Quantum Theory and Creationary Science
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
The modern Quantum Theory (mechanics), QT, interpretation has been considered by many, within the creationary science movement, as an "enemy." Two basic reasons for this modern interpretation are the notation of randomness and the philosophically assumed (general) indeterminacy principle. These ideas are apparently required as a foundation for quantum theory. As shown elsewhere The Wondrous Design and non-random Character of Chance Events, probabilistic behavior does not result from behavior that is actually random in character, but it is intelligently designed and controlled by a higher-intelligence.
Secular QT, as with other scientific notions, is language dependent. Indeed, the term random can be eliminated from any discussion and a different term - mindom - applied. The term "mindom" comes from a different language and means that probabilistic behavior is maintained but the pattern is controlled by a higher-intelligence. It also implies that what might be considered as "random" fluctuations in behavior is actually mindom fluctuations in behavior. That is, a higher-intelligence controls the behavior. The notion of a higher-intelligence is not part of the language of secular QT. There is no rational reason for not allowing this additional term as well as all the other testable and appropriate intelligently designed notions as part of QT.
The "lawless" notion is another way to describe the modern indeterminacy principle, which is also called the "uncertainty principle." It has changed from a problem with measuring physical characteristics for microphysical objects to a full-blown general "law of nature." What is the actual essence of this "law"? The following quotations describe its core meaning.
[T]he term "indeterminacy principle" is more appropriate than the commonly used term "uncertainty principle." For, as far as any physically observable variables is concerned, it is not to be supposed that these are just "uncertain" to us, because we are not able to measure them with complete precision. Rather, one assumes that their very mode of being requires them to be indeterminate (Bohm, p. 85).There is a result established by J. von Neumann (1932) that involves things called hidden variables. Some call such variables "metaphysical."
[T]he renunciation of causality in the usual interpretation of QT is not to be regarded as merely the result of our inability to measure the precise values of the variables that would enter into the expression of a casual law at the atomic level, but, rather, it should be regarded as a reflection of the fact the no such laws exist (Bohm, p. 86).
[S]uch phenomena are not restricted to just those things that go on in the atomic domain alone, nor just to "hidden" or unobservable properties of things. Real and observable physical phenomena are being assumed to have no causes (Bohm, p. 86).
Thus the name of "indeterminacy principle" is further justified, for now we are led to conclude that the question of "metaphysical" variables about whose values we are uncertain cannot even arise (Bohm, p. 86)
In general, however, measurements carried out on individual atoms or individual quanta with such types of [modern] apparatus produce results that show an irregular fluctuation from one observation to the next, with a regular mean behavior in a statistical aggregate containing a large number of observations. This regular mean behavior can be predicted to a high degree of approximation in terms of the present quantum theory from the Schrödinger wave function with the aid of the probability. But the existing QT yields no way even in principle of predicting how the individual measurements will fluctuate from one case to the next (Bohm, pp. 86-87).
Thus, one is led to the conclusion that the precise manner of occurrence of these irregular fluctuations cannot be traced by means of experiments to any kind of cause at all, and that, indeed, it does not have any causes (Bohm, p. 87).
Hence, in the usual interpretation of the QT, there is simply no room anywhere for the assumption of additional causal factors to which one could even in principle ascribe the origin of the precise details of the irregular fluctuations in the results of measurements of the properties of individual atoms (Bohm, p. 88).
This produces an often unmentioned logical quagmire when presented with a question that is not asked by secular scientists. How does nature cause a large aggregate to have such a predictable mean while not causing specific individuals to behavior in a truly predictable way or to be related one to another? There is more then one answer to this. There are deterministic mathematical models that yield what is claimed to be "random" behavior that does converge to these mean values. But, of course, these are simply rejected as not QT related. And, certainly, the higher-intelligence mindom answer is ridiculed and rejected. Obviously, either of these can be added to the language of QT.
This view entails that these secular scientists consider themselves as the highest of all intelligent agents. The theories they have constructed must be perfect. In order for this to be so, "nature" must be imperfect and not precise. If they cannot describe a cause for such behavior using a specific secular language, then the cause does not exist. QT, in their view, is the ultimate theory and no additions or alterations are allowed. Indeed, some adhere to following very absurd generalization that cannot be verified.But in the usual interpretation of the QT, an atom has no properties at all when it is not observed (Bohm, p. 92).
Of course, one can simply accept that since we must use the same physical entities to measure characteristics of the same physical entities that a type of circular reasoning would occur. Although Bohm points it out, it is rather self-evident that all known scientific theories are "restricted to specific domains of application." Further, such a theory is restricted to specific terminology. For such a domain, it is not necessary to justify, via the indeterminacy principle, the hypothesis that undetectable virtual particles or processes exist. Of course, no such entities need to actually exist. One can assume that they are but analogue in character. That is, they are used to model behavior which we cannot otherwise comprehend. We have been accorded a remarkable imagination that allows this.
The probability that a specific event will occur can be predicted. But, whether an individual, among a collection of objects, will actually yield the event cannot be predicted by QT. For example, it is predicted that 4% of the photons emitted from a photon source will be "reflected" in a specific direction from a piece of glass. If one considers but one photon, then we have no means to predict that that specific photon will be reflected. The same holds for one of Bohm's examples.
In a large aggregate of such nuclei, the precise time of decay of an individual nucleus fluctuates irregularly from one nucleus to another, but the mean is predictable (Bohm, p. 88). [We cannot predict, using QT, that a specific uranium nucleus will decay during a 10-year time interval. But, there is a probability that "some" nuclei will decay. The collection does follow a pattern dictated by a statistical distribution. However, the mean is predicted to be 2 billion years. So, actually testing this mean is hardly possible.] (For this quotation, I point out that a statistical distribution is usually a mathematical expression.)
Is it important that we have such knowledge? It is if we consider ourselves all-knowing. For if we are all-knowing, then our inability to predict what happens to a particular photon must imply that "nothing" knows whether it is to be reflected. That is, there is no causal statement that determines in a precise manner whether it will or will not be reflected. In my view, this is but a weakness in our mental abilities, a necessary weakness in QT. Indeed, the GGU-model and GID uphold the statement that we lack secular knowledge as to all of the actual physical principles that govern our universe. These models predict that there is considerable information as to how our universe functions that is beyond our comprehension and will remain so while we remain physical entities. Apparently, we can know enough to generally survive within our present physical environment.
It is important to emphasize the role played by the probabilistic mimicking ultralogic Pi. When one considers the actual appearance of a sequence of events, the patterns (1) and (2) in processes.htm are hidden. What these displays indicate is that the events E(i) and E'(j) satisfy these patterns. Hence, the sequence of events that reveals a real fluctuation in a parameter's value is intelligently designed and under the control of a higher-intelligence. The irregular but probabilistically predicted behavior satisfies the Pi model. Properton formations (see glossary) yield these probabilistic results. For our specific universe, this gives a strong additional signature that a higher-intelligence designs all such probabilistic behavior.
It is self-evident that for our present universe and for our survival, it would be exceptionally poor design to have all the nuclei of specific radioactive substances suddenly decay at the same moment. To avoid this, a specific design has been incorporated into the behavior of all physical entities so that humanly constructed theories, including QT, are sufficient.
For it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable (Bohm, p. 95).
Bohm has purposed a new (hidden) entity that is distinct from those in the domain applicable to QT as a type of cause for the assumed random fluctuations associated with the QT domain (Bohm, p. 111). This new entity also undergoes random fluctuations. However, it is not necessary that there be entities that do not interact with the QT domain in the manner dictated by QT in order to have a cause that produces the altered characteristics termed as "random" fluctuations. We now can accept that they are mindom alterations in behavior.
There are different physical interpretations (descriptions) as to how such behavior is produced. This includes Bohm's attempt, where he uses a "subquantum" region as a cause for quantum physical behavior. But, some of these are contradictory. The physical community can be divided into different "schools" depending upon the interpretation chosen by its members. There is the interpretation called the instrumentalist interpretation which avoids all such physical interpretations and merely calculates quantum physical behavior. QT is but an instrument, a tool, for predicting behavior. The logical positivist's school rejects the unobservable entities postulated by QT. Personally, I am a limited logical positivist. (See this article for the details of my stance.)
There are aspects of quantum mechanics that these different schools attempt to comprehend. One considers actual behavior that is independent from measuring devices. Others require devices to measure, in various ways, the occurrence of an event. That is, a physical event occurs but there is no device that indicates that it has occurred. Or there are devices that indicate that a physical event or events have occurred. Is the behavior of such physical events, even if it’s not measured, probabilistic in nature? Or is the measurement somehow or other simply altering the problem and we can’t know exactly what has occurred?
A fixed frequency of light is aimed at an angle towards a piece of glass, a photomultiplier is used and it indicates that only 4% of the photons are “reflected” from the surface in a particular direction. A probabilistic model predicts the same thing. Is the presence of the photomultiplier somehow or other yielding a false measurement and in “reality” many more photons have been reflected? Or is there really only 4% of the photons reflecting and the photomultiplier is correct? Or is it a combination of both? Then, of course, there is the school that claims that physical properties exist only when they are measured. This gives measuring devices the most prominent role within quantum theory and subatomic particles have no properties until one attempts to measure them.
Answers to such questions are irrelevant from the viewpoint of the GGU-model. It shows that there is a sequence of events and an ultralogic that models various probabilistically produced events. Various, but general, processes are describable using GGU-model language. These processes also indicate that such behavior is designed by a higher-intelligence in such a way that what we glean as natural laws are satisfied. Thus, for the GGU-model, processes within QT do not cause any event to occur. What does occur simply satisfies the QT predictions.
I accept. at least partially, the QT instrumentalist school of thought that all we should do is to calculate and predict behavior. That is, that QT is an analogue model for what may not be otherwise comprehensible. In particular, my instrumentalist and analogue model approach applies to quantum field theory as well as any string theory that some might accept. Most proposed immaterial fields need not exist in physical reality. I differ from the strict instrumentalist in one major respect. There are entities, propertons and simple properton mechanisms, that yield physical events. Certain predicted probabilistic behavior is physical fact. This means that it is the probabilistic behavior that is intelligently design by a higher-intelligence. This behavior is necessarily coupled with mindom produced measurements. Assuming that many other in-depth descriptions are physical fact is unnecessary.
How is all of this possible? How is it possible that measurements taken at different times can lead to the same mean result? Here is how. One aspect of properton theory can be used to control all of this. Each properton combination actually carries a "name" that is different from all others. A higher-intelligent has no difficulty in retaining these names from one moment to the next since all aspects of this behavior are pre-designed. I note that these names are not part of any secular theory requiring entitles to be "identical." Indeed, when propertons are realized via affine and linear transformations, the names are not revealed.
Beyond the language of propertons, there is a reason why we have no unique detailed physical interpretation for the region of QT application. There need not be any that uses any human language or any mode of human thought. We are not all knowing. For major aspects of properton theory and GGU-model mechanisms, this also holds.
In general, the GGU-model has a complete secular interpretation, where all universe creating and sustaining entities and processes can be considered as physical but only indirectly detectable. That is, they can be included in a list of physical entities. On the other hand, they need not be included in such a list. This is a matter of philosophic choice. Neither of these choices negates the GID interpretation. Since logical discourse is language dependent, then there can be a problem that what one includes in a list of physical entities can lead to contradictions for the language employed. Such contradictions are often eliminated by using a different language and its corresponding logic-system and considering the "Best Possible Unification" (Herrmann, 2004).
As for physical properties, from the construction of the GGU-model and GID interpretation, at any instant of primitive time there are values that characterize each physical entity. Every physical action we make in an attempt to measure these values is sustained by higher-intelligence processes. Due to the processes of measurement, properton formations correspond to these values. Properton "coordinate" values are exact at any moment of primitive time, but can vary at other moments. These mindom fluctuations lead to meaningful values that we can use for various investigations. As discussed in this article, it is not necessary that any physical law yield an actual cause and event statement. Further, it is not necessary to assume that the all "invisible" entities required by QT actually exist.
In summary, the "modern" interpretations of QT made by members of the secular physical science community are designed for one purpose. They egotistically claim that they have or soon will discover "every" physical law that governs the development of our universe. So, the QT statement that physical behavior is probabilistic is not because scientists are not intelligent enough to completely comprehend a cause but, rather, it is a fault of "nature." It is claimed that nature simply behaves in a random manner. The GGU-model with its GID interpretation is a viable scientific model that refutes this contention. It shows that probabilistic behavior is maintained but the pattern is controlled by a higher-intelligence. What might be considered as "random" fluctuations in behavior or measurements are actually pre-designed mindom fluctuations. This is, a higher-intelligence designs the behavior. And, we are not a higher-intelligence and we do not possess a higher-language. Rather than rejecting QT predicted behavior, such behavior is actually one of the strongest indicators for the existence of a controlling higher-intelligence, an intelligence that we cannot duplicate.
Bohm, David, "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics," Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Brothers, NY, 1957.
Herrmann, R. A. "The best possible unification for any collection of physical theories." International J. of Math. and Math. Sci., 17(2004):861-872. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306147
20 AUG 2010. Revised 10 NOV 2012.
Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.