In a telling anecdote:
Quantum field theory, which describes physics at subatomic scales, makes many mathematicians cringe because of its “algebraic shenanigans,” says Dorota Grabowska, a fellow in the CERN Theory Group. “If I had a conversation with a mathematician about quantum field theory, they would let out a sigh of exasperation. It’s like when your mom tells you to clean your room, so you shove everything in the closet. It looks fine, but please don’t open the closet.”
Quantum field theory is rife with something mathematicians can’t stand: unresolved infinities. In a 1977 essay, Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg wrote that “[Quantum field theory’s] reputation among physicists suffered frequent fluctuations… at times dropping so low that quantum field theory came close to be[ing] abandoned altogether.”
But quantum field theory survives because at the end of the day, it still makes predictions that check out with experiments, such as those at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
“The LHC is like our mother, and when she opens the closet, everything is magically organized,” Grabowska says.
Sarah Charley, “How to break a theory” at Symmetry Magazine (March 8, 2022)
Fair enough but then what do we make of the way the LHC experiments indicate that the universe is not random? See, for example,
“Nothing but… ” is now creating a crisis in science When science writers (and scientists) start using words like “miraculously,” it’s a clue that they are really stumped. As science writer Natalie Wolchover explains, nature appears embarrassingly fine-tuned and resists being reduced to little bits of nothing.
Heh, exactly.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/d6/e7/54/d6e754d24aaef324c1595e68583ace7a.jpg
The biggest problem seems to be synthesizing an interpretation of quantum mechanics that doesn’t falsify deterministic materialism.
-Q
As to: “It’s like when your mom tells you to clean your room, so you shove everything in the closet. It looks fine, but please don’t open the closet.”
But for those who can’t help peaking inside the closet, this is just how ‘mathematically messy’ Quantum Field Theory of the Standard Model actually is.
And indeed, compared to other simple, even ‘beautiful’, equations of physics, the Standard Model is, by all rights, to be considered a hideous monstrosity.
In fact, and of related interest, Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, solely through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:
Also of related interest to mathematical beauty and the standard model, and contrary to popular opinion, the prediction of the Higgs Boson was not born out of the standard model,,, (As the following article states, “The Higgs particle itself is outside the (standard) model.”)
,,, but instead the prediction of the Higgs Boson was actually born out of Peter Higgs’s sense of ‘mathematical beauty’.
As the following article states, the prediction of the Higgs was made because, if the Higgs Boson did not exist then, “the mathematical harmony was spoiled. The equations became complex and unwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.”
And as the article goes on to state, “Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat of the beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equations pristine and symmetric, but consider them operating within a peculiar environment.”
Moreover, the Higgs Boson, due to the fine-tuning of its mass, actually created more problems, (for atheists), in the Standard Model than it solved,,,
As to this comment from the OP, “If I had a conversation with a mathematician about quantum field theory, they would let out a sigh of exasperation.,,, Quantum field theory is rife with something mathematicians can’t stand: unresolved infinities.”
As to just how mathematically unsatisfactory this is, the following article states, “The theory was glued together with hopes and prayers. Only by using a technique dubbed “renormalization,” which involved carefully concealing infinite quantities,”,, “It is what I would call a dippy process,” Richard Feynman later wrote. “Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent.”,,, “This is just not sensible mathematics,” wrote Paul Dirac, a groundbreaking quantum theorist.”
Of related interest, one of the major mathematical stumbling blocks for theoretical physicists in trying to find that hypothetical mathematical “Theory of Everything’ has been the problem of quote unquote ‘renormalizing’ the infinities that crop us when one tries to mathematically unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.
“The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory.”
After nearly two decades of work, it only became possible to unify Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics when the “infinite results” between the two theories were dealt with by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman referred to this mathematical sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
One of the ‘unacceptable’ side-effects of renormalizing the infinity between quantum mechanics and special relativity is that it also came at the cost of also brushing ‘the measurement problem’ and/or ‘observation’ itself under the rug.
As Nobel Prize-winning Sheldon Lee Glashow himself stated, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”
Yet, ‘quantum measurement’ is precisely where quantum mechanics makes its ‘weirdness’ fully evident.
As the following delayed choice experiment with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Thus, in the process of “brushing infinity under the rug” in order to unify quantum mechanics and special relativity, it appears that they also brushed the, by far, most interesting part of Quantum Mechanics itself under the rug. Namely, Quantum Field Theory apparently also brushes the entire enigma of quantum measurement itself under the rug as well.
But anyways, although special relativity and quantum mechanics were, via the mathematical sleight of hand of renormalization, mathematically unified with one another in order to produce Quantum Electrodynamics, no such mathematical sleight of hand exists for unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.”
And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini stated, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
Moreover, when we 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,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then 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 bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Video and Verse:
Dillinger’s Theory explains their adherence.
Bornagain77/4
No, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter how many times you post this, it’s still incoherent.
“God did it” is not a theory of everything, it’s not a theory of anything because you have no more idea of how your God did whatever you think he did than materialists have of how it all came about through natural physical processes.
So, for explanatory purposes, it doesn’t really matter whether God is allowed in or shut out as a causal agency. It makes no difference.
Seversky,
Don’t you see the problem with the theory of Nature creating nature from nothing? For example, how did space-time create space-time?
-Q
Seversky states: “No, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter how many times you post this, it’s still incoherent.”
Well Seversky, not to be too nit-picky, but if you are going to be able to rightly separate what is logically coherent from what is logically incoherent, should you not, at least, first endorse a worldview that is able to ground logical reasoning??.. instead of dogmatically clinging to your Atheistic Naturalism/Materialism which is unable to ground ‘immaterial’ logic??
As Dr. Egnor points out, “logic — is neither material nor natural.,,, logic,, is outside of any naturalistic frame.”
On top of that, the resolute denial of the reality of free will by Atheistic Naturalists also directly undermines the atheist’s claim that they are making, (and/or that they are even capable of making), logically coherent arguments in the first place.
As Martin Cothran explains, “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.”
As a shining example of just how logically incoherent the atheist’s worldview actually is, the following statement by militant atheist Jerry Coyne should literally be the number one example of a logically self-refuting argument that is given in philosophy 101 classes.
Moreover besides, (via their denial of free will), undermining any claim that they themselves are even capable of making logically coherent arguments in the first place, Darwinian atheists, (via their belief that the universe itself is, at base, the result of random chaos instead of being the result of a rational and Intelligent Mind), undermine any claim that the universe itself should be rational.
As Einstein himself stated, (according to the presuppositions of atheistic materialism), “a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.”
And indeed, as Einstein himself pointed out, it is, by all rights, to be considered a ‘miracle’ that mathematics should even be applicable to the universe.
One fairly huge clue that it is a ‘miracle’, Mathematics, (like logic), is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence,,
And since mathematics, (like logic), is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence, Darwinian materialists simply have no realistic clue why we should even be able to understand ‘immaterial’ mathematics in the first place, nor do they have any realistic clue why the universe itself should be describable by ‘immaterial’ mathematics.
Like Einstein, Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner also considered the applicability of mathematics to the universe is to be a ‘miracle’.
Darwinian atheists, (besides having no realistic clue why ‘immaterial’ mathematics should even be, ‘miraculously’, applicable to the universe in the first place), simply have no realistic clue why we, of all creatures on earth, should uniquely possess this, ‘miraculous’, capability of grasping the immaterial mathematics that lay behind this universe.
As Michael Egnor states, (and as far as our ability to think about immaterial ‘abstract’ concepts is concerned), “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.”
So thus in conclusion, Seversky may try to, (repeatedly), claim that Christianity is a logically incoherent worldview, but alas, it turns out that it is Seversky’s very own worldview of Atheistic Naturalism/Materialism that is profoundly, and utterly, logically incoherent in its foundational essence.
Moreover, this logical incoherency that is inherent to his atheistic worldview is literally built right into the foundational ‘random chaos’ presupposition that lies at the heart of his atheistic worldview.
Whereas, on the other hand, logic, and/or ‘divine reasoning’, is literally built right into the foundational presupposition of the Christian’s worldview,,, and thus the Christian has more than sufficient reason to presuppose the universe to be rational and reasonable in its foundational essence.,, (and indeed it was that ‘logical’ presupposition that led to the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe).
Of supplemental note:
Sev
We know quite a lot more about how God did it than we could know from materialism. Just by eliminating some causes we have some knowledge.
Natural physical processes (materialism) is a single entity – there is nothing more or less. So, how can the physical world create the physical world? It’s a circularity and illogical.
Therefore, we know that God did not use physical nature to create physical nature, since the cause of the thing’s existence cannot be equivalent to the thing (the cause must preceed the existence of the thing). So, we know how God created the universe at least much more than materialism’s claims by stating, logically, God used immaterial means.
Immaterial means for the creation of things begin with design – in the mind.
So, it’s a strong inference that God designed the universe with His intellect.
Bornagain77, Kairosfocus, and others here often mention that REALITY seems to be based on information and conscious observation. For example
Nevertheless, Seversky and others here continually bring up their same often-falsified 18th century conceptions of material reality regardless of how many times we post the current experimental evidence in quantum mechanics. I can only conclude that this demonstrates symptoms of ideological poisoning within a titanium cranium.
-Q
P.S. I’ve also noticed and complained that detractors here rarely bring anything substantive to the table, only their unsupported assertions and ad hominems, which apparently they consider as irrefutable proof.
Seversky:
I wish to quibble with this:
First, “God did it” is not a “theory,” but an “hypothesis.” As in: “If God is the Creator of all things, then . . . .”
Second, and perhaps you agree here (given your remark about ‘materialists’), “Evolution did it” is not much of a “theory” either–it’s no more than an assumption.
Third, I think you’re simply wrong when you say that “for explanatory purposes,” it doesn’t matter whether God is allowed in or shut out as a causal agency.
Yes, it does matter. In fact, it’s critical. It’s why we have experimental science in the West.
Christians, “assuming” that God put things in motion, also then believed that there must be something in the ‘created order’ that keeps these things moving: it’s called, ‘inertia.’
Atheism is a recent phenomena; but science in the West goes back to 13th century seminaries–which, nowadays, we call ‘universities.’
Querius @ 10
You quote:
I’m posting this because it was provided as a brute statement. Anyone like Dr. Andrew Truscott who says or writes something like that needs to accept it for what it is. If he means something else, then he shouldn’t make that statement – agreed?
The idea that reality does not exist unless you’re looking at it (or maybe it doesn’t exist at all) is a notion that WJM supports as well as BA77 and I think you are posting this because it is your belief …
I’d just start with the idea that there are quite a lot of things that I am not looking at – right now, or at any given time.
For example, last week I looked at a little seedling. It had 2 leaves. Today I looked and it had four leaves. Scientifically, since the plant did not exist while I wasn’t looking at it – the 2 new leaves didn’t grow over time but the new leaves just appeared fully formed today, not as something that gradually came out of the stem slowly.
Going farther, in fact, there are many things that I have never looked at. So, Dr. Truscott would need say they never existed at all. In fact, he has never looked at me. So for him, I do not exist.
I think we can we see how this destroys any claim to coherent thought. How is this not more insane than the belief of materialists?
I’ve mentioned this before to BA77, that in the admirable desire to destroy materialism, all of reality was destroyed in the process (except for what I am looking at for any given instant).
There are other, more sane ways to look at quantum measurements rather than to have to conclude that reality does not exist unless you are looking at it.
That idea is beyond just “weirdness” but is just intellectual chaos.
Or am I missing something here?
Well SA, as much as it may upset your a-priori picture of the world, the experimental results from Quantum Mechanics are what they are.
If you believe that a material/physical reality exists before measurement, (or more precisely, if you believe that a material/physical reality exists before we “choose” what to measure), then the impetus is on you to provide experimental evidence from quantum mechanics to the contrary, because right now the experimental evidence simply does not exist.
Quantum Mechanics, as weird as it predictions may seem to you, has passed every experimental test that has been put to it with flying colors.
Moreover SA, saying that material/physical reality does not exist until we choose what to measure is a far cry from saying “they never existed at all” as you are trying to imply.
It merely falsifies (Atheistic) materialism and/or physicalism as the ultimate substratum of reality, and leaves Theism on the table as the only rational alternative to Solipsism. As Professor Richard Conn Henry of John Hopkins university put it, “a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism,”
Personally, and as a Christian, I happen to be very comfortable with the ‘infinite Mind of God” sustaining this universe in its (Planck) moment by (Planck) moment existence, and God being the ultimate substratum of all reality.
Supplemental notes:
Eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness must precede material reality
Putting all these lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be succinctly framed like this:
Also see:
Verse:
BA77
Could you explain this? You’re agreeing with the statement I posted (Querius posted it):
I said, if I never look at something, then it never exists. Reality only exists when I look at it. Plus, a lot of people never look at me – so for them, I do not exist.
You’re saying that’s a “far cry” from what it means. But you didn’t explain.
I gave you an example of my plant. When I look at it, supposedly, it exists. When I don’t look, it doesn’t exist. So, it never grew new leaves. They just popped into existence the next time I looked at it.
I think you’ve got quite a lot to explain and I haven’t seen anything yet.
For example also – it’s quite easy with that quantum view to say “Moses never existed”.
I never looked at Moses, and reality only exists when I look at it – so obviously, Moses never existed.
SA, let me ask you a question, in your mind does the word ‘reality’ equate to materialism or to God?
BA – “reality” is just everything that is real. The material world, God, angels, human beings, the human soul, rocks, trees, ideas, stars, energy forces, immaterial essences – they’re all part of what we call “reality”.
So, God created the physical universe – that’s a major part of reality. He also created heaven, for example – that’s also real.
Things that are not real are those things that have never existed, or could not exist.
I think Genesis 1:1 causes the conflict. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
That conflicts with the idea that reality does not exist unless I’m looking at it.
Silver Asiatic @12,
No, you’re not missing anything.
The quote you’re challenging is an extrapolation of the concept of collapsing wavefunctions, which are mathematical probability waves. A probability wave is no less “real” than a particle, but is non-material. Here’s an analogy. If one throws a spinning coin into the air, there’s a 50-50 chance it will turn out to be heads when it lands. That probability is as real as the coin.
Where one can get off track is assuming that only particles are “real” and they wink in and out of existence. I don’t think that’s what Dr. Truscott meant, but I know what you’re saying.
-Q
SA, EVERYTHING is ALWAYS dependent upon the reality of God for its own ‘reality’.
i.e. God did not just create a material reality apart from Himself and walk away (i.e. Deism).
And this is not some foreign concept to Christianity but was laid out by Aquinas, via Aristotle.
A few notes to that effect:
BA
Good point. Yes, that’s important.
God is the sustainer of all reality – making physical processes possible, the source of energy … in Him we live and move and have our being.
So, we could say that “reality is always being observed” in that sense. God’s presence causes things to be real.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth …” Adam and Eve weren’t around, so human observers were not necessary for reality to exist. But maybe we could say “God’s observation” was the necessary element.
SA 19, “By Jove! I think we’ve got it!!!!”