God in quantum physics

[Restin]

Been watching TV documentary programs on this topic all summer. also read the book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, and ordered the DVD, "The Elegant Universe" by same author.

I'm wondering if any Adventists relate to this. I can't do the math involved but can follow the logic. So, wouldn't take much to get over my head on the math part.

Point is, there seems to be support for God if you leave out the Big Bang and evolution talk. Consider the part about particle/wave paradox, and maybe consider String theory. This seems to me to show how the parallel dimension of evil can be so close. It also might explain how prayer zeroes in on the probability factor of being effective around the whole Earth and even to heaven itself.

I don't mean to give the idea that science should explain Bible truths. I just think it's interesting how the "double slit" tests with photons, in regard to quantum mechanics, does support several Bible issues we have always believed by faith. I'm just wondering, and wish I could hear about this from Seventh Day Adventists.

[phkrause]

Sounds very like something well worth watching Restin, thanks for the info.

[Bravus]

Will give this a bit more time and energy later, but it's definitely interesting and worth thinking about.

We try not to just use science to wedge open chinks that we can slip a god into, but at the same time an understanding of quantum can shake a Newtonian, mechanistic view of the universe.

I'd be inclined to avoid talking about string theory, just because I don't know enough about it. I guess the relevant bit here is that it talks about 11 dimensions folded up inside our 4 dimensions, and I guess we could imagine gods and angels and demons existing in the 'hidden' dimensions.

The notion of God as the great Observer who collapses the wave functions of the entire universe is compelling...

[Restin]

Thanks for your opinions Pkrause and Bravus. Absolutely fascinating, Bravus, where you say that God may be the Observer that collapses the probability jitters in the "string"(or whatever it actually is)that causes a choice to be made, perhaps in response to our wills. You have studied this topic before.

[Lauralea]

To me one of the natural laws mirroring a Creator is the second law of thermodynamics, that a system left to itself becomes more random, breaks down etc. This is also expressed as entropy (I think this is randomness) increases. This is the opposite of the theory of evolution,and it makes sense. Therefore, I did not beleive in evolution even before I had another belief thought out.

[Bravus]

Sigh. I can tell you that everything you said there is wrong.

Happy to explain if anyone is interested.

[fccool]

I'd start with equating enthropy with randomness :)

[teresaq]

Perhaps both Lauralea and Bravus could explain better what they mean...might not be so far apart?

I'm glad to see more thinking ladies tentatively participating, whether I agree with them or not....

[Bravus]

Lauralea, unfortunately, is repeating an old creationist lie. I don't think she's lying, I think she's been lied to.

Very briefly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the *net* entropy of a closed system always increases. Entropy can be thought of as 'disorder', although that's not exactly right. It'll do for our purposes here.

Evolution from less complex to more complex living creatures involves an increase in order, and therefore a decrease in entropy. Even, say, the growth of a tree that is largely made up of carbon dioxide and water from the atmosphere, represents a decrease in entropy, an increase in order.

The fundamental misunderstanding is the assumption that the earth is a closed system. It isn't. The earth receives energy from the sun, and that energy drives all of life. That energy is created by nuclear fusion, which is a process representing an increase in entropy. There is more increase in entropy in the sun than the decrease of entropy on earth.

That means that the Second Law is obeyed in terms of *net* entropy for the system. Even in evolution.

There may be good arguments against evolution. This is not one of them.

[phkrause]

Why does everything have to come down to a lie????? What if its just a matter of someones opinion for or against one thing or another? I see the same thing in many that talk up evolution, yet those that believe in creation don't or try not to say that the other side lie's! I've seen quite a few Creation vs Evolution seminars, where the only ones calling one side a liar, was the ones that accept evolution, and treating the Creationists as the scum of the earth. Anyway it probably happens the other way too, but as of yet I haven't witness that. I do though see that in some of the threads a little, but still seems more that the evolutionists like to act as if they are so much superior. At least one or two, am not including you Bravus, you've been pretty fair and have always been.

[Bravus]

What was said is not true. It is not a matter of opinion. If it were otherwise, the universe would not exist.

The claim is a lie. Not calling it one does no-one any favors.

Check my signature.

[Bravus]

Please note that I was careful to say that Lauralee was not lying, but had been lied to.

That's what saying something that is the opposite of the facts is called.

There are (many) areas of life that are matters of opinion and interpretation, but thermodynamics is not one of them.

As my explanation outlined, if thermodynamics *did* forbid evolution, it would also forbid trees growing. Or us. If the Second Law forbids increases in complexity, no baby can ever grow up. It's a claim that could not be more false.

For those from whom Lauralee got the claim, there is one other possible explanation, but it's not much more charitable. It is that they are making claims in a field of which they have kept themselves deliberately, wilfully ignorant. If that's not lying, it's its next door neighbour.

[Bravus]

I'd really rather focus on substance than tone. Read Lauralee's post, then read my explanation, skipping the first paragraph if it gives you heartburn.

Then go forth, and don't ever again make the claim that the Second Law forbids evolution.

[Tom Wetmore]

Perhaps we could return to the OP and see where that takes us.

[Overaged]

Howdy Bravus! Hope all is well "down under." I was just skimming through this topic; and when I read this post you made; I couldn't resist a reply.

You mentioned how the law of thermodynamics would not "prevent" evolution. I was just thinking; "How do we know this; if we actually don't understand *fully* how evolution really works at it's inner core, if you will?"

Hope you don't mind me adding this question to the mix...

[Overaged]

I do believe you are onto a very real; and a very important connection here, between the Bible and science. Certainly; what you say here is possible, even likely.

[teresaq]

Yeah, I forgot to add, "even if I don't understand what is being said" to my first sentence.

I think anything left to itself will die, leaving out the "thermodynamics" part cause I don't know what that entails.

A newborn baby is a good example. Any plant. If it doesn't receive water, sun, etc.

Pets, livestock...

The bible says the earth is hung on nothing, yet it is kept there instead of spinning off into space, or stopping altogether...a picture just popped into my head of that and everyone flying off into space. Kind of funny, tho not if it really happened.

Everything operates by certain laws, but did those laws "evolve" somehow? We can maybe say that things "evolve" convincingly, but I'm not sure how we can be convincing saying that the laws that govern all somehow evolved...

Why do we need plant foods to exist as opposed to poisons, for instance?

[Bravus]

Good question, Overaged. I think we actually do understand a huge amount about how evolution works, in detail.

But even without that, it's actually just common sense.

The claim that is being made is that everything in the universe, all the time, increases its disorder, and can never decrease its disorder. But an adult person is far more orderly than the matter that went to make him/her up.

So, very clearly and obviously, disorder can decrease (i.e. order can increase) in the universe, and does so all the time.

Why does this not break the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Because the law talks about the *total* disorder of the whole closed system. If disorder decreases somewhere, then it must increase by more elsewhere. That way, the *total* disorder increases, but there are small, local decreases in disorder.

This happens for all living things, and it also happens for evolution.

[Bravus]

Returning to the OP, as Tom requested.

Certainly the quantum world is very strange and unintuitive, compared to our everyday world. It puts paid to the orderly, predictable, clockwork universe described by Newton.[1]

I suspect the link to God and angels and demons is more metaphorical than direct, though. Certainly string theory adds up to 7 more dimensions to our familiar 4, and it's tempting to think of God lurking in the extra dimensions, but as I say, more of a metaphorical way of thinking about it than something the theory actually says.

Similarly for the quantum stuff: it's certainly strange, but not in a spiritual sense... indeed, it's solvable relatively easily for most situations, at least in terms of probabilities and measurements.

I'm wary of attempts to jam a god into the gaps in our knowledge, since as our knowledge grows that god shrinks. Rather, I believe in a God who contains the universe and all our knowledge of it, and whose own knowledge of it is absolute.

[1] Actually, deduced from Newton's work by others: Newton himself was a Christian but into alchemy and theology and some rather odd spiritual theories, so it's a bit of a canard to blame him for the materialistic view of the universe.

[teresaq]

So you are talking about disorder evolving into order?

Please forgive me when my posts are off-topic to what is actually being said. I am responding to what I believe I understand is being said, but as I told you in a pm...I am completely ignorant in these areas as to what they mean.

Hmmm, as I suspect most of us are who listen to Christian creation apologetics?

[Bravus]

No worries - I'm a teacher, remember? I *love* trying to explain and make ideas clearer!

Disorder into order is the thermodynamic description, less complex into more complex is the evolutionary one, but in many ways they boil down to the same thing.

[Jeannieb43]

And let me add, You do a great job of explaining things!

[Harvard's the loser for passing up an opportunity to hire you.]

[Overaged]

I agree; in many ways they would both boil down to the same thing.

I am not so sure of the thermodynamic description & the Disorder into order idea; or the evolutionary description of less complex to more complex.

First; it seems to me that evolution ALSO started from disorder and went from there; infact I have concluded that evolution, per say, is not infact "getting better." I believe that the state of disorder, in the beginning has just gotten more complex. This might sound a little strange; but one has to consider that I say this, in part, based upon philosophycal concepts as well as science.

When I think about God in quantum physics; I tend to think of the conscious experience with God, as very short units of time whereas each of us and our experiences would be very unique, because each of us constitutes a separate space-time path, rather than being an instantaneous object. This brings up some very interesting concepts about how God works today; and how He may be connected to "quantum physics."

I realize that i am not a scientist; and that some might object to this; but that's what is in my head today.

[Overaged]

Bravus; I would be very interested to also explore more your idea of how the universe - or multiverse is not increasing it's disorder...I would like to understand better your definitions of "order" and "disorder," regarding human beings.