Quantum Theory. Is God having a laugh?

Question

It seems I am in a minority (being both a Christian and a biologist!). So I thought that I would explore the other aspects of science which some/lots/most Christians might have trouble with. Quantum Theory (QT) throws a few wobblies I think.

One example: A cat (Schroedingers cat) is in a box. When you open the box is the cat alive or dead? QT states that the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box. It is the act of opening the box that forces the universe to decide if the cat will be alive or not!

Another piece of QT is that information moves faster than light! Yet another one is that there are an infinite number of universes and therefore an infinite number of each of us! A very recent QT experiment slowed a photon down to a dead halt, then transferred it to anothrer molecule where it picked up speed (186 000mps) and continued on a new course.

The problem I have with quantum theory, is that it actually seems to work. What's the Creationist take on this?

Answer 1

Read a little more quantum theory, and then a little more. Then read some Ervin Laszlo and Ken Wilber. Then drop some acid. Then read some more quantum theory.

Pretty soon, a new religious-scientific paradigm will be germinating in your fertile little brain.

EDIT

But seriously: quantum theory has significant spiritual implications. Basically, it works very well with the metaphysics of nontraditional theists such as A.N. Whitehead, but very poorly with fundamentalism. That makes nontraditional theism much more appealing to me. There are lots of great writers who address the meeting of science and religion at the farther edges of the new physics. It only spells trouble for fundamentalism.

Answer 2

If you put a live cat in the box, then the cat is alive to begin with.
Also the cat could die of other causes (natural death, starvation, dehydration, lack of oxygen) before the lid is opened.

They have done experiments where they have slowed light, stopped light, and then let it go. So why not faster then 186,000 mps.

If there are a infinite number of universes all with each of us in it, then they are the same one.

There might be some aspects of quantum theory that might work, but these do not.

Answer 3

You're right: "The big bang theory sounds to be impossible only if you read the following carefully." That is, if you read about the actual theory, instead of your silly description, it doesn't sound impossible at all. And since there's physical evidence it happened, the problem would logically be with your notions rather than the theory itself. Your main problem is that the theory doesn't actually say that before the Big Bang there was nothing. It says that we can't trace the origins of the universe back any further, because we don't have evidence. (Actually, we can get back a little bit--a very short time, though a lot happened in it--before the actual Bang. See quote below.) Anyone who talks about there having been "nothing" before that is going beyond science and into personal philosophy, and has very little chance of being right. Your "proof" of God is, of course, very similar cockamamie twaddle. What I can't understand is why anyone would think they can win an argument by matching the groundless silliness of the opponent's claims. Since we don’t know the details, all we can say at this point is that as inflation progresses the unstable scalar field converts itself and its energy into other particles: in a process similar to radioactive decay, where one particle morphs into two or more, the scalar field becomes other kinds of matter particles. Eventually, these initial decay products convert into more ordinary particles. According to this view, the primordial scalar field that drove inflation would be matter’s first common ancestor. This is not as strange as it seems. Particles decay and change into each other all the time. [...] According to current understanding, as inflation nears its end, the matter conversion process goes berserk. The scalar field explosively dumps its remaining energy into a maelstrom of particles, filling the cosmos with hot matter. In the modern view, it is this explosive creation of matter at the end of inflation that is associated with the Big Bang: in other words, the Big Bang is not the beginning. The details, however, remain nebulous. -- Marcelo Gleiser, "A Tear at the Edge of Creation"

Answer 4

Would the rapture be another example of QT?

Imagine the human being moving faster than the speed of light.

As to Schroedingers cat, it seems that the message is: once I see it then it is. If I cannot see it then it isn't.
That sounds a lot like what we hear from Atheists about God.
If I can see Him then He is, if not then He isn't.

However, if they could see Him, they would probably reject Him anyway.

That is a hard sell for born-again believers.

I wonder if the world stops turning because you can't see it turning.

grace2u

Answer 5

Well being a Christian and familiar with science myself. Science is man's on formal idea of how he can interpret his natural world and is not neccessarily based on the spiritual concepts of God. For example, I remember this test done in physics where the took a automatic bb gun and fire like so many of thousands of bb s at a solid wall. Well 5 or 6 bbs passed through the solid wall. The physical concept was that different forms of matter fluctuates at a certain frenquency. If you find the frequency at which a piece of matter is fluctuating at, you should be able to stick another solid object through it as long as it's at the same frequency. I hope this makes sense. But if you took something from the Spiritual realm where God lives the laws apply differently. An object which is from the spiritual realm would be virtually indestructible even if it were a chair, in this physical realm. That's why the believer's words are so powerful through God, because they are spiritual. Spiritual words can impact or change the nature of physical things in our world.

Answer 6

This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual scale of the components of an atom. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons, protons and electrons of an atom actually have huge spaces between them it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space.

This alone does not seem too important till you add the idea that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.

At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that are 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that they can in no way be the seemingly solid objects they appear to be.

We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.

These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.

From this we must conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turn them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.

I hope that helps to answered your question.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 7

A good theory should work. A good theory should accurately predict what will happen. It's an explanation of how, and approximation of what. It still doesn't answer the question of why.

God created the universe as it is...to exist as it does it needs certain rules, among them, apparently, QT. What's the problem?

Answer 8

Schroedingers cat was just demonstrating the incomplete model of QT at the time it was invented.

Answer 9

From a Layman: I think there are dimensions we simply have NO knowledge or understanding of.
We can close our eyes and still "see"
"Hold" someone that is not physically there
I think the "design" of our existance was not natural, nature is too perfect for it to be happenstance. I believe in a Creator, all else I admit I have questioned, right down to what His name is.

Answer 10

I think that science just explains how God made all of this. Maybe Q.T could explain how 'God' rather than 'us' could be everywhere all at once? I'm also a Christian and love science and used to think God didn't exist until i experienced him. It's difficult to explain that with science too but then do we really need to?