A Scientific Theory for Creation

[Shubee]

Creation can be established on current quantum theory where everything happens for no reason whatsoever. As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability amplitude. I merely postulate that out of the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a single big bang. Subsequently, there could have been a finite series of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea. Furthermore, this scientific theory satisfies very precise definitions of physics.

Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Creation can be established...

You might want to define more clearly what you mean by "creation"....

Originally Posted by Shubee

... on current quantum theory where everything happens for no reason whatsoever.

Be careful: just because quantum mechanics supports random effects does not mean that you can avoid the predictability of the convergent systems within which quantum matter exists.

You might want to explain a bit more about what you're getting at with the following:

Originally Posted by Shubee

As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability amplitude. I merely postulate that out of the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence finitely many times.

According to conventional cosmology of course, the Universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but ignoring that and just looking at the issue as a problem in local application of quantum mechanics and mathematics, it would be worthwhile to try to explain why you believe that the number of those "pops" (and you might want to define that word as well) is *finite* over an *infinite* time span. Since I'm not sure I understand your terms, I see no specific reason to question this other than the fact that in general probability is time bounded, and as time goes to infinity on any probability that is non-zero, then the number of occurrences should be unbounded as well.

Originally Posted by Shubee

Conceivably therefore, there is a probability amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a single big bang.

Please define "probability amplitude." There's a "probability" that the folks who believe in a single big bang are right, and a probability that the folks who believe in a cyclic, multi-bang universe are right and also a probability that our Universe is steady-state. There are also probabilities for multiple universes existing, as well as probabilities that those multiple universes were created in different ways. Which one of these (or some other) are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Shubee

Subsequently, there could have been a finite series of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.

Actually, I really don't! Are you referring to the probability that an Earth could be formed in seven days versus 4.5 Billion years? According to most phyisics, the latter is far more likely, although if you want to say its *possible* that an earth could be made to form in 7 days (well, six I guess) then I won't argue against there being a really, really small probability of that! You might though find that the requirements for such an occurrence with very specific parameters (meaning *exactly* like the forms we see in evidence here) would require forces that do not occur in our own Universe, although it might in some other!

Originally Posted by Shubee

Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

So, sure, why not?

David Hilbert was a really smart guy. I think he agreed that it was worthwhile for Bertrand Russell to spend all those pages to prove that 1+1=2, because as the quote in your linked paper says, you have to consider "all logically possible theories" if your view of the world is to be complete.

OTOH, he'd probably tell you that once proven (using a minimum number of axioms of course!), you don't need to waste too much time reproving it.

If one were to bring ten of the wisest men in the world together and ask them what was the most stupid thing in existence, they would not be able to discover anything so stupid as astrology,
Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Buffy

If one were to bring ten of the wisest men in the world together and ask them what was the most stupid thing in existence, they would not be able to discover anything so stupid as astrology,
Buffy

H E A V Y discussion dudes

On astrology 33% of Yanks believe in it. Where are those wise men hiding?

around one-third of those polled also said they believe in UFOs, witches and astrology.

Americans reveal belief in UFOs, witches - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

On astrology 33% of Yanks believe in it. Where are those wise men hiding?

perhaps among the other 67%

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by Buffy

You might want to define more clearly what you mean by "creation"

By creation, I mean something out of nothing, as in Steven Hawking's book A Brief History of Time, where Hawking wrote that the big bang "smacks of divine intervention."

Originally Posted by Buffy

Be careful: just because quantum mechanics supports random effects does not mean that you can avoid the predictability of the convergent systems within which quantum matter exists.

It's has been a long time since I read of this result but I believe that there's a mathematical theorem that says something like "in any chaotic system there will be predicable effects." Sure. I believe in the law of large numbers.

Originally Posted by Buffy

According to conventional cosmology of course, the Universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but ignoring that and just looking at the issue as a problem in local application of quantum mechanics and mathematics, it would be worthwhile to try to explain why you believe that the number of those "pops" (and you might want to define that word as well) is *finite* over an *infinite* time span.

Isn't it customary to make hypotheses in physics based on empirical observations? I simply meant that the number of creation events is bounded whereas time is unbounded.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Since I'm not sure I understand your terms, I see no specific reason to question this other than the fact that in general probability is time bounded, and as time goes to infinity on any probability that is non-zero, then the number of occurrences should be unbounded as well.

I started off thinking that a creation event should have zero probability. If that is true, then there could be no limit to the number of special creation events in the universe, provided that the average time between such events is infinite. I finally settled on being as conservative as I my instincts will allow and thus conjectured, as per David Hilbert, that there will be no more than a fixed number of creation events in the eternity of time and not infinitely many.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Please define "probability amplitude." There's a "probability" that the folks who believe in a single big bang are right, and a probability that the folks who believe in a cyclic, multi-bang universe are right and also a probability that our Universe is steady-state. There are also probabilities for multiple universes existing, as well as probabilities that those multiple universes were created in different ways. Which one of these (or some other) are you referring to?

By probability amplitude, I simply meant the wave function, expressed as a function of position.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually, I really don't! Are you referring to the probability that an Earth could be formed in seven days versus 4.5 Billion years?

According to the Bible (Genesis 1) there were creation events for six days leading to the creation of man on this planet. God rested on the seventh day.

Originally Posted by Buffy

According to most phyisics, the latter is far more likely, although if you want to say its *possible* that an earth could be made to form in 7 days (well, six I guess) then I won't argue against there being a really, really small probability of that!

That's pretty much all that I've said. I would like to add though that there is a non-zero probability of the first man being assembled in a single day by that supervising probability amplitude according to conventional quantum physics.

Originally Posted by Buffy

You might though find that the requirements for such an occurrence with very specific parameters (meaning *exactly* like the forms we see in evidence here) would require forces that do not occur in our own Universe, although it might in some other!
So, sure, why not?

What do you mean by "forces that do not occur in our own Universe"? I'm referring to extraordinarily rare events that I expect only occur finitely many time in the eternity of time. If one zero probability creation event can occur (the big bang), what prevents a few more creation events from happening?

[REASON]

Shubee,

Maybe you'd be willing to explain a little more why you feel it is necessary to reconcile biblical creation stories with science.

Do you believe that by demonstrating a non-zero chance of spontaneous creation by the use of a probability amplitude it will lend credence to those stories and therefore justify the continual belief in them by yourself and others?

Who are you trying to convince?

[Rade]

Originally Posted by Shubee

... I would like to add though that there is a non-zero probability of the first man being assembled in a single day by that supervising probability amplitude according to conventional quantum physics...

. What does this mean in red ? A probability amplitude can never "supervise" for the simple reason that ....In quantum mechanics, a probability amplitude is a complex-valued mathematical function that describes an uncertain or unknown quantity. The amplitude "describes" (explains), it does not "supervise". There is a zero probability that the first man was assembled within science by a supervising probability amplitude for the simple reason that such an amplitude does not exist within science.

It would appear that you attempt to equate a god concept = the "supervisor" of the probability amplitude. Perhaps the first man was assembled by a god that supervised the amplitude, but such a possibility is outside the field of study known as science. Within field of study called science, probability amplitudes never supervise anything.

I would agree with you that it is possible to have a scientific theory using quantum mechanics for creation of things (the big bang theory of universe being one example), where I disagree is your attempt to conclude that such a process must have a "supervisor" = god. Science does not need god, god needs science.

[Shubee]

Hi Rade,

I agree that science should describe the natural world without reference to God and I did not mean to suggest that there is any intelligence in the probability amplitude of quantum theory. I do confess to having a religious belief that is orthogonal to quantum physics so my religious faith doesn't interfere with science at all. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

The first sentence of my opening post refers to the explicit belief among experts in conventional quantum theory that everything on the quantum level happens for no reason whatsoever. Am I right about that?

There are dictionaries that define the word supervise as follows:

supervise

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

to oversee (a process, work, workers, etc.) during execution or performance; superintend; have the oversight and direction of.

—Synonyms: manage, direct, control, guide.

American Heritage Dictionary:

To have the charge and direction of; superintend.

My purpose in using the word supervise was not to suggest that a probability density in any way guides or sets the direction of a physical process but that a probability function is the closest thing in quantum theory that fits that description. I agree that purpose and meaning superintending the operation of quantum physics is a religious idea and I do wish that that concept would be vigorously questioned because I believe that many physicists tend to think of the wavefunction as a guiding force, either consciously or subconsciously. For example, the David Bohm faction of quantum physicists attach a "guiding equation" onto the standard probabilistic Schrödinger equation in their "pilot-wave" model of quantum mechanics. Isn't a "pilot-wave" an allusion to something that flies ahead, setting the pattern for what follows?

The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result. Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason whatsoever. So why do quantum events happen?

For those who believe that there must be an answer, I propose that the answer is religious. There is a God that plays dice with light and matter. God not only plays dice with the universe,—He cheats.

Because the God I envision is orthogonal to quantum physics, He will never be seen violating the Law of large numbers. Isn't it wonderful that God consents to abide by the laws of quantum physics in order to have a consistent reality that intelligent creatures can rely on?

Because I have allowed for the existence of a God that doesn't interfere with the laws of physics, His proposed existence is completely independent of our understanding of science. Consequently, if someone wanted to believe in purpose and meaning in the universe and in science also, then the most logical answer is the religious one that I have proposed. For emphasis, I repeat, I believe that science should be defined according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. See The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 (section 2) and The Relativity of Discovery: Hilbert's First Note on the Foundations of Physics (sections 1.1 and 1.2). That said, it is perfectly consistent to believe in a dice-playing God that can never be caught cheating.

Originally Posted by Rade

I would agree with you that it is possible to have a scientific theory using quantum mechanics for creation of things (the big bang theory of universe being one example), where I disagree is your attempt to conclude that such a process must have a "supervisor" = god.

I appreciate your acknowledgement "that it is possible to have a scientific theory using quantum mechanics for creation of things" and I believe that I have defended my rationale on the nature of the cosmic dice-thrower. Whether or not that dice-thrower represents an intelligent purpose or not, and for the lack of perfectly neutral language, please allow me to refer to the wavefunction of quantum mechanics as the supervising probability amplitude. I now wish to ask a question of mathematicians and physicists that is purely mathematical:

Is it possible for a supervising probability amplitude to split the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21) and to assemble a man fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided." (Exodus 14:21).

In other words, if we insert "the supervising probability amplitude" in the place of "the LORD God" in these two Scriptures, then will the amended Scriptural statements be perfectly consistent with the science called quantum physics?

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by Shubee

Conceivably therefore, there is a probability amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a single big bang. Subsequently, there could have been a finite series of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.

Yes, up until the universe was created, there could have been many probabilities of when it would come into existence and how long it would take. But that ended once it came into existence. If the Earth was made in six days, a few thousand years ago, there would be plentiful scientific evidence of this fact. There isn't. Furthermore, there is plentiful evidence that it took place a lot longer ago than that, and over a larger period of time. So discussion of whether there was a probablility that it could have happened in six days is irrelevant. It didn't.

Please see here (post #75), where a similar discussion is taking place in the Theology forum.

[Shubee]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Yes, up until the universe was created, there could have been many probabilities of when it would come into existence and how long it would take. But that ended once it came into existence.

That's the beauty of David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Everyone is free to favor any cosmology they like, just so long as it exists in the atlas of all conceivable universes.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

If the Earth was made in six days, a few thousand years ago, there would be plentiful scientific evidence of this fact. There isn't. Furthermore, there is plentiful evidence that it took place a lot longer ago than that, and over a larger period of time. So discussion of whether there was a probablility that it could have happened in six days is irrelevant. It didn't.

My aim at this time is to debate physics, not geology. As in observational cosmology, interpreting the fossil record requires that we first select one of many possible axiom sets.