Could God be hiding behind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

I'm not sticking "labels" on anything here. I'm just asking you all to use your heads and think. That's what God or Nature gave you those pear-shaped appendages for.

Incidentally, Einstein did not disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. He simply voiced his disdain for it in a letter to Max Born, another physicist of his day.. Einstein said, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice with the universe." To which Born promptly replied, "Who are you to tell God what to do?" Stephen Hawking, a well-known physicist of our own day, had the last word on the matter however. He said, "God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."

Answer 1

“*” General Remakes Vis-à-vis Your Science-related Questions: I must say I am utterly tickled and tremendously impressed by your genuine and demonstrated interest in popular physics, mathematics, and philosophy of science related topics. Frankly, I would have loved nothing more than to have been able to “satisfactorily” (at least according to my own benchmarks) address some of your ongoing scientific inquiries. Lamentably, the technical confines and the inherently limiting nature of this forum – not to mention perhaps ultimately my own inability to serve as a science expositor – are among the principal reasons that make such an objective/undertaking all but an entirely impractical aspiration. Y!A’s intrinsically entertaining format is simply not conducive to, or accommodating of, “conscientious” rejoins about cutting edge research. How can anyone, for instance, offer a science enthusiast a site where s/he could become privy to the continuing findings of research in progress. And even if such a site existed, there is always the issue of incomprehensibility of the underlying language (mathematical or otherwise) - a truly daunting snag for the layperson to overcome. I assure you; it is NEVER about acting: evasive, pretentious, intellectually cute, maliciously ambiguous, or otherwise “hard to get”. It is about the reality of a highly technical and specialized field of study with a nearly impenetrable language of its own that many a times is dolefully inaccessible to all (professionals included) but the very few who happen to have dedicated their entire lives to the endeavor. … Though the overlap/interplay between philosophy and science is patently evident to everyone (and perhaps that being part of the problem), in reality, their “marriage” is not always a comfortable or even a compatible arrangement - at least not without a more operative linguistic base for dialogue. That said, I am not one to subscribe to a derisory strategy of offering half-truths and misinformation and promptly passing them as “answers” to reflective scientific inquiries with embedded, and at times highly controversial, philosophical substance/charge. Admittedly, some of the questions here (e.g. the falling over optical illusion effect of an overflowing round glass cup) are rudimentary enough to lend themselves to persuasive/straightforward replies. Whereas others are by far more convoluted and complex than even the questioner him-/herself might have initially recognized. In other words, some questions are so elementary, in fact, that one should not feel obliged to regurgitate/reproduce the already adequate answers allover again, whilst the fair treatment of others is so utterly beyond the limited scope of this medium that any attempt at providing a diligent answer becomes almost an exercise in futility. In all, the best anyone can offer on those intricate questions, is NOT per se an “answer” but perhaps valuable pointers to assist the questioner with his/her own further investigations. Anyway, at least, that’s what I’ll hope to do in such cases.



With respect to the question at hand:

1- Look into Bohr’s Principal of Complementarity (of which Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal can be considered a subset/specific case).
2- There are a number of wonderful scholarly treatments of Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, as well as some layman-oriented (i.e. non-mathematical) treatments that can be of potential help.
3- Look deeper into EPR (EPRB) Paradox, Hidden Variables, Bell’s Inequality, quantum entanglement, Schrödinger’s Cat, their philosophical implications and related issues.
4- Look into other Quantum Reality issues and articles.
5- Avoid further complicating the issue by concurrently introducing theological notions of faith (i.e. God), into an already complex picture – at least in a first approximation.
6- Consider examining the spacetime backdrop (dimensionality) against which physics is ultimately formulated.
7- Objectively reexamine the question itself for its potential “ill-defined” character – not always something that sounds philosophically intriguing is actually a meaningful question.

Anyway, all that would constitute a good start.



P.S. "*" I answer a light-hearted question with a light-hearted response, but when it comes to more serious questions:

1- I always consider the best interests of the questioner first and foremost.
2- I will not answer open-ended/controversial/evolving questions by shoving my personal opinions down the questioner’s ears.
3- I will provide enough objective tips and pointers for the asker to embark on a journey of his/her own without being necessarily misled by biased opinions (my own included).
4- I recognize the space and technical limitations of this site (e.g. helping someone with a computer virus problem – as important and useful as in fact that maybe – is one thing, considering the philosophical implications of basic quantum mechanical principals in even a remotely satisfactory fashion on Y!A is a whole different issue.) ... Not to mention, here one has to always watch out for not being accused of “Chatty” (and loose interpretations thereof) conduct.
5- Not everything in science (e.g. certain mathematical constructs and objects, conclusions, etc.) is always so easily reducible to “words”. And even when they are the “jargon” is usually alien to most people and hence could serve as a source of additional confusion.
6- It is utterly unrealistic to assume that a forum like Y!A is the suitable place for highly technical scientific considerations, and in non-mathematical language no less.
7- As a case in point: Consider my honorable intentions in providing a conscientious justification for my herein mentioned stance. Even at that, if I understood your comments correctly, I seem to have miserably failed, imagine the rest!

Answer 2

It never ceases to amaze me that whenever there is something in our experience that can't immediately be explained, people claim it must be 'god.' Then it's explained using science, and it's no longer a miracle.

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal and everything else in quantum mechanics has only been known for 80 years. No, we might not be able to explain it today, but that doesn't mean we won't be able to explain it in 50 years, or 100 years. Give it some time and don't just stick the 'god' label on every unknown!

Answer 3

It looks like the dice is really entangled recursively with the measurements. If you measure the speed of an object you will not be able to measure it's location. And if you measure it's location you will not be able to measure it's speed.

So, how are you going to tell the side that turns up from the side that doesn't turn up? The uncertainty principle says that the dice are paired, and when you roll the dice, you see one die but the other die is hidden. What's the score? Did I hit the magic number, or did I not score? How will I be able to tell?

God does not keep me up dicing every night. How could he? He can't even roll them.

Answer 4

Since this principle was basically disproven by Einstein... I'm gonna go with no. But who knows. I think god is hiding on Saturn.

Answer 5

Well, maybe.

But all tests of the uncertainty principle indicate that the results are totally consistent with chance. That doesn't leave much room for a guiding background intelligence.

Answer 6

I don't believe God hides; rather, we just don't see. I believe that God does manipulate probability to create effect in our real world, but I also do not know how this occurs. Maybe more is revealed after we die. My beliefs do not make it so. Other interpretations may be correct.

Answer 7

would be nice to know if he was hiding some where ,
the question is why is he hiding
must be feeling guilty about something

Answer 8

i am no happy god is never behide nothing he is the most powerful thing ever

Answer 9

There is no such thing as God.