Base the science-religion dialogue on facts, not on doctrines!

George E. Ioup

J. J. Tambergs

A recent development in the understanding of conceptual foundations of quantum theory is discussed, giving particular attention to the analysis of the so called Schroedinger’s cat paradox. The solution of this problem in the frameworks of Everett-Wheeler many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is considered, as well as the philosophical and theological consequences following from this interpretation. The recommendations are given, concerning the use of questions related with conceptual foundations of quantum theory in the education when introducing students and senior class pupils in problems of the dialogue between science and religion. \nKEY WORDS: science, religion, dialogue, foundations of quantum theory, many-worlds interpretation

Inge Svein Helland

Dmitry Viktorovich Kiryanov

Bernard d’Espagnat

Christopher Cochran, Stanley A. Klein

This paper attempts a systematic comparison of the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM). The article ends with a summary table that has 13 rows and 10 columns. The columns are metaphysical principles such as determinism and reality. The rows are the main interpretations from 1925 to the present. Each row has entries such as Yes/No/Agnostic. We have contacted most of the living authors and based on their comments we have modified the entry for their interpretation. However, there is reasonable space for disagreement when it comes to determining the correct value of each box (Yes/No/Agnostic). We hope to improve the table in the future. We have also eliminated one of the columns and replaced it with two new columns. We believe that this topic is especially relevant to bridge building in dialogues on science, religion and spirituality because of the unique way that QM brings out metaphysical questions from within science. While any science may lend itself to metaphysical speculation, few sciences beyond QM have such a wide range of metaphysical speculation that all correspond to the same empirical results. This fact may humble scientists and have interesting consequences for how to build bridges between conflicting worldviews.