I'm not sure, in fact I'm quite uncertain about it, but shouldn't Heisenberg be spelt with an N, not an M. Now don't just collapse in shock, or wave this off with a catty comment like Schrodinger, tell us what your position is.
OK, I pressed the wrong key on the keyboard: I apologize.
My position is exactly what I wrote in my initial post: the laws of physics describe nature in terms of quarks, quantum fields, bosons, etc.; all these terms actually refer to abstract mathematical models which are the elements of a complex mathematical theory; also the intuitive concept of particle has revealed inadequate to describe the microscopic phenomena. Unless you consider the success of the laws of physics, which represents the basis of modern technological progress, as an unbelievably lucky series of coincidences, you should agree with the idea that our mathematical models describe the intimate structure of the universe; such structure would consist of abstract mathematical relations, because this is what the laws of physics express. The rational conceptual nature of the structure of the universe implies that the universe cannot exist without a mind conceving it according to such mathematical structures. Unless you choose solipsism (which means that such mind conceiving the universe is your own mind) you must identify such mind with the mind of an intelligent God.
Upvote
0