Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?

[2PhiloVoid]

Dr. Erica W. Carlson is professor of physics at Purdue University and, as a Christian, shares a few things about how she interprets the theoretical lines of math, logic, epistemology and physics....

Is she right? Is she wrong? On principle, I'd say I'm uncertain either way. What do you think?

The Impact of Quantum Mechanics on Logic​

 

[Laodicean60]

I like this science. I do believe Quantum defies human logic we operate off the seen and quantum deals with the unseen then we see. The wave function has helped me understand prayer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

no

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I like this science. I do believe Quantum defies human logic we operate off the seen and quantum deals with the unseen then we see. The wave function has helped me understand prayer.

That's an interesting concept you've offered there, Laodicean. I hadn't thought of Quantum dynamics as a part of prayer. It'd be interesting if it turned out that one had something to do with the other. I like the idea.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

no

Ok. So, I take it that you think she's wrong in what she said?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I regret my time investment. Like in so many cases, just adding the words "quantum mechanics" is being used to make an idea seem more interesting than it is.

The fact that we can apply mathematics to the world to describe the fall of a rock under gravity does not persuade me that a creator exists. This is a somewhat common argument, but I don't see how the conclusion follows.

She adds one wrinkle, saying that the fact that these 'laws' are find-outable is an argument that the law-writer intended us to find them out. This I think borders more on wrong. Some things are not find-outable, like a closed-form solution to the three body problem. So in some ways the real situation is that some things are find-outable and other things aren't. I don't see that any conclusion can be drawn from the 'partial success' of mathematical methods.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok. So, I take it that you think she's wrong in what she said?

An "incoherent physics" doesn't result in coherent beings (or likely beings at all).

Let's start with planets in orbit. The stability of planetary orbits (a basic requirement for life to evolve) is built on the steady and regular nature of gravitation. If the gravitational constant G fluctuated the planetary orbit wouldn't be stable. Being that could complain about the unsteady nature of physics wouldn't evolve.

Life is based on chemistry. Let the charge of the electron or the electromagnetic constant fluctuate and the binding energy of bonds and reactivities all change or vary from electron to electron and the chemical properties are just chaos and nothing useful can form.

Life makes no sense at all under inconsistent, variable, or random physics. The coherence and consistency of the physical laws is no surprise given the existence life forms to ask the question of why.

It's a bit embarrassing to see a contemporary and colleague making such a weak and motivated argument. The "fine tuning" argument is much less bad.

 

[SelfSim]

Dr. Erica W. Carlson is professor of physics at Purdue University and, as a Christian, shares a few things about how she interprets the theoretical lines of math, logic, epistemology and physics....

Is she right? Is she wrong? On principle, I'd say I'm uncertain either way. What do you think?

The Impact of Quantum Mechanics on Logic​

No ... not evidence of a creator.
Its evidence of our ability to make predictions of what we will observe .. which in turn, demonstrates the consistency of our physical descriptions with our sense making.

Seeking evidence from theoretical physics for some human independent creator, is seeking to justify her belief that there actually is one. Which isn't science .. its 'truth' seeking!
(Aka: a mind virus).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No ... not evidence of a creator.
Its evidence of our ability to make predictions of what we will observe .. which in turn, demonstrates the consistency of our physical descriptions with our sense making.

Seeking evidence from theoretical physics for some human independent creator, is seeking to justify her belief that there actually is one. Which isn't science .. its 'truth' seeking!
(Aka: a mind virus).

You sound similar to Dawkins in how you conceptualize and weaponize the rhetoric that is specific to your perspective: reductionistic, pragmatic, empirical and anti-realist/Idealist.

However, even with that said, I would agree with you that what Dr. Erica Carlson briefly states in the OP video doesn't constitute evidence of a Creator. It simply serves as a Gestalt for people to ponder over, much of the sort that Pascal would have expected and encouraged people to ponder over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

An "incoherent physics" doesn't result in coherent beings (or likely beings at all).

Let's start with planets in orbit. The stability of planetary orbits (a basic requirement for life to evolve) is built on the steady and regular nature of gravitation. If the gravitational constant G fluctuated the planetary orbit wouldn't be stable. Being that could complain about the unsteady nature of physics wouldn't evolve.

Life is based on chemistry. Let the charge of the electron or the electromagnetic constant fluctuate and the binding energy of bonds and reactivities all change or vary from electron to electron and the chemical properties are just chaos and nothing useful can form.

Life makes no sense at all under inconsistent, variable, or random physics. The coherence and consistency of the physical laws is no surprise given the existence life forms to ask the question of why.

It's a bit embarrassing to see a contemporary and colleague making such a weak and motivated argument. The "fine tuning" argument is much less bad.

I agree. An incoherent---especially an incomplete----physics can't result in a decisively clear, distinct and sound set of reasons by which to draw a conclusion on behalf of a coherent being. Rather, I think that what Dr. Erica Carlson states simply leaves us with further questions to ask as this sort of thing always does. Like Pascal, some of us will continue to ponder and ask, and others of us will simply drop the issue like a hot potato due to the obvious metaphysical obscurity of it all.

However, I prefer to follow Pascal's lead, but in a more 21st century mode.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree. An incoherent---especially an incomplete----physics can't result in a decisively clear, distinct and sound set of reasons by which to draw a conclusion on behalf of a coherent being.

I'm not sure what you are arguing or claiming. I was saying that an incoherent physics (the actual behavior of natural systems rather than the study thereof) would fail to provide a platform for planet or life even existing in the first place (depending on how you mangled uniformity).

Rather, I think that what Dr. Erica Carlson states simply leaves us with further questions to ask as this sort of thing always does.

My only question is "why don't you think about it harder Erica?". It should resolve the reason all by itself.

Like Pascal, some of us will continue to ponder and ask, and others of us will simply drop the issue like a hot potato due to the obvious metaphysical obscurity of it all.

He would at least be able to measure the drop in air pressure experienced by the potato.

However, I prefer to follow Pascal's lead, but in a more 21st century mode.

In the 21st century I used a half-empty water bottle to measure the pressure drop in a commercial airliner at cruising altitude.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure what you are arguing or claiming. I was saying that an incoherent physics (the actual behavior of natural systems rather than the study thereof) would fail to provide a platform for planet or life even existing in the first place (depending on how you mangled uniformity).

... maybe what threw me off was the nomenclature of "coherent being." I'm simply saying that whether the actual physics is something we can fully understand or not wouldn't by any necessity produce physical indicia by which to conceptualize, categories and measure some subtle aspect of a "coherent being," whatever that term can imply.

Do you use that term in class? I've never heard a physicist use the term, "coherent being" as a point of discussion.

My only question is "why don't you think about it harder Erica?". It should resolve the reason all by itself.

Maybe because she's into Quantum Materials and she likes to entertain various modes of the idea of Emergence and how it may predict certain outcomes..... I'm not saying she's right. She may be doing a particular sort of religious projecting; or like Pascal and other religiously oriented scientists, she might have insights she finds personally valuable that play a dual role in her outlook on the world, whether in physics or in her own pondering over selected inquiries in theology.

He would at least be able to measure the drop in air pressure experienced by the potato.

Unfortunately, unlike Pascal, I'm not able to measure the drop in air pressure of the potato you toss down.

In the 21st century I used a half-empty water bottle to measure the pressure drop in a commercial airliner at cruising altitude.

Maybe only looking at the empty half is half your problem, Hans.

(I'm sorry. That was a bad comment on my part, but you left it open for an AV style rejoinder, so I took the shot........ )

 

[SelfSim]

You sound similar to Dawkins in how you conceptualize and weaponize the rhetoric that is specific to your perspective: reductionistic, pragmatic, empirical and anti-realist/Idealist.

I might also take that as a compliment .. except for your drawing analogies with the likes of Dawkins .. hmm ...
.. Oh well, I suppose language choices are, well, after all, choices! That their delivery may be similar to past deliveries, is sort of unavoidable ... virtually by the very definition of:' language'(?)

So I can take it as a compliment on that basis, I suppose.

However, even with that said, I would agree with you that what Dr. Erica Carlson briefly states in the OP video doesn't constitute evidence of a Creator. It simply serves as a Gestalt for people to ponder over, much of the sort that Pascal would have expected and encouraged people to ponder over.

Ponder for a few tenths of a millisecond .. then promptly give it my scientifically thinking boot!

 

[Hans Blaster]

... maybe what threw me off was the nomenclature of "coherent being." I'm simply saying that whether the actual physics is something we can fully understand or not wouldn't by any necessity produce physical indicia by which to conceptualize, categories and measure some subtle aspect of a "coherent being," whatever that term can imply.

Do you use that term in class? I've never heard a physicist use the term, "coherent being" as a point of discussion.

We don't use the term "being" in physics. The only coherent beings I have experienced are marching bands.

Maybe because she's into Quantum Materials and she likes to entertain various modes of the idea of Emergence and how it may predict certain outcomes..... I'm not saying she's right. She may be doing a particular sort of religious projecting; or like Pascal and other religiously oriented scientists, she might have insights she finds personally valuable that play a dual role in her outlook on the world, whether in physics or in the pondering over her own selected inquiries in theology.

Her original point was clear. It has nothing to do with "emergence". It is just the claim that the elegance (if you like) of physics, or the simplicity of the equations, or the fact that we can even find regular physics is the product of design. And my counter claim was that if the Universe didnt' have these properties there'd be no "us" to botherlooking for it. Non-regular physics doesn't produce living beings.

Unfortunately, unlike Pascal, I'm not able to measure the drop in air pressure of the potato you toss down.

That's too bad. We actually did it in a skyscraper in college.

Maybe only looking at the empty half is half your problem, Hans.

(I'm sorry. That was a bad comment on my part, but you left it open for an AV style rejoinder, so I took the shot........ )

It might have been fully empty. The empty part of the water bottle barometer is the important part.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I regret my time investment. Like in so many cases, just adding the words "quantum mechanics" is being used to make an idea seem more interesting than it is.

That's funny. I never regret my time with atheistic presentations. I always learn so much, all the while concluding so little from them about the nonexistence of God.

From this point on, I think I'm going to begin collecting a dime for every time I hear "I regret my time investment" from the standard, voluntarily present, atheistic peanut gallery.

The fact that we can apply mathematics to the world to describe the fall of a rock under gravity does not persuade me that a creator exists. This is a somewhat common argument, but I don't see how the conclusion follows.

She adds one wrinkle, saying that the fact that these 'laws' are find-outable is an argument that the law-writer intended us to find them out. This I think borders more on wrong. Some things are not find-outable, like a closed-form solution to the three body problem. So in some ways the real situation is that some things are find-outable and other things aren't. I don't see that any conclusion can be drawn from the 'partial success' of mathematical methods.

She only says that, "The fact that I can write down laws that make sense to my human brain is totally amazing and to me that [is] evidence that somebody, whoever designed these things, wants us to figure them out, right?," and this inclination she has to perceive her ability to interface and recognize what she then also perceives are intelligible mathematical entities shows where she sits in her own Philosophy of Mathematics in conjunction with her work in Theoretical Physics.

Of course, none of us has to agree with her. But like I said above, I think theories in science can provide a Gestalt by which some of us will ask additional ontological and teleological questions, even if those questions, like the 3-body problem, or the n-body problem, can't really be solved and we'll find that we are denied the acquisition of definitive embedded indicia in the universe which tell us ..................................
" ***>>>HERE<<<*** be Supreme Purpose!!!!!!!!! "

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We don't use the term "being" in physics. The only coherent beings I have experienced are marching bands.

Her original point was clear. It has nothing to do with "emergence". It is just the claim that the elegance (if you like) of physics, or the simplicity of the equations, or the fact that we can even find regular physics is the product of design. And my counter claim was that if the Universe didnt' have these properties there'd be no "us" to botherlooking for it. Non-regular physics doesn't produce living beings.

Obviously, the Anthropic Principle and the Fine-Tuning Argument leave us in a Gestalt.

And regular physics doesn't produce living beings either, as far as we "know." But Carlson seems to think there is room for the idea of "emergence," even if it's not clearly discernible to us. (She indicates as much elsewhere).

That's too bad. We actually did it in a skyscraper in college.

It might have been fully empty. The empty part of the water bottle barometer is the important part.

Yeah. Well. I'm sure Pascal would have appreciated your barometric findings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Obviously, the Anthropic Principle and the Fine-Tuning Argument leave us in a Gestalt.

Was? Ich verstehe nicht.

And regular physics doesn't produce living beings either, as far as we "know."

The mere regularity of physics by itself, no that is not enough, but our extant regular physics does.

But Carlson seems to think there is room for the idea of "emergence," even if it's not clearly discernible to us. (She indicates as much elsewhere).

I am unfamiliar with her claims that you haven't posted.

Yeah. Well. I'm sure Pascal would have appreciated your barometric findings.

One of many formerly groundbreaking experiments done in undergraduate labs. We also

* demonstrated the quantization photons in the photoelectric effect
* demonstrated the quantization of electric charge
* measured the speed of light
* measured the mass ratio between the proton and deuteron
* measured the state splitting in the first excited state of neutral sodium
* measured the decay rate of Cobalt-60

What was once groundbreaking is now a teaching exercise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's funny. I never regret my time with atheistic presentations. I always learn so much, all the while concluding so little from them about the nonexistence of God.

From this point on, I think I'm going to begin collecting a dime for every time I hear "I regret my time investment" from the standard, voluntarily present, atheistic peanut gallery.

Of your recent video threads, it was the least time wasting, but here is your dime for tollerating us non-belivers hanging out in your science space:

She only says that, "The fact that I can write down laws that make sense to my human brain is totally amazing and to me that [is] evidence that somebody, whoever designed these things, wants us to figure them out, right?," and this inclination she has to perceive her ability to interface and recognize what she then also perceives are intelligible mathematical entities shows where she sits in her own Philosophy of Mathematics in conjunction with her work in Theoretical Physics.

Which is just an argument from incredulity filtered through a pre-existing philosophical commitment. I should note that her work in theoretical physics is in condensed matter physics, not the fundamental underpinnings of QM or the laws of physics.

Of course, none of us has to agree with her. But like I said above, I think theories in science can provide a Gestalt by which some of us will ask additional ontological and teleological questions, even if those questions, like the 3-body problem, or the n-body problem, can't really be solved and we'll find that we are denied the acquisition of definitive embedded indicia in the universe which tell us ..................................
" ***>>>HERE<<<*** be Supreme Purpose!!!!!!!!! "

Someday you humans have to get over yourselves.

 

[SelfSim]

Obviously, the Anthropic Principle and the Fine-Tuning Argument leave us in a Gestalt.

And regular physics doesn't produce living beings either, as far as we "know." But Carlson seems to think there is room for the idea of "emergence," even if it's not clearly discernible to us. (She indicates as much elsewhere).

Hmm ..

The way I see it, the key problem with the anthropic principle (and the fine-tuning argument), is not whether or not they are true, it is mistaking a simple truth for something explanatory. Of course the Anthropic principle is true, (or science is badly internally inconsistent but then it could hardly work as well as it does) .. but its also true that if I observe the mass of the Sun, then that is the mass of the Sun. What's the difference between saying 'the mass is M because I observe it so', versus: 'the mass is M because it would have to be, for me to observe it so?'
I don't see explanatory character in either of those true statements, so I don't see the point in imagining they are saying something different(?)

The controversial part of both the anthropic principle and fine tuning, is whether they count as an explanation of physics parameters, or merely an attribute they possess. If its merely an attribute, it's hardly any different from simply observing what the parameters are .. it isn't explanatory.

And the problem with the 'Gestalt', or landscape idea, (eg: as in the universe is a 'landscape'), is that we only see the part that is consistent with our own survival. Unfortunately, since we don't see any other parts, it's very hard to say if this mode of reflection means anything at all.

So all Carlson would be apparently doing, (if she said what you say she did), is filling in those gaps with her own ideas about whatever she means by 'emergence'.

 

[SelfSim]

Was? Ich verstehe nicht.
...
The mere regularity of physics by itself, no that is not enough, but our extant regular physics does.

Yep, I agree.
Very cool .. (and very concise)!