Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?

[2PhiloVoid]

So how are we now to interpret what you mean by the phrase 'a biblical God' there?

I'm not going to define it here. Do you think it has something to do with this thread?

I mean, given from your previous post that you appear unwilling to necessarily have it mean what most of us thinks it means?

And you've read all 23,000 posts I've ever posted on CF as well as my epistemic starting point in the list of books I've placed on my CF personal page? ..... wow. If so, you're quite the reader.

I note that you also mix that phrase in the same sentence as the phrase 'the universe' .. which typically has a scientifically assigned meaning .. so what do you actually mean by that?

Are you wanting me to tell you which theorist(s) I entertain in thought and agree with the most?

If my main working axiom is that "no one human being knows everything," then at the very, very least, my definition of the Universe, whatever it might be, isn't going to be a complete one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like you need to duke it out with the mods. Good luck with that.

No. They are who they are and this website belongs to its owner. If their main purpose is to offer a sort of pavilion of chat primarily for Christians, then I'm not going to attempt to disrupt that. However, being that they allow non-Christians on this website, it makes it difficult at times to actually answer questions posed or to have fuller discussions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Interesting'? For what purpose?

For the purpose of filling the void............................... what else would a philosopher who focuses on history do for meaning in life?

Try having your posts repeatedly deleted without explanation!

I've had a few go missing over the years. Don't think it's only you.

 

[SelfSim]

For the purpose of filling the void............................... what else would a philosopher who focuses on history do for meaning in life?

'Void'?
I have a book called 'Touching the Void'. It seems the author actually realised the void .. and then had it mean something very touching!

I've had a few go missing over the years. Don't think it's only you.

Nice to know. I've even had threads I've started deleted too.
I generally don't bother starting any new ones now because of that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Void'?
I have a book called 'Touching the Void'. It seems the author actually realised the void .. and then had it mean something very touching!

Actually, my pen-name here is inspired by Frank Close's book, The Void (2009).

Nice to know. I've even had threads I've started deleted too.
I generally don't bother starting any new ones now because of that.

My guess is you got deleted because a) you used rash language or b) you criticized a Christian doctrine. ......It happens.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?​

It is not inconsistent with the existence of a God that chose to make a universe that was intelligible. The absence of inconsistency would seem to be a necessary part of evidence, but not sufficient of itself to be considered evidence. So, I guess that's a "No".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?​

It is not inconsistent with the existence of a God that chose to make a universe that was intelligible. The absence of inconsistency would seem to be a necessary part of evidence, but not sufficient of itself to be considered evidence. So, I guess that's a "No".

I agree, although I'm sure there are those who would provide us with what, in their view, are a few epistemological caveats, all of which we could then disagree with in one of a dozen different ways.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think there's a certain aesthetic appeal to the notion that mathematics demonstrates an all-pervading Intelligence in the universe (it certainly was appealing to A.N. Whitehead), but given that moderns have divorced aesthetics from metaphysics and epistemology, I doubt it would be persuasive to most people now days.

I was talking about this recently with my brother: younger generations don't even have the discourse to describe things being beautiful or good anymore. We are truly in a post-Christian age, much as C.S. Lewis predicted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think there's a certain aesthetic appeal to the notion that mathematics demonstrates an all-pervading Intelligence in the universe (it certainly was appealing to A.N. Whitehead), but given that moderns have divorced aesthetics from metaphysics and epistemology, I doubt it would be persuasive to most people now days.

I was talking about this recently with my brother: younger generations don't even have the discourse to describe things being beautiful or good anymore. We are truly in a post-Christian age, much as C.S. Lewis predicted.

I agree. But I don't know what we can do about it, and due to my view on Eschatology, I don't view the situation as reversible. There may have been moments in the past where notions of "revival" or other "new enlightenment" forms of Christian thought might have assuaged some of the more skeptical waves running across Europe and the Americas, but I think we've reached a tipping point where that sort of thing won't fly very far for very long. Ideas pertaining to science and mathematics don't offer much purchase power aesthetically or morally these days where once they did due to the newer paradigms we now inhabit. (...and I'm not saying any of this like you don't already know this.)

 

[stevevw]

I have seen something similar from a debate between John Lennox who is a professor of mathmatics and Peter Atkins a physicist. Atkins was explaining how maths was the language used to push theories forward and describe what is happening in the world.

Atkins spectulates that in a way the universe and reality is mathmatics. it is maths itself that can create something out of nothing by the creating the Integers and once you have this you can create Integers from the Null Set from absolutely nothing. As though something can emerge from nothing like mathmatical sets can be formulated from nothing.

Atkins uses this logic to spectulate about the real world. Jusdt as mathmatics can come tumbling out of nothing without intervention so can the real world come tumbling out of nothing (the void) without intervention (a creator God).

Lennox comes back with his quip that 2+2 never put 4 quid in his pocket. Maths merely describes what was happening. It cannot itself be the creator of what is being explained.

The fact that we can use intelligible language that works so well points to describe reality points to a creator behind it.

I think the science method was designed to exclude the observer (the scientist). But quantum physics seems to bring the observer back into the equation. As though science itself is saying we cannot determine reality without the observer.

I think this is the new frontier in science and philosophy in determining a unified theory of eveything. Somehow reality incorporates subjective experiences. We cannot detach ourselves from what we are observing and measuring. We cannot just relegate the observer to a non influencial aspect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have seen something similar from a debate between John Lennox who is a professor of mathmatics and Peter Atkins a physicist. Atkins was explaining how maths was the language used to push theories forward and describe what is happening in the world.

Atkins spectulates that in a way the universe and reality is mathmatics. it is maths itself that can create something out of nothing by the creating the Integers and once you have this you can create Integers from the Null Set from absolutely nothing. As though something can emerge from nothing like mathmatical sets can be formulated from nothing.

A speculation I find endlessly annoying. It has nothing to do with any actual evidence.

Atkins uses this logic to spectulate about the real world. Jusdt as mathmatics can come tumbling out of nothing without intervention so can the real world come tumbling out of nothing (the void) without intervention (a creator God).

Lennox comes back with his quip that 2+2 never put 4 quid in his pocket. Maths merely describes what was happening. It cannot itself be the creator of what is being explained.

The fact that we can use intelligible language that works so well points to describe reality points to a creator behind it.

And then Lennox mucks it up with his "numbers require god" argument. Silly apologetics.

Ugh.

I think the science method was designed to exclude the observer (the scientist).

The scientific method was not "designed". It developed over the years. (And there really isn't one "scientific method" anyway, no matter what they taught you when you were 10.)

But quantum physics seems to bring the observer back into the equation. As though science itself is saying we cannot determine reality without the observer.

Nothing about an "observer" in QM requires that observer to be a being or conscious or even anything other than another particle. This confusion leads to poor conclusions...

I think this is the new frontier in science and philosophy in determining a unified theory of eveything. Somehow reality incorporates subjective experiences. We cannot detach ourselves from what we are observing and measuring. We cannot just relegate the observer to a non influencial aspect.

 

[stevevw]

A speculation I find endlessly annoying. It has nothing to do with any actual evidence.

What evidence. Evidence for what. Do you mean something from nothing.

And then Lennox mucks it up with his "numbers require god" argument. Silly apologetics.

Why is it silly. Atkins was using an anology that appealed to some sort of intelligence in the numbers. It seemed a logical conclusion that if the universe conforms to such maths that it follows some sort of fundemental mind.

The scientific method was not "designed". It developed over the years. (And there really isn't one "scientific method" anyway, no matter what they taught you when you were 10.)

Actually this happened well before I was even born lol. Galileo was among those who came up with the idea of excluding the subject as it was realised that it consisted of a different kind of reality.

For Galileo, any corporeal substance was defined entirely by quantified measures such as size, shape, location in space and time, motion or rest. It is only these kinds of properties that lend themselves to a mathematical, scientific description.

Galileo noted, that 'any other substances or instance that relate to being ‘white or red, bitter or sweet, noisy or silent, and of sweet or foul odor... my mind does not feel compelled to bring in as necessary accompaniments..... I think - that tastes, odors, and colors... reside only in consciousness'. Hence if the living creature were removed all these qualities would be wiped away and eliminated’ (Galileo, 1632; see also Goff, 2017).

In other words, those basic constituents of our conscious experience, and of consciousness itself, are not part of the objective world and are to be excluded from the scientific enterprise as a matter of epistemics.

Nothing about an "observer" in QM requires that observer to be a being or conscious or even anything other than another particle. This confusion leads to poor conclusions...

This is obviously wrong considering some interpretations posit the observer as central such as the the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, Wigners Friend and Wheelers 'Delayed choice' experiement and their modern variations.

Or the (Consciousness causes collapse) interpretations such as QBism (Quantum Bayesianism), or even the "Copenhagen Interpretation" which uses the act of measurement as causing a change in the wave function. In the more extreme variants, this act of observation becomes tied in with consciousness.

Stapp argued that the measuring device should be viewed as acyting the same as the rest of the world around it including what is being measured.

Rather the only new addition into the equation is the conscious mind which is directly connected to what is being measured and cannot be reduced in the same way the measuring device or what is being measured in physical terms. Thus what is happening in the mind is seperate and a different kind of measure from the material world such as the measuring device.

From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe...

Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become ... parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...[11]

 

[Hans Blaster]

What evidence. Evidence for what. Do you mean something from nothing.

No, what Atkins was talking about "something from math".

Why is it silly. Atkins was using an anology that appealed to some sort of intelligence in the numbers. It seemed a logical conclusion that if the universe conforms to such maths that it follows some sort of fundemental mind.

Nope, that was Lennox working another "existence requires a mind --> God" apologetic.

Actually this happened well before I was even born lol. Galileo was among those who came up with the idea of excluding the subject as it was realised that it consisted of a different kind of reality.

For Galileo, any corporeal substance was defined entirely by quantified measures such as size, shape, location in space and time, motion or rest. It is only these kinds of properties that lend themselves to a mathematical, scientific description.

Galileo noted, that 'any other substances or instance that relate to being ‘white or red, bitter or sweet, noisy or silent, and of sweet or foul odor... my mind does not feel compelled to bring in as necessary accompaniments..... I think - that tastes, odors, and colors... reside only in consciousness'. Hence if the living creature were removed all these qualities would be wiped away and eliminated’ (Galileo, 1632; see also Goff, 2017).

In other words, those basic constituents of our conscious experience, and of consciousness itself, are not part of the objective world and are to be excluded from the scientific enterprise as a matter of epistemics.

This is obviously wrong considering some interpretations posit the observer as central such as the the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, Wigners Friend and Wheelers 'Delayed choice' experiement and their modern variations.

Or the (Consciousness causes collapse) interpretations such as QBism (Quantum Bayesianism), or even the "Copenhagen Interpretation" which uses the act of measurement as causing a change in the wave function. In the more extreme variants, this act of observation becomes tied in with consciousness.

Stapp argued that the measuring device should be viewed the same as the rest of the world and not itself that can measure the collapse. Rather the only new addition into the equation is the conscious mind which cannot be reduced like the measuring device or the physical world around it.

From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become ... parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...[11]

I'm not going to address all of this nonsense until you recognize what an "observer" is in QM.

 

[stevevw]

No, what Atkins was talking about "something from math".

But isn't that ultimately what is required. As with classical physics which is heavily based on the math. So to will quantum filed theory which describes the quantum vacume. The math does suddenly disappear once we enter the quantum world. Ultimately it should be found all the way down.

I think this is a growing area in finding the mathmatical equations for QFT. If this is worked out then it could also explain quantum gravity. Just like the maths explained classical gravity.

Nope, that was Lennox working another "existence requires a mind --> God" apologetic.

He didn't need to do much work. Its but a small and logical step to infer a universe made up of math points to 'Mind'. In fact this is a common conclusion even for atheist and materialist scientists and philosophers.

Think of all the theories that pose mind, information, math, knowledge or consciousness as fundemental. there are 100s ie Integrated Information Theory, Panpsychism, theories, Simulation theory, Brains in a Vat theories, Quantum mind theories.

Mind is fundemental theories like John Wheeler's Participatory Universe which posits Mind as fundemental. Harry Stapps theory of Mind based on quantum mechanics. Or R. C. Henry's The mental Universe. Also proposed by Kastrup and Tedmark.

It seems even in mainstream science is getting on board in concluding Mind is fundemental. Its not just a religious thing and seems a logical conclusion for many.

I'm not going to address all of this nonsense until you recognize what an "observer" is in QM.

But is not this the point. You are insisting that I understand what the observer is according to the criteria you are claiming is the only way we can understand the role of the observer or mind and consciousness. Which is within the causal closure of the physical.

This is an epistemic truth claim that is beyond what science can claim. That we can only know reality by naturalistic science. I think this is imposing a certain ontological truth that fundemental reality can only fall with the naturalistic world. This is more a metaphysical belief than a scientific one.

I just gave you several mainstream theories that propose the observers choice, mind and consciousness is fundemental. Why cannot these alternative interpretations be counted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But isn't that ultimately what is required. As with classical physics which is heavily based on the math. So to will quantum filed theory which describes the quantum vacume. The math does suddenly disappear once we enter the quantum world. Ultimately it should be found all the way down.

I think this is a growing area in finding the mathmatical equations for QFT. If this is worked out then it could also explain quantum gravity. Just like the maths explained classical gravity.

Math is the language we use to do physics. Some math of it was invented specifically to do physics (calculus), some math has nothing to do with physics. That doesn't make math fundamental as Atkins seems to be claiming.

He didn't need to do much work. Its but a small and logical step to infer a universe made up of math points to 'Mind'. In fact this is a common conclusion even for atheist and materialist scientists and philosophers.

It's a giant leap. A leap of faith (and Lennox's faith-based motivation is clear).

Think of all the theories that pose mind, information, math, knowledge or consciousness as fundemental. there are 100s ie Integrated Information Theory, Panpsychism, theories, Simulation theory, Brains in a Vat theories, Quantum mind theories.

Mind is fundemental theories like John Wheeler's Participatory Universe which posits Mind as fundemental. Harry Stapps theory of Mind based on quantum mechanics. Or R. C. Henry's The mental Universe. Also proposed by Kastrup and Tedmark.

It seems even in mainstream science is getting on board in concluding Mind is fundemental. Its not just a religious thing and seems a logical conclusion for many.

But is not this the point. You are insisting that I understand what the observer is according to the criteria you are claiming is the only way we can understand the role of the observer or mind and consciousness. Which is within the causal closure of the physical.

This is an epistemic truth claim that is beyond what science can claim. That we can only know reality by naturalistic science. I think this is imposing a certain ontological truth that fundemental reality can only fall with the naturalistic world. This is more a metaphysical belief than a scientific one.

I really don't care.

I just gave you several mainstream theories that propose the observers choice, mind and consciousness is fundemental. Why cannot these alternative interpretations be counted.

You can't properly discuss the "alternatives" if you don't understand the standard theory.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I haven't watched the video. So perhaps I'm speaking out of line.

But, just as a matter of principle, I am generally uncomfortable and skeptical about "science/math proves God" types of arguments and presentations. And it's not necessarily because the arguments are themselves bad (I'll be frank, I haven't really done a lot of deep dives into specific arguments of this nature, so I can't speak to how well those arguments are constructed)--but rather it's more of a general principle because of my theological convictions.

I think it is entirely possible for individuals to find in the observation of the universe the signposts of the Creator--I think that's normal, as a Christian I see Scripture itself speaks of this, e.g. "The heavens declare the glory of God". But I'm also reminded of what St. Paul says in Romans 1, that the display of divine power and wisdom in the universe doesn't lead to faith in the Creator, but has often resulted in idolatry. Which is to say, an equation cannot lead me to an encounter with God, that happens uniquely in and through the Incarnate Person of Jesus Christ.

A room full of people, looking at the same objective data, may perceive the fingerprint of the Divine, or may walk away full atheistic. Even if I believe, by faith, that the whole universe displays the Divine power and wisdom of the Good Creator; that is a position that is uniquely one of faith--without faith, what I see could just as easily lead me to an entirely different religious position, to a position of total non-religiosity, or result in total indifference.

I think there are good ways to intersect faith and science; but that is always within a theological framework; rather than a naturalistic (i.e. scientific) framework. I may behold the mountains and whelmed by the majesty of it, a hymn of praise to God arises out of me--but that isn't because I discovered God by taking soil and mineral samples, but because, in faith, I behold the beauty of the universe and see a signpost of the transcendent Divine Beauty.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gene2memE]

The fact that we can use intelligible language that works so well points to describe reality points to a creator behind it.

No it doesn't.

It points to the fact that humans are very good at coming up with accurate ways to describe reality.

 

[stevevw]

No it doesn't.

It points to the fact that humans are very good at coming up with accurate ways to describe reality.

Coming up with or discovering what was already there and just putting language to it. Are the physical laws maths describe not real. That maths happens to fit so well points to humans discovery a language not inventing the actual stuff they are describing.

Wigner argues "the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics,"

The phrase "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" refers to the surprising and unexplained ability of mathematical concepts and structures to accurately describe and predict phenomena in the physical world. It was coined by physicist Eugene Wigner in his 1960 essay of the same name. This phenomenon is considered "unreasonable" because mathematics is often developed independently of any physical application, yet it frequently proves to be remarkably successful in describing the laws of nature.

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry. - BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

Did the inventors of math know how well nature reflects geometry. Or was this already in nature.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Coming up with or discovering what was already there and just putting language to it. Are the physical laws maths describe not real. That maths happens to fit so well points to humans discovery a language not inventing the actual stuff they are describing.

[block quotes removed]

Did the inventors of math know how well nature reflects geometry. Or was this already in nature.

That's what they were trying to describe with their math and often why they invented it.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The topic of the thread is a claim about the intelligibility of physics, not of math. Have you viewed the OP video?

 

[Ophiolite]

Math is the language we use to do physics. Some math of it was invented specifically to do physics (calculus), some math has nothing to do with physics. That doesn't make math fundamental as Atkins seems to be claiming.

My posts on the forum over almost two decades should have established my woeful grasp of mathematics. It is from that background, as a full victim of the Dunning Kruger effect, that I ask this question: is calculus not, at its foundation, an approximate description of reality and consequently a model, and - as engineers are wont to say - models are not true, but they are useful? Which is just another way of stating your point; it doesn;t make maths fundamental.