Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigD
It is correct that the formalism of quantum mechanics describes the position and other attributes of particles of matter as a range of values related to probabilities. So, for any given particle, the probability  that if will be detected within a volume arbitrarily distant from its most probable location, while very small, is non-zero. The probability that many particles would be detected in low-probability locations preserving their relative positions – ie: that the water of the Red Sea would be detected not in a parted path across it, yet still be water, not steam, or plasma, or a storm of rapidly decaying exotic particles – is many time less probable than for a single particle – a reasonable if simplistic estimate is  , where  is the number of particles. Because is very large, is very, very small.
I’ve not attempted to estimate these miniscule probabilities. As the idea’s champion, however, this sounds like a task for Shubee.  Shubee, explicitly making whatever assumptions and guesses you need, linking to any reference material you use, and showing your calculations, what do you calculate for the probability of the spontaneous parting of the Red Sea (or an easier-to-describe body of water)?  |
Thank you CraigD but my aim is only to show that quantum creationism is rightly called science according to an acceptable definition of science. I prefer the view of science as given in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics so the only question that remains is if quantum theory contradicts my other two axioms.
"The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe."
Do you see any obvious contradiction in quantum creationism when I add to my first axiom (quantum theory) my second and third axiom?
