If God controlled quantum randomness...

[Upisoft]

Didn't Einstein say, "God doesn't play dice with the universe"?

I cannot believe God plays dice with the universe.
Albert Einstein

Not only does God play dice with the universe, He's using loaded dice.
John Ford

Not only does God play dice, He throws them where we cannot see them.
Steven Hawkings

 

[chris4243]

I would have thought not, seeing as the miracles don't take place on the quantum level.

Doesn't quantum mechanics describe the universe at the macroscopic level? As I understand it, the only reason we don't use quantum mechanics on larger objects is because it is far more complicated and the random aspects balance out statistically. I've also heard it said that in theory, all the air in the room might go to a little corner and you suffocate (but the odds are like 10^-1,000,000 or so). Also if you consider chaotic systems, with a little well-placed interference and plenty of calculation, one could make huge effects. And in the latter case it would be completely undetectable.

 

[chris4243]

I'd think so. If you could somehow control every aspect of matter you could possibly do pretty much anything at all.

Someone, I forgot who, said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

When it comes to God, whom we believe created this universe He is the one who set down it's laws. It makes practically no sense to me why so many seem to think He somehow needs to violate said laws in order to be God. A good programmer doesn't violate his own programming, he makes a good enough piece of software so that he doesn't need to violate his own coding later on. And what's more, a mathematician or physicist do not add arbitrary values to his or her equations just to make it a desirable answer. No, they make allowances for what is and work with that, as opposed to just adding random and unrelated things. Why would God break the laws He made? Is He too stupid to plan and make a product which allows for His input later on? I should think not.

Exactly! From a programming aspect, I think quantum randomness would be the perfect back-door.

 

[chris4243]

As much as I disbelieve in miracles, that's a brilliant idea. Someone should write sci-fi out of it

Thanks!

Einstein said that because he found quantum randomness hard to swallow. But in the end, he didn't find a way to get rid of it. Nor did anyone else.

I sort of did. I too philosophically despise the idea of randomness. I think quantum randomness could be described as supernatural -- beyond the laws of physics, effects with no cause. Philosophically, I prefer to think of this randomness as having some cause, rather than giving up on explaining it like so many scientists have done. Of course attributing it to God won't let me make any predictions, but it does allow me to keep the law of cause and effect and gives God a little hidey-hole from which to do anything He likes (I think) without violating a law of physics.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I sort of did. I too philosophically despise the idea of randomness. I think quantum randomness could be described as supernatural -- beyond the laws of physics, effects with no cause. Philosophically, I prefer to think of this randomness as having some cause, rather than giving up on explaining it like so many scientists have done. Of course attributing it to God won't let me make any predictions, but it does allow me to keep the law of cause and effect and gives God a little hidey-hole from which to do anything He likes (I think) without violating a law of physics.

I also don't like randomness. I have this idea that we perceive randomness in a similar way that ancients perceived the sun to rotate around the Earth. I feel like the randomness is likely actually driven by some force of nature (or God?) in a similar way that the warping of space-time is the force which drives the Earth around the sun.

The world is a weird place.

Randomness in itself is just a perceived idea of things that are "unlikely" as defined by us. Humans see patterns and certain patterns seem more unlikely than others so we notice them. For example, if you roll a die six times and you get six 1's in a row, you would think that is unlikely and strange. If you roll a die six times and you get a 6, 3, 3, 4, 1, 5 you would think nothing of it because it appears random. But the chances of getting the set [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1] and [6, 3, 3, 4, 1, 5] are exactly the same: 1 in 46656. But we just attribute randomness to the latter set while thinking the former set is somehow "special".

So there is a near-infinite number of configurations of particles in your room but the chances of these particles being configured in their exact positions at this moment and the chances of them all being crammed into one corner leaving you to suffocate is essentially the same. Neither precise configuration is more likely, one just looks more random while the other looks more patterned.

 

[Naraoia]

I also don't like randomness. I have this idea that we perceive randomness in a similar way that ancients perceived the sun to rotate around the Earth. I feel like the randomness is likely actually driven by some force of nature (or God?) in a similar way that the warping of space-time is the force which drives the Earth around the sun.

The world is a weird place.

Randomness in itself is just a perceived idea of things that are "unlikely" as defined by us. Humans see patterns and certain patterns seem more unlikely than others so we notice them. For example, if you roll a die six times and you get six 1's in a row, you would think that is unlikely and strange. If you roll a die six times and you get a 6, 3, 3, 4, 1, 5 you would think nothing of it because it appears random. But the chances of getting the set [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1] and [6, 3, 3, 4, 1, 5] are exactly the same: 1 in 46656. But we just attribute randomness to the latter set while thinking the former set is somehow "special".

Is it just appearances? It's a really hard question, given how completely deterministic systems, like "random" number generating algorithms, can appear random for most practical purposes. (Although I thought Bell's inequality and its various quasi-tests are so far against that sort of hidden determinism in quantum mechanics?)

So there is a near-infinite number of configurations of particles in your room but the chances of these particles being configured in their exact positions at this moment and the chances of them all being crammed into one corner leaving you to suffocate is essentially the same. Neither precise configuration is more likely, one just looks more random while the other looks more patterned.

However, the chance of any particular configuration of molecules causing the air to spread out roughly evenly across the room is much higher than the chance of all the air crowding into one corner. There are many more configurations that result in the former than the latter. So all air in the corner is (or would be, if it ever happened) a very unusual occurrence.

(Oh, entropy, how we love thee! )

 

[lucaspa]

If God controlled quantum randomness, would that be sufficient to cause all the miracles claimed in the Bible?

No.

 

[lucaspa]

Doesn't quantum mechanics describe the universe at the macroscopic level?

It can.

As I understand it, the only reason we don't use quantum mechanics on larger objects is because it is far more complicated and the random aspects balance out statistically.

Not exactly. Most of the quantum effects are so small relative to the object that they are unnoticeable at the macro level. For instance, we can do the wave equations for the position of the electron and the possibilities are much larger than the diameter of the electron. However, when we do those same equations on say, our body, the range of possible positions is less than the diameter of an atom! Compared to our size, that uncertainty is so small as to be unnoticeable.

I've also heard it said that in theory, all the air in the room might go to a little corner and you suffocate (but the odds are like 10^-1,000,000 or so). Also if you consider chaotic systems, with a little well-placed interference and plenty of calculation, one could make huge effects. And in the latter case it would be completely undetectable.

Yes, that is one way that God can affect the universe without being detectable by science. It has been brought up in connection with evolution (by Richard Dawkins) that God could introduce a few favorable mutations He desires (by directing the cosmic ray that mutates the DNA, say) into a population. The overall rate of mutation is so large that we are unable to detect this "signal" in the "noise".

A few of the miracles -- such as Jesus walking on water -- could be explained this way. But not all, such as the loaves and fishes. There matter has to be premanently created out of energy.

 

[Naraoia]

A few of the miracles -- such as Jesus walking on water -- could be explained this way. But not all, such as the loaves and fishes. There matter has to be premanently created out of energy.

Why not from all the matter surrounding the characters of the story?

 

[Naraoia]

I sort of did.

With no more predictive power than Einstein and his hypothetical hidden variables. Well, at least your theory is in no danger of falsification

 

[lucaspa]

Why not from all the matter surrounding the characters of the story?

There is no quantum mechanical effect that will transmute elements to my knowledge. The "best" I could come up with would be making virtual particles real and building the loaves and fishes from them. But then comes the problem of providing the energy to do that. That energy is not part of QM, either.

Going back a few posts, Naraoia, Chris said that he thought all events on the quantum level were caused. However, some events at the quantum level are indeed uncaused. In bulk, quantum events are regular. But on the individual level, they are uncaused.

For instance, you have 1,000 atoms of C14. In 5,280 years half of those atoms -- 500 -- will decay. That's the regular part. But now when we get to the individual atoms, there is nothing that causes a particular atom to decay at a particular time. They are all identical. But it gets worse. 5,280 years from now you only have 500 atoms left. If we were working with cause and effect, you would expect all of those atoms to decay within the next 5,280 years. But they don't. Instead, only 250 atoms decay. Then only 125 in the next half-life. No cause. It just happens that way.

Or you can shine a laser beam on a mirror. 95% of the photons are reflected, 5% go thru. So far, so good. But then you can take those 5% that went thru and shine them on the same mirror again. You'd think all of them would go thru. Nope. 95% are reflected, 5% go thru.

 

[lucaspa]

I sort of did. I too philosophically despise the idea of randomness. I think quantum randomness could be described as supernatural -- beyond the laws of physics, effects with no cause. Philosophically, I prefer to think of this randomness as having some cause, rather than giving up on explaining it like so many scientists have done. Of course attributing it to God won't let me make any predictions, but it does allow me to keep the law of cause and effect and gives God a little hidey-hole from which to do anything He likes (I think) without violating a law of physics.

What we philosophically want has nothing to do with what IS. The universe is what it is, not what we philosophically want.

Ascribing the things I noted in the previous post to God won't save cause and effect. That's gone. So, the question for theists becomes: why would God create a universe like this, where events on the quantum level are uncaused?

Kenneth Miller in Finding Darwin's God gives the best answer I have found. Briefly, strict cause and effect binds us to a deterministic universe in which the future is irrevocably set. What you and I decide to do -- such as me writing this post -- was set by what happened to me before all the way back to the Big Bang. It is inevitable that I write this post using these words.

But if our actions are set in advance, then our decisions are meaningless. Only by having a future that is open can our lives have meaning. What we do, what we choose, has reall consequences for the future. Having effects without causes allows this.

 

[Upisoft]

What we philosophically want has nothing to do with what IS. The universe is what it is, not what we philosophically want.

How can you be so sure, have you tested it?

 

[lucaspa]

How can you be so sure, have you tested it?

Been tested a number of times thruout history. The flat earthers tested it. So did those who wanted the sun and planets to orbit the earth. Creationism is such a test. Flood Geology was. Einstein tested it with is philosophical desire for determinism. The universe didn't comply with his philosophical wishes. Those who wanted a "quantum God" didn't get their philosophical wishes. You can go on and on.

This principle is at the heart of science:
"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself. " Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

 

[sandwiches]

But if our actions are set in advance, then our decisions are meaningless. Only by having a future that is open can our lives have meaning. What we do, what we choose, has reall consequences for the future. Having effects without causes allows this.

While I don't believe in absolute free will, I disagree that without decisions a life is meaningless, or at least not in the absolute way you seem to be putting it. To many, it might be meaningful and fulfilling enough in the way that watching a movie or reading a movie or even dreaming is fulfilling. And to some people, that might be enough.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't see how a limited choice can render something meaningless. For example, if I make a computer program that can play chess, does the inability of that program to choose to eat ice-cream make it meaningless? I think not. The program is free to make choices within the limits of the rules of chess.

Now the question here is why the ability to do bad would be considered good rule from homophilic* (or perhaps homophobic**) God.

* Who loves all men. After all that is what is meant by "all-loving", isn't it?
** With traditional meaning.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

However, some events at the quantum level are indeed uncaused. In bulk, quantum events are regular. But on the individual level, they are uncaused.

I think the whole basis of the OP's argument is that they might not be uncaused...

Ascribing the things I noted in the previous post to God won't save cause and effect. That's gone. So, the question for theists becomes: why would God create a universe like this, where events on the quantum level are uncaused?

What if they do have a cause. Either God or some as-yet-undiscovered force. Quantum randomness appears random, but is could only be perceived as random just as the sun appeared to go around the Earth without sufficient maths, understanding and genius to figure out the real nature of the system. Perhaps there is some cause or reason as to why a laser's photons "know" when to reflect and when not to reflect in such an ordered way as to consistently give a 95%/5% split for the entire population of photons. Why are you so sure that it is uncaused?

Kenneth Miller in Finding Darwin's God gives the best answer I have found. Briefly, strict cause and effect binds us to a deterministic universe in which the future is irrevocably set. What you and I decide to do -- such as me writing this post -- was set by what happened to me before all the way back to the Big Bang. It is inevitable that I write this post using these words.

I'm not sure I understand why determinism is necessary in order to save cause and effect. Maybe I've just lost you...

But if our actions are set in advance, then our decisions are meaningless. Only by having a future that is open can our lives have meaning. What we do, what we choose, has reall consequences for the future. Having effects without causes allows this.

Is there some reason that we cannot have effects without causes? Is that not the whole premise the Big Bang: the uncaused effect?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Is it just appearances? It's a really hard question, given how completely deterministic systems, like "random" number generating algorithms, can appear random for most practical purposes.

Is a random number generator truly random?

However, the chance of any particular configuration of molecules causing the air to spread out roughly evenly across the room is much higher than the chance of all the air crowding into one corner. There are many more configurations that result in the former than the latter. So all air in the corner is (or would be, if it ever happened) a very unusual occurrence.

(Oh, entropy, how we love thee! )

I love entropy. My friends hate it when I start talking about entropy

The chances are only greater that the air will be spread evenly throughout the room because there are more configurations that lead to an "even" distribution. So lets say you have a cube 10x10 cube with little compartments that can each hold one air molecule (aka the cube can hold 100 air molecules). You put 10 molecules in. There are then 1.73*10^13 unique ways to arrange those 10 molecules in the 10x10 cube. But any configuration is just as unlikely as any other configuration; its just that certain configurations appear "random" while others don't. So if all the molecules end up in boxes 1-10 (aligned on the top edge of the box), we'd say, "wow that's extremely unlikely", but if the molecules were in boxes 13, 59, 83, 22, 78, 94, 92, 66, 28, and 49 then we'd say that that's random but that configuration is just as unlikely as for them to be all aligned in the top corner (1 in 1.73*10^13). Its simply that we perceive one to be non-random and patterned while the other appears to be random and un-patterned. And, to us, there are fewer configurations that we perceive as patterned. But all configurations are just as unlikely. Randomness is perceived.

 

[chris4243]

There is no quantum mechanical effect that will transmute elements to my knowledge. The "best" I could come up with would be making virtual particles real and building the loaves and fishes from them. But then comes the problem of providing the energy to do that. That energy is not part of QM, either.

Because the energy barrier for fusion is too great? But can't quantum tunneling go through an energy barrier? Or as someone else pointed out, there's lots of dirt and rock from which elements could be drawn.

Going back a few posts, Naraoia, Chris said that he thought all events on the quantum level were caused. However, some events at the quantum level are indeed uncaused. In bulk, quantum events are regular. But on the individual level, they are uncaused.

It's not so much that I think quantum events are caused, more that I think it would be better if they were, and even more to the point that it is unacceptable for science to call them uncaused. In fact I'm pretty sure it is impossible for science to prove an effect has no cause even if that were the case.

 

[Naraoia]

There is no quantum mechanical effect that will transmute elements to my knowledge. The "best" I could come up with would be making virtual particles real and building the loaves and fishes from them. But then comes the problem of providing the energy to do that. That energy is not part of QM, either.

You don't have to transmute elements. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, everything that makes up bread and fish is all around us. It would only take some highly improbable movements of existing atoms to assemble fish out of thin air. If we're talking miracles and all-powerful gods, probability is hardly an issue...

(That said, QM does allow for the transmutation of elements. Hello, nuclear fission, fusion, beta decay...?)

Going back a few posts, Naraoia, Chris said that he thought all events on the quantum level were caused. However, some events at the quantum level are indeed uncaused. In bulk, quantum events are regular. But on the individual level, they are uncaused.<snip>

Why did you tell me all of that?

This thread was an interesting philosophical thought experiment anyway, not an attempt to figure out quantum mechanics. Unless I grossly misunderstood something.