At the end of the inflationary period, the universe was in a low entropy state. Image a universe the size of a soccer ball containing a hot quirk-gluon plasma. That’s it - low entropy (order) ever expanding into higher entropy. (disorder).
Guess that means the universe starts out ordered, by accident, then randomly gets more and more disordered?
Sounds more like a parable of many people’s lives, and certainly not explicative of the orginal degree of order.
More clever even than Josh had imagined, eh, Patrick?
Conversely, Dr. Ross speaks of this as being a purposefully “probationary” universe.
That’s actually a distraction from the simple point, which is that the probability distribution of quantum events is ordered. And certainly entropy has a bearing on the fact that we don’t expect such order to arise spontaneously.
But if we can exclude causelessness for that reason, and local variables because of Bell’s theorems, and “probabilistic entities” because that suggests a huge complexity and process of decision-making at the most fundamental material level, then “whatever remains must be the truth”. And all that remains is causation outside the physical realm.
Not that that necessarily means God - panpsychism would do it, or perhaps some unknown insentient level of ordered causation… but the latter would beyond the reach of material science to comment upon.
A sentient level of reality, though, producing order by intelligence, might be expected to be capable of demonstrating its existence top-down. Since most people have a belief in such an intelligent cause, it’s not an unreasonable inference to attribute quantum orderliness to the same cause.
It’s also incumbent on those disputing its existence to propose an explanation for that orderliness, or quit the table.
When you say the probability distribution of quantum events is ordered, do you mean that the distribution is say Gaussian or some other distribution that we can determine mathematically?
Agree with your first sentence. If you are saying that the mathematics is outside the physical realm, I agree with that as the math and the wave function doesn’t really exist, it is an abstraction in our collective brains.
Certainly doesn’t mean God, instead the abstractions (the mathematics) is a collective human thoughts that happens to describe the real physical world quite well (to our own surprise)
Certainly not an unreasonable inference to attribute orderliness to the same cause but is it true? Is it testable, repeatable, falsifiable?
No, quite the opposite. It is incumbent of those making the claims to provide the explanation for their beliefs or hypothesis. And to never quit the table.
Jesus gives one sign, one miracle with evidence. We’ve discussed this before. There is public evidence, and its there whenever you are ready to see it.
Statistically ordered: you know what pattern is going to be formed by your double slits, and I can age Adam’s soup tin with my radiocarbon.
And I agree with that, too - the maths “saves the appearances” - except that the same also applies to the science. The patterns, the slits, and the idea of photons are also abstractions in our collective brains - the real physical world we experience is ultimately as much an abstraction as the maths. See Arthur Eddington on that.
But, like the maths of quantum mechanics, they represent something out there that is more than solipsistic - it’s no use appealing to the logic of physical evidence if you retreat into “it’s all in the mind” as soon as that evidence points beyond the physical.
No more or less than the existence of matter as more than a convenient “saving of the appearances” is. We believe in matter axiomatically because we experience it and stretch the concept even where it begins to break down in the quantum realm. We believe in God axiomatically because we experience him and find the concept just as valid in the quantum realm as in the physical realm.
You can’t test axioms, except by their ability to save the appearances - and that only shows they’re not wrong, not that they’re right.
Well, I’ve not heard your claims, if any, about the origin of quantum statistics, other than locating them in the collective mind (which is quite appropriate given the emphasis on mind in some quantum interpretations). But Lou Jost, the skeptic and friend of Jerry Coyne I mentioned when I came in, made the claim that, granted the lack of local variables, quantum events are uncaused. Do you have any ideas on how he would explain that coherently?
I make no claims. I no longer do science. I rely on science writers to explain the new science to me. In some areas of science I am still able to read and understand the newly published papers but that is getting harder and harder as the science, the math, and the jargon gets more complex and more technical. But I am grateful for the science writers like Ethan Siegel who explains things like the many worlds theory of inflation at the right level for those who got their PhDs in the 20th century.
Well that’s easy then - my claim that logically, quantum events must have their causes outside the physical realm stand uncontested then.
Just how over-the-top can you be? We are not here attacking the credibility of your atheism. I am here asserting that you have no capacity to handle being on a Christian site.
The fact you took my comment and tried to turn it back on me is just another clear reminder that you are over your head by being here.
Not necessarily as the causation could be part of the physical system. What causes a neutron to decay? A inherent property of every neutron to decay into lower energy state particles.
No capacity to handle being on a Christian site? What is this a church? Some kind of sacred monastery where only Christians with the special markings of the beast can enter? Do I need to genuflect as I login?
Over my head being here? How? Intellectually? I doubt it.
Ah - a local variable. Dr Bell was wrong, then?
No Bell’s Inequality has been tested and proven by many experiment.
Ah - the causation is part of the physical system (local variables) but Bell’s theorem’s are proved (no local variables). Kind of like Schroedingers cat - both are true at once. Ah, I see it all so clearly now.
Astonishingly counterintuitive, this quantum business.
The most interesting thing going on in QM these days is called Quantum Entanglement. Entangle the states of two photons, say polarization left and polarization right. Separate the photons thousands of miles. Don’t know what state photon A is in, but as soon as you look at A, B must be in opposite state.
The way I explain this is that you have a set of gloves, one left handed and one right handed. They are an entangled pair. You accidentally grab one glove and take it into the car with you and drive away. At your destination, you realize your have only one glove. You don’t know which one it is, until you look at it. As soon as you look at it, you know which one you have and which one you left at home.
This is all beside the point. A Christians Faith Statement about randomness from the perspective of God isn’t affected by it.
Faith is irrelevant in science.
This is a THEOLOGY site about science… not a science site about theology.
Get over yourself.
There are many refutations of this. Here’s one, chosen more or less at random, which is pretty nuanced and detailed in its examination of faith commitments in both science and religion. As always, the arguments should be followed rather than simply the pull-quote, but this extract seems the best summary:
The absence of formal creeds in Science is connected with the absence of a >well-defined ‘community of believers’ (Church) in Science, not with the alleged non-
rational nature of creeds in Religion. In the realm of public discourse one can
nonetheless find statements that are roughly analogous to confessional language
in Religion. This is especially true when mainstream Science is being defended
against politically motivated attacks, as in the case of public repudiation of
An example of faith in authority (itself based on the fundamental faith commitments to central scientific axioms like the transparency and regularity of nature, the actual existence of nature, the need for honesty in doing science, etc) comes from you yourself on this thread:
In some areas of science I am still able to read and understand the newly published papers but that is getting harder and harder as the science, the math, and the jargon gets more complex and more technical.
That is, of course, true for all of us - including working scientists looking outside their own field. But if you were consistent in holding there is no place for faith in science, then you would simply have to discount all the science you, personally, could not understand and validate. But I’m willing to bet that you usually take it on trust that the work is truly scientific - and even to make some decision to rely on the conclusions where they seem to make sense once you push the incomprehensible equations to one side.
This not a theology site - it is called peaceful science not peaceful theology. Get over yourself.