought to light, are instructive. Like the Copenhagen interpretation (which also has profound problems), it should be valued for forcing us to confront some tough philosophical questions.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/

    Carroll might also look up Zeilinger’s recent closing of the free will loop-hole in 2018:

    Here is a interesting recent experiment from Anton Zeilinger and company that pushed the “free-will loophole” back to 7.8 billion years ago using quasars to determine measurement settings.

    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 ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 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

    i.e. Contrary to Carroll’s deterministic MWI view of reality, Agent causality is very much alive and well in quantum mechanics

  6. 6
    Eugene says:

    Quantum probability is one of my favorite Big Questions. Who runs the random number generator and where is it located? 🙂 There’s a fair chance this random number generator is part of consciousness. …Or maybe we do indeed live in a fancy simulated environment.
    I don’t like the Many Worlds interpretation.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    As News pointed out, Carroll’s MWI is deterministic, (as are all ‘realist’ models in quantum mechanics deterministic that neglect the central importance of the Conscious Observer in quantum mechanics).

    “In many-worlds, we can know the wave function exactly, and it evolves deterministically. There is nothing unknown or unpredictable.”
    – Carroll

    Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism itself is, by its very nature, completely deterministic. That is to say that free will and/or agent causality is ruled out of bounds in all Naturalistic models before any scientific investigation has even begun.

    Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of options, thoughts, feelings,… That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an “autonomous mind”, i.e. a principium individuationis.

    With no free will, ‘you’ literally become a meat robot with no control over your own thoughts:

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    Without anyone having any control over their own thoughts, via their free will, reason and rationality itself becomes impossible in science:

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism).
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

    “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
    – C.S. Lewis

    “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.”
    Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White
    Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead

    As Martin Cothran succinctly puts it, ” The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    Moreover, we no longer have to simply ‘presume a perspective outside the physical order’ in order to believe in free will, (and to preserve reason and rationality within science), but we can also now appeal to quantum mechanics itself. As of 2018, free will has been shown to a integral part of quantum mechanics. Specifically, in 2018 Anton Zeilinger and company have 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 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 ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 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

    Just how counter-intuitive this ‘free will’ aspect of quantum mechanics is to naturalistic presuppositions is touched upon by Anton Zeilinger in the following video. Specifically Zeilinger states, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    Thus the reality of free will, (and, by default, the truthfulness of Theism), is now empirically validated by recent advances in quantum mechanics that have now confirmed the validity of free will. A confirmation at the fundamental, quantum, level of reality which provides us with a ‘perspective outside the physical order’ so that we can now firmly ground our ability to reason in a coherent fashion.

    i.e. Logic, reason, and thus science itself, is now saved from the catastrophic epistemological failure that is inherent in the determinism of Atheistic Naturalism which denies our free will and thus denies our ability to reason in a coherent fashion in the first place!

    Verse and quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

    Of supplemental note:

    if we back up to square one, and rightly allow 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 of modern science),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company in 2018), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that 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”.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sean-carroll-physicists-dont-even-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics/#comment-683776

    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.

    Also of supplemental note. A lot of the needless confusion surrounding quantum mechanics simply evaporates once we understand how tightly some of our defining attributes of consciousness, (i.e. the experience of ‘the now’ and free will), correlate with the actions we see in quantum mechanics.

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

  8. 8
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @Eugene
    I thought it was non-randomness that required a consciousness.
    Which is it?

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    Thank you Hazel. I thought it was another term, and that it would appear in a text, if I Googled ‘satori’. Bizarrely, not so – unless I scanned in too slipshod a manner – which would by no means be rare, admittedly. Thank you for reminding me of the term, though.

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    ‘ Nature cannot calculate the exact duration of particle interactions because there is no time dimension. The only recourse, in order to obey conservation laws in the long run, is to use probability. This is why the decay of subatomic particles is probabilistic.’

    Well, how fascinating, Four Faces ! It must be the non-locality thang.

  11. 11
    FourFaces says:

    @Axel:
    Well, how fascinating, Four Faces ! It must be the non-locality thang.
    Yes. Nonlocality is the norm, not the exception. All conservation laws are nonlocal. By the way, there is no action at a distance in the Newtonian sense because there is no distance. Distance (space, volume, area, etc.) is an abstract entity created by the mind. There are only particles, their intrinsic properties (including position) and their interactions. Cheers!

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Pater K:

    I thought it was non-randomness that required a consciousness.

    A RNG requires a mind to design and implement. Blind, mindless and purposeless processes do not require a mind.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    ‘By the way, there is no action at a distance in the Newtonian sense because there is no distance. Distance (space, volume, area, etc.)’ Wow! Of course.

    ‘There are only particles, their intrinsic properties (including position).’
    How ‘position’ ? Within its own margins – so to speak, e.g. upside down, even, somehow, horizontally ?

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    I didn’t see ‘action at a distance’, as a problem, as I looked at it from a theological perspective ! If God wants two particles to look as if they physically affect each other simultanseously, when miles apart, at his sole discretion, who are we to argue !

    Kind of playing games with us and our mighty brains…! As with the fine-tuning of the universe. The very thing, the magnitude of the universe, that convinces the atheists that there must be other inhabited planets, always struck me as a pefect set-up for God to ‘scatter the proud in the imagination of their hearts’, since instead it might well be a way for God to demonstrate how special we are to Him. Of course, magnitude is without meaning to Him, being All in All and non-physical.

    As regards the alleged UFOs, there seems to be a welter of at least anecdotal evidence for their existence. However, if true, I believe the ETs are, as has been suggested by Christians, demons, devils.

  15. 15
    Axel says:

    Sorry, FourFaces, I meant these to be addressed to you. You may not want to comment on them, though. Indeed, they may not even make a lot of sense.

    Perhaps the ‘position’ thing indicates the particles create their own reference-frame, according to the configuration they assume.

Leave a Reply