Cambridge University Press eBooks

Divine action and quantum theory

Nicholas Saunders

Published Oct 31, 2002• 0 citations

Abstract

Up to this point we have been dealing almost exclusively with the theoretical concepts of indeterminism, the laws of nature and various theological approaches to SDA. The next three chapters of this book consider in detail the two areas of modern science that are most commonly claimed to be consonant with SDA, namely quantum theory and chaos theory. In the discussion that follows it is presumed that the reader is reasonably conversant with the historical background to the discovery of both theories and the principal philosophical consequences of the different interpretations of quantum theory. It may seem from a cursory reading of current scholarship on the potential relationship between SDA and quantum theory that the proposition that God determines quantum processes is relatively recent. It is clear, however, that this assertion has been a consistent element of the philosophical wrangling over the interpretation of quantum theory for at least the past sixty years. Indeed, while William Pollard's famous work Chance and Providence set the agenda for contemporary debates (Pollard 1958), it is erroneous to view this work as the sole origin of the proposal that God is active in quantum events. As we shall see, it is clear that Pollard was himself influenced by Karl Heim and adopted a very similar notion of God's interaction with quantum theory to that proposed by Heim.

DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511610035.006

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics

Peter E. Hodgson

The difﬁculties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difﬁculties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difﬁcult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difﬁculties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can inﬂuence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justiﬁed and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.

Routledge eBooksSep 8, 20170 citations

A Quantum Mechanics without Subjective Element

W. Blum

It is not easy for practicing physicists to keep track of the ongoing philosophical debate concerning the "reality'' of the entities they manipulate or the "objective validity'' of the results of their work. In addition, the role of the observer and the theory of the measuring process seem to be themselves controversial. Therefore it may be appropriate to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics which corresponds to the perspective of most practicing physicists, although the author makes no claim to possessing any particular knowledge of the literature in this domain. The final four sections present some more specific descriptions of the concepts used, so that they may also serve for more philosophical discussions.

Dec 1, 20160 citations

Does God cheat at dice?

Nicholas Saunders

Soon after the initial development of quantum mechanics Albert Einstein made the famous statement that he could not conceive of a God that ‘plays dice’. The theologians we considered in the previous chapter seize upon this claimed indeterminacy and have linked it to a theology of special divine action. As we have seen, however, there has been little technical discussion of the possibilities for SDA in quantum theory. It is the aim of this chapter to evaluate this work from a scientific perspective and consider the extent to which God can be said to ‘cheat’ at playing dice. The approach adopted in this chapter is again to consider the claim for quantum SDA in its most basic form – namely the possibility of God determining all or only some quantum events. We shall leave to one side the many different theological motivations for this claim, and consider in detail whether it is a proposal that appears consonant with our current understanding of quantum mechanics. The most constructive approach to assessing the claims considered in the previous chapter is to push the claim that quantum SDA objectively exists as far as possible and examine more closely which theoretical features of quantum mechanics may be taken in support of a notion of non-interventionist SDA. As we saw in chapters 3 and 4, this will necessarily involve a detailed discussion of the understanding of indeterminism in quantum theory and, as we shall see, shall raise the possibility of both compatibilist and incompatibilist interpretations of SDA.

Cambridge University Press eBooksOct 31, 20020 citations

Does God Cheat at Dice? Divine Action and Quantum Possibilities

Nicholas Saunders

The recent debates concerning divine action in the context of quantum mechanics are examined with particular reference to the work of William Pollard, Robert J. Russell, Thomas Tracy, Nancey Murphy, and Keith Ward. The concept of a quantum mechanical “event” is elucidated and shown to be at the center of this debate. An attempt is made to clarify the claims made by the protagonists of quantum mechanical divine action by considering the measurement process of quantum mechanics in detail. Four possibilities for divine influence on quantum mechanics are identified and the theological and scientific implications of each discussed. The conclusion reached is that quantum mechanics is not easily reconciled with the doctrine of divine action.

Zygon®Sep 1, 200093 citations

The world, entanglement, and God: Quantum theory and the Christian doctrine of creation

Kirk Wegter‐McNelly

Jan 1, 20032 citations

The Kalām-based Continous Re-creation Approach of Basil Altaie Compared to Quantum Divine Action Models from Christian Contexts

Hakan Turan, Hakan Turan

It is widely accepted that quantum theory predicts an indeterminism for the micro-processes of the physical realm, i.e. a future uncertainty that transcends mechanical necessity. What this indeterminism means ontologically has been debated for nearly a century. According to one of the theses put forward during this time, the uncertainties that are assumed to be present in every phenomenon and the microscopic coincidences that statistically coincide with them are not the ultimate reality, but rather quantum uncertainty has a metaphysical behind-the-scenes, namely the existence of a God who actively ordains and creates the concrete outcome of every micro phenomenon. It is from this indeterminacy that the “quantum divine action” models, especially those put forward by Christian scientists and philosophers with the intention of reconciling modern science with the concept of a creator God, start. This article analyses the natural philosophy of the Muslim theoretical physicist and scholar of Islamic Kalām theology Basil Altaie, which can be interpreted as a quantum divine action model based on Islamic theology. Altaie’s approach is here discussed from different philosophical and theological perspectives and compared with Christian approaches.

Nov 3, 20240 citations