Are we really that far apart?
- From: bass <manny@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:03:08 +0200
Source material: http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2413.htm
EXTRACT;
Quantum Mechanics as a Science-Religion Bridge
Stanley Klein is professor of vision science, bioengineering and
optometry at the University of California, Berkeley. His early
research was in biology (co-authoring a paper with Richard Feynman)
and particle physics (papers on S-matrix theory and topology of early
string theory). He then switched research areas to study the visual
system and physiological optics. Klein's vision research seeks to
account for unusual perceptual effects and limits to vision in terms
of underlying physiological mechanisms. Recently, he has been using
evoked scalp brain waves and MRI in humans to learn about the role of
different brain areas in constructing perceptions. His optics research
is relevant to improving algorithms for laser refractive surgery and
for fitting contact lenses. Klein's interest in quantum mechanics and
brain research has led him to explore and write about how science can
deal with consciousness and theology. His California auto license
plate of more than 20 years, DUALITY, summarizes his theme that the
duality of quantum mechanics provides an ideal framework for the
science-religion duality. This framework provides a relativistic
ontology that enables dialogue among the seemingly incompatible
ontologies of different theistic and atheistic religions.
Our Future Vision conference assignment is to engage our scientific
and spiritual imagination to chart a path for a better future. The
world's environmental problems, unimaginable disparities between rich
and poor, continuing conflicts based on differing worldviews, and
continuing population growth make it clear that the world can use
mending and transforming.
I am optimistic that increased dialogue between science and spirit can
be a crucial step on the path to that better future. There is
bridge-building dialogue among some scientists and theologians, but it
is not broad enough. For science andreligion to be a force in
transforming society, the dialogue needs to be extended to mainstream
scientists and people of faith.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is the formalism that physicists and chemists
use to understand the workings of our universe. When applied to simple
systems, it makes predictions that have been tested as being accurate
to 12 decimal places, and there have been countless unsuccessful
attempts to find spots where quantum predictions fail. The only
problem with QM is that it violates intuition. I argue that QM and
science/religion violate our intuitions in the same way.
Before setting theological issues of quantum ontology, I will briefly
summarize the three steps associated with QM calculations:
Step 1: Decide on which experiment to do (what question to ask of
nature). This is known as the Heisenberg choice.
Step 2: Calculate the sum of all possible Feynman diagrams from the
initial state of the experiment to each possible outcome. There are
numerous mathematical tricks for doing this calculation. This step
violates classical materialism since the objects being studied become
immaterial wave-like entities between observations. (For details, I
recommend Feynman's thin, non-mathematical book QED.)
Step 3: The outcome of the experiment is made real (converted from
possible to actual) when an observation is made. The probability of
observing a particular outcome is given by the square of the summed
quantity calculated in step 2. This collapse from the multiplicity of
possible outcomes to a single outcome is called the Dirac choice.
The implications of QM for the science-religion bridge are numerous.
While physicists agree that the above three steps are proper for
calculating the outcome of experiments, there is less agreement on how
to interpret what is behind the calculation. There are four categories
of interpretations:
The von Neumann/Stapp Collapse interpretation considers the collapse
in Step 3 to literally occur.
The Copenhagen interpretation considers the collapse metaphorical
rather than literal.
The Splitting Universe interpretation suggests that every time a
measurement is made, each of the multiple outcomes produces a new
universe, and the multiple universes all coexist.
The Bohm interpretation suggests that there is an underlying, hidden
reality that guides the evolution of the universe in a deterministic
manner.
Many people view the ambiguity of multiple interpretations to be a
negative aspect of the theory. They wait for a new metaphysics with a
single interpretation to emerge. To me, the multiple, seemingly
conflicting, interpretations are the beauty of the theory. The
multiplicity of interpretations, all apparently correct in that they
give identical predictions, preaches tolerance of divergent
worldviews.
The most important feature of quantum metaphysics is that every
interpretation of quantum mechanics is dualistic, with a duality
between the observed and the observer. The quantum duality differs
from previous dualities of Plato, Descartes and Kant in that it is
mathematically formulated, self-consistent and tightly constrained.
Quantum dualism is central to the science-religion bridge I seek,
which is much broader than the Spinoza-Einstein bridge. Einstein was
clear that he did not believe in a personal god. Using the language of
the Hebrew Scriptures, Einstein said he believed in Elohim (a god that
can be identified with nature) but not YHVH (the God with whom one has
a personal dialogue). A dualistic worldview with a blurring of the
metaphor/literal distinction opens up a space for a personal god.
Quantum duality is a striking refutation of those objecting to a
dualistic worldview. One must be careful, however, not to legitimize
old-fashioned, discredited dualities with separate physical and
mental/spiritual realms. Quantum duality is tightly constrained and,
some argue, forbids some spiritual beliefs including paranormal
phenomena such as intercessory prayer.
Quantum mechanics reverses the Galilean and Darwinian revolutions that
removed us from being central to the operation of the universe. We the
observers, in a sense, create the universe. Elevating each of us to an
important position in the cosmos is relevant to New Age and classic
theologies that give the individual a direct connection to God. QM may
also provide a natural law explanation for the anthropic principle,
whereby the laws governing our universe are especially suitable for
the development of intelligent life. This is an anti-Copernican
notion.
John Bell devised a class of experiments he thought would disprove QM.
The experiments were done, and the quantum predictions were verified.
Bell's theorem implies that there is an intrinsic non-locality in
nature whereby the outcome of an experiment instantly influences what
is true elsewhere in the universe.
Non-locality has spiritual relevance in reminding us that we are not
separate from each other and from nature. Our fundamental
interconnectedness is a theme of many spiritual practices. Some people
claim that interconnectedness allows paranormal phenomena to occur.
However, careful calculations show that although entities are
interconnected, paranormal influences among separated entities are not
predicted. This outcome is wonderful for the science-religion bridge
since it removes a potential obstacle for dialogue, while at the same
time the interconnectedness adds strength to the bridge.
A successful science-religion dialogue is helped by the presence of a
non-materialistic realm that is compatible with the scientific
worldview. Quantum duality offers such a realm, because between
observations all outcomes are ontological possibilities.
This freedom aids the spiritual dimension in several ways. It allows a
true fundamental top-down free will to exist, not merely a weakened
free will that is compatible with determinism. Henry Stapp (see
Research News, February 2001) points out how the free choice of what
question to ask (the Heisenberg choice) can affect the probability of
the outcome.
This freedom is important in loosening the rigidity often associated
with science. The collapse interpretations allow a non-deterministic
framework (dear to theologians) to be compatible with reductionism
(dear to scientists).
My rabbi says that half of our prayers can be summarized in the word,
Wow! We need to be reminded about how amazing, awesome, surprising and
mysterious the world is. I know of no more amazing and awesome and
mysterious theory than QM.
A problem with many interpretations of QM is the question of where to
put the dualistic split between the observer and observed. Are
sentient animals the only possible observers? What are the possible
effects of primitive animals, fetuses, robots or film on QM
experiments?
The Copenhagen interpretation allows flexibility because von Neumann
showed that the quantum split was moveable. Consider a double slit
experiment where a single photon passes through two slits and makes a
wave-like pattern on photographic film. Does the film become the
observer producing the collapse, or is it the human viewing the film?
Or is a second human viewing the first one the observer?
The moveability of the split that defines what is real introduces some
relativism that causes displeasure among those who prefer a rigid
worldview (ontology). Schràdinger used this example (with a cat
replacing the film) as an argument pointing out the craziness of QM. I
use it to demonstrate its flexibility.
The moveable split provides a method for connecting religions with
seemingly incompatible worldviews. For example, Eastern and Native
American religions where humans, animals and plants are all given
reverent status would have the QM split placed low. Judeo-Christian
religions, where humans are special, would have the QM split placed
high.
The most important feature of the Copenhagen interpretation for the
science-religion dialogue is that it blurs the line between a
metaphorical and literal understanding of nature. Countless articles
and books have been written on whether Bohr considered his Copenhagen
interpretation to be an ontological theory of reality or an
epistemological theory of our knowledge of the world.
Detractors claim it is not ontological because the shifting split
would imply a shifting ontology, which is not a true understanding of
reality. It is my belief that the fundamental nature of the world is
stranger than our old-fashioned ideas. Therefore, the strangeness
associated with the Copenhagen ontology may be correct. There is a
metaphorical quality to the Copenhagen interpretation. The saying,
Quantum mechanics is the dreams that stuff is made of rings true for
the Copenhagen interpretation.
I am discouraged by the rigidly literal belief in resurrection held by
leading science-and-religion scholars. Theologians may fear that
metaphorical interpretations cripple resurrection stories because
metaphor is taken to be a weak substitute for the real thing. I
suspect, however, that the status of metaphor will greatly escalate
once it becomes clear that all of science is based on a theory in
which the substance of the material world must be taken
metaphorically. In other words, science may have a basis similar to
that of the spiritual realm!
Some theologians and people of faith may have problems with the
quantum constraints placed on God's power. However, history indicates
this obstacle can be overcome.
Bridge-building theologians need to pull back from their faith in
paranormal phenomena intercessory prayer, intelligent design and
literal resurrection (and other miracles). Quantum duality offers a
subtle solution, in that it allows absolutist statements of what is
real for each observer, while allowing different observers to have a
different set of equally valid beliefs. What applies to observers
could be extended to theologies.
There are also obstacles for scientists to overcome. Most scientists
think that science should be totally separate from religion. They fear
scientific theories will be applied inappropriately as has happened
with Darwinism.
Physicists, for instance, have seen many mangled versions of QM that
have been used inappropriately. Alan Sokal's hoax is an excellent
example how quantum language can be tuned into gibberish. (I recommend
a quick Internet search of this topic to bring you up-to-date
quickly.) Scientists also believe that their enterprise has a solid,
not metaphorical, foundation.
The strange world of QM described above is not familiar to most
scientists. Even though many have taken courses in QM, they have not
dealt with its murky philosophical implications. Scientists have as
hard a time as theologians in accepting the notion that their world
has a shaky underpinning. Having both scientists and theologians on
common, if not shaky, ground may be a good place to begin.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: who wrote the scriptures?
- Next by Date: Multiple Universes: The Evidence Is Good
- Previous by thread: who wrote the scriptures?
- Next by thread: Multiple Universes: The Evidence Is Good
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
