The author explores the consequences of a new approach towards the foundation of quantum theory. The final aim of this approach has been to try to build a bridge between modern physics and other scientific disciplines, in particular statistical science. One aspect of the approach is first that arguments for a God which has arbitrarily large knowledge can be given. Secondly, that God can be seen as being perfectly rational. One of the consequences is a theory of decisions, a theory that also is valid for decisions made by political leaders. Some implications are sketched.
The author explores the consequences of a new approach towards the foundation of quantum theory. The final aim of this approach has been to try to build a bridge between modern physics and other scientific disciplines, in particular statistical science. One aspect of the approach is first that arguments for a God which has arbitrarily large knowledge can be given. Secondly, that God can be seen as being perfectly rational. One of the consequences is a theory of decisions, a theory that also is valid for decisions made by political leaders. Some implications are sketched.
A recent approach towards the foundation of quantum mechanics is described in some detail. This requires some mathematics, but it is claimed that this approach is easier to understand than the usual formal quantum foundation. Several consequences of the theory are described, consequences that for example also lead to a simpler and deeper understanding of Quantum Decision Theory, which has bearings both on our daily decisions and on the decisions made by political leaders. Another consequence is in the form of arguments for the existence of God, a God that is perfectly rational and has infinite knowledge. To understand these consequences, it is not necessary to understand all the mathematics, but simply to appreciate the fact that the theory is derived from 6 postulates, postulates that can be interpreted in several different directions. Two of these postulates, when interpreted in a very general setting, form the basis for my theological arguments. Finally, it is a hope that by reading this article, and then further discussing the mentioned consequences with other people, one may contribute to a better understanding between groups of people, groups that partly may have their basis in different cultures. These cultures may be of many kinds, also based upon different scientific communities. Or upon different religious groups.
On several levels there is now a debate whether or not the concept of God can be made compatible with modern science. In an attempt to elucidate this debate, I give an account of my own experiences from writing a book on the foundation of quantum mechanics. It turns out that one can give two independent arguments for the existence of God by taking as departure an epistemic (knowledge-based) interpretation of quantum theory. Nevertheless I argue that any religious belief should be the result of an existential choice governed by each individual’s own context (history, personality, culture). My own faith is that God is greater than Christianity, and that Christianity is greater than the dogmas claimed by the Church.
On several levels, there is now a debate whether the concept of God can be made compatible with modern science. In an attempt to elucidate this debate, I give an account of my own experiences from writing a book on the foundation of quantum mechanics. In my opinion, one can give two independent arguments for the existence of God by taking as departure an epistemic (knowledge-based) interpretation of quantum theory. However, I also argue that any religious belief should be the result of an existential choice governed by each person’s own context (history and culture). In particular, I give my account of Christianity as a religion connected to our western culture, how one as a scientist can relate to the relevant dogmas.
I sketch the foundation of quantum mechanics as it is presented in various books and articles. Then a new approach to quantum foundation is described, a foundation that relies on 4 simple postulates related to the mind of an observer or to the joint minds of a group of communicating observers. One of these postulates may appear to be strong, but it turns out to be more natural when it is placed in a religious setting. This assumes the existence of an omnipotent God. These arguments are further discussed, and they are shown also to give a foundation of Quantum Decision Theory.
‘God’, said Albert Einstein, ‘does not play dice’. This famous remark by the author of the theory of relativity was not intended as an analysis of the recreational habits of a supreme being but expressed his reaction to the new scientific ideas, developed in the first quarter of the twentieth century, which are now known as quantum physics. Before we can fully appreciate why one of the greatest scientists of modern times should have been led to make such a comment, we must first try to understand the context of scientific and philosophical thought that had become established by the end of the nineteenth century and what it was about the ‘new physics’ that presented such a radical challenge to this consensus. What is often thought of as the modern scientific age began in the sixteenth century, when Nicholas Copernicus proposed that the motion of the stars and planets should be described on the assumption that it is the sun, rather than the earth, which is the centre of the solar system. The opposition, not to say persecution, that this idea encountered from the establishment of that time is well known, but this was unable to prevent a revolution in thinking whose influence has continued to the present day. From that time on, the accepted test of scientific truth has increasingly been observation and experiment rather than religious or philosophical dogma.
‘God’, said Albert Einstein, ‘does not play dice’. This famous remark by the author of the theory of relativity was not intended as an analysis of the recreational habits of a supreme being but expressed his reaction to the new scientific ideas, developed in the first quarter of the twentieth century, which are now known as quantum physics. Before we can fully appreciate why one of the greatest scientists of modern times should have been led to make such a comment, we must first try to understand the context of scientific and philosophical thought that had become established by the end of the nineteenth century and what it was about the ‘new physics’ that presented such a radical challenge to this consensus. What is often thought of as the modern scientific age began in the sixteenth century, when Nicholas Copernicus proposed that the motion of the stars and planets should be described on the assumption that it is the sun, rather than the earth, which is the centre of the solar system. The opposition, not to say persecution, that this idea encountered from much of the establishment of that time is well known, but this was unable to prevent a revolution in thinking whose influence has continued to the present day. From that time on, the accepted test of scientific truth has increasingly been observation and experiment rather than religious or philosophical dogma.