Does Quantum Physics Prove the Existence of God

Great Debates
1

The many worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics suggests that any time there is more than one posibility, all possibilities actualize, no matter how remote or unlikely. It just happens in different universes. For all practical intents and purposes they are created by these random events.

For an example, flip a coin. Let’s say it’s heads. Congratulations, you’ve just created a new universe identical to this one except that there, it comes up tails.

Walk outside your house. Look around. In an alternate universe you’ve just been crushed by a rogue meteorite.

Sounds pretty farfetched, doesn’t it?

Ha!!!

It is precisely this actualization of almost infinitely unlikely possibilites that is responsible for The Big Bang, The Universe, You, Me, etc. (otherwise known as Stuff in General, or SiG.) Scientist know it happened because, well, here we are. It’s not a big problem either because positing the pre Big-Bang (a meaningless concept, but you get my drift,)infinity of spaceless timelessness, infinitly remote possibilities must occur.

So here we are.

Now, even the most hardened and scientific of Cosmologists will concede that it’s possible that spacetime was actually started by an omnipotent being. All the evidence points against it, and the possibility is so remote that it doesn’t even bear serious consideration.

Now here’s the kicker. If the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics is correct (and for all practical purposes it is accepted theory with evidence such as Hawking radiation and virtual particles,) then, no matter how infinitely remote the possibility, it had to actualize.

Now ladies and gentlemen, all it takes is one omnipotent being and there’s your God. For such a being, space/time is by definition no big thing. He (or she) is essentially Lord of all the infinite universes. God being omnipotent would be able to cross over at will.

Follow me?

Our universe being created by the BB is no problem at all. Our omnipotent being was created (and also created) one of the other of the infinite universes of the multiverse and is de facto in charge of this one as well.
So, God must exist.

I just thought of this right now. Am I too late for this year’s Nobel Prize?

2

circular arguement, much more likely that god just created everything than that:)

3

The question I have is, what are the chances of something travelling from one universe to another? I mean, the chances are pretty small that there’s a giant transuniversal god-killing robot, which means that said robot would have travelled to all the other universes and killed all the god. That’s what I don’t get about really small probabilities in thought experiments - which small probability would win in a fight?

But maybe nothing from one universe can ever influence things from other universes, which would mean we could never prove or disprove their existence, which means this is a … non-scientific theory. But then I’m not very familiar with this theory in the first place.

4

And which is biggest?
Don’t we have an infinite probability against an infinitely powerful being existing in one of the infinite universe - assuming the many worlds hypothesis even holds?

In any case, wouldn’t the beings in these infinite universe have to not only be not logically contradictory, but follow the laws of the universe they were in?

In other words, if there’s a really really tiny possibility that all the, say, electrons in the world jump to their highest state for no apparent reason releasing a whole lotta energy, aren’t we still stuck with calculating the probabilities for fundamental parts of matter? Wouldn’t this infinite being have to be made up of matter - one universe’s worth at the maximum? Is there any configuration of this matter which could result in a god?

Wow. Haven’t had chats like this since the last time we got really drunk at the dorm…

5

“Many-worlds” only posits its theory in the physical realm; it is a result of universes splitting off at each quantum decision. So in one world, the electon goes through slit A, in another it goes through slit B. However, “God” is not generally considered to be a wholly physical being; therefore he could not be a scientifically verifiable “possibility” generated by a random universe’s interaction of particles. I think this means this “God” would have to be a physical being, formed after matter came into existence during the Big Bang, who cannot break the laws of physics (which would seem to include “cannot interact with other universes”). Not really much of a God at all. We also should keep in mind that just because we think God may be possible, that doesn’t mean he is. I may think it perfectly possible for [insert random highly complex yet disproven mathematical proof] to be true, but it is impossible; I just don’t know it yet. That’s my layperson’s opinion, anyhow.

It would be highly amusing to watch all the theists rapidly backpedal on the “God can’t be proved because then you’d lack sufficient faith and He really really wants you to have faith in unproven things for His own reasons” bit, though. :slight_smile:

6

Just a thought about the many worlds theory. Does it create a new dimension every time we DON’T do something? For example I could go downstairs and make a cup of coffee but I’ve decided not to. By making this decision have I inadvertently created a universe where I did? Have I created a different universe where I decided to word this sentence in a different way? It seems waaaaay to strange.

BTW - If this seems like a dumb question please bear in mind I know sod all about physics.

7

Crap. Preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview…

8

I hear ya, there are some things that I would never do. Yet it sounds like in this theory a universe exists where I would. That would be a universe with a duplicate of me that has different morals and personality. Not an identical copy that just made a different choice. But if that person has the same life as me up to that point, I don’t see how they could do something so radically different.

9

But what if the many-worlds interpretation is wrong? If so, then your whole argument falls apart.

I suspect that the interpretation would imply that you just created an infinite number of universes (think of all the atoms involved in the coin flipping through air, etc.)

The odds of our reality coming to be is very unlikely if you assume our reality was the end-product. The odds of something (I mean, anything non-specific) happening after the BB is essentially 1. It just so happens that the chain of events lead to our current situation. Start things over, and a different situation would develop.

Cosmologists leave “what came before the BB” as an open question since there is no way to examine/prove it. (Although I hear that Andre Linde’s cosmology has some prove-able features, although I don’t know the details.)

There is no scientific evidence about a Creator one way or the other. (no proof for, no proof against)

Perhaps omnipotence is against the laws of nature (or the meta-laws of nature).
Perhaps an omnipotent being is only all-powerful within its own universe.
Perhaps an omnipotent being does not care to search through the infinite number of universes.
Perhaps the omnipotent being was created after the creation of our universe.
Or maybe it’s “there’s a God” instead of “there’s your God”. If an omnipotent being can occur in your infinite universes, then an infinite number of omnipotent beings also must be created.

10

sorry for the bold text …forgot to preview :o

11

How is it a circular argument? I’m sure you are mistaken.

::Pounds head on table::

What is it about omnipotent that you don’t understand? Omnipotent doesn’t mean “pretty tough” or “real powerful.”
By definition omnipotence is not limited. Omnipotence is not a synonym for “vastly powerful.” It is all-powerful. All of your arguments would apply to vastly powerful but not almighty beings. A moment’s thought will also show you why, like the Highlander “There can be only one!” Omnipotent being. None of these objections would represent the slightest problem for an omnipotent being.

Now, on to the more substantive:

Gaudere:

Your main objection seems to be can God be randomized into a quantum event subject to the Many Laws Interpretation?
Mmmmmmm yah, I think so. The BB event is a result of the actualization of a really really really big mass that mostly anhiliated itself at the instant of creation. The detritus is SiG as we know it. To give you an idea as to the unlikelyhood of this event consider that the chances are just as good that it could occur again in your coffee cup while you try to take a sip. Imagine your embarassment: “excuse me, may I have the creamer?” BANG!!! Total anhiliation of everything.

The possible composition of the BB mass is infinite. Several of those compositions would be sentient several of those would be able to control all there mass after creation, and one would also be able to control all other masses in the multiverse.

That this would occur is implied in the “infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually spontaneously create The Complete Works of Shakespeare”

Gomez:

Yup, anything that can be influenced by a random event.

Pweetman:

Doesn’t matter whether you believe it. In another universe you do. Haven’t you ever changed your mind?

Phobos:

Well yes, if the Many Worlds Interpretation is wrong then all bets are off. It is owever supported by a lot of experimental data, and unless you have a better explanation…

12

Scylla, on your hypothesis I can guarantee that somewhere St. Anselm, of the Ontological Argument, is sitting in a Heaven where he can observe events on the myriad Earths and applauding your post: “See? That’s what I meant!”

Gaudere, you must realize that on the LDS theory God has a physical body – and “straight” Christianity would have to agree in part, in view of the Incarnation and Resurrection. So your caveat doesn’t hold.
The problem with this is that in an infinity-of-worlds scenario, everything must exist. My “peacable” God, the Omnipotent Psychotic Tyrant of some pseudo-evangelists, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Odin, the whole schmear. Somewhere in the infinity of universes, Cthulhu lives in R’lyeh, hungering.

What happens when a multiplicity of omnipotent gods comes into conflict? It makes the old conundrum about the immovable object and the irresistable force simple by comparison.

And, might I note, it proves the Hilda Corners Burroughs hypothesis (see Heinlein’s “…The Number of the Beast”). Somewhere your favorite novels are being lived out by their lead characters. And so are your favorite horror stories. And somewhere Zeb Carter and his family are preparing to come to this universe and post on this board – just because I said so in this sentence.

In short, anything that anybody has ever posted here, even as a troll, is true.

In some universe, Phaedrus was right.

Have I thrown enough monkey wrenches into the mix yet?

And the worst of it is, none of this is disprovable. It’s quite valid metaphysics.

Has anyone read Niven’s “All the Myriad Ways”?

13

He said the Name! He said the Name! AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! Run!!!

14

Polycarp:

All those entities you refer to are just pretty damn powerful. In actuality there can be only one omnipotent being. Everything else is just a pseudogod.

15

I don’t think God can be a wholly physical being, and thus “provable” in any way by the many-worlds interpretation. You can’t just invoke omnipotence to wiggle out of the very laws you are relying on to prove your hypothesis; you’re taking a physical theory and trying to apply it to metaphysics. Physical things can only do physically possible actions. An electron can enter slit A or slit B, and in the many-worlds interpretation, it takes every possible path to get there, but it does not break the laws of physics. (I am uncertain whether the multiple-universes can have different physical laws, but even if they don’t, something from one universe cannot visit and break the phsycial laws of other universes, as far as I can tell.) Every “possible-world” formed must be physically possible, which means obeying certain physical laws. Therefore nothing in those worlds can break those laws, if they are wholly physical, adn so cannot be truly omnipotent. Once you move into metaphysics, all bets are off, but you’re right back where you started: you cannot use a wholly physical theory to prove a metaphysical being.

My caveat was “wholly” physical. Many-worlds does not and cannot postulate the existence of metaphysical beings or attributes.

Not really. See my argument above. If a selection of quantum decisions can create Cthulhu, fine. But if none of the quantum decisions can violate the laws of physics, you cannot generate a beiong that can do so either, without invoking metaphysics.

16

So what if we posit the existence of a different omnipotent being?

There’s no reason that two things can’t be omnipotent. What if both being have it in their power to do anything, including ending the existence of themselves or the other one? They are both all-powerful.

Besides, Cthulu eats your puny little god for a midmorning snack :slight_smile:

17

Thank you Gaudere, that’s exactly what I was saying. Among other things. What annoys me even more then being ignored or misunderstood is being misunderstood and insulted…

If we’re going to invoke many worlds, not only does the omnipotent God have to be not logicaly contradictory (and there is argument on this) but the God must be a possible combination of the elements of our universe.

18

Gaudere:

Many subatomic particles are quite cavalier about what we consider the “Laws of Physics.” There existence may be nonphysical. They may exist as a tendency only yet with real-world ramifications. They may travel backwards in time, violate cause and effect, and generally stick their tongue out and do just about anything you tell them they can’t.

Light has a wave/particle duality. It’s not one. It’s not the other. It’s both. That’s what the double slit experiment you refer to is actually telling you. Certainly our omnipotent being would be able to have the same properties. This being would not be only physical in the sense of matter. It would probably integrate energy and the variability of quantum states as a perequisite of omnipotence, attaining those attributes. If you really think about, there’s actually very little you need to be able to control in order to acquire omnipotence.

Ain’t nothing metaphysical about it.
Myrr21:

There can be only one omnipotent being, and there must be only one. If there were two omnipotent beings, then neither could control its own fate because each could be destroyed by the other. Because of this, neither would be omnipotent. Duh.

19

Actually to be omnipotent he would have to be able to be logically contradictory, and he does NOT need to be a possible combination of the elements of our universe, he simple needs to be a possible combination of the elements in all possible universes.

20

Who says “cause and effect” is a physical law? It’s a metaphysical assumption. Electrons may be able to travel backwards in time, but if they can do so they are, by definition, not breaking physical laws. It’s one of those things we might have once assumed “can’t be done”, but that doesn’t mean they actually break any physical laws. Light is a funky-ass thing, and I don’t think we understand it. But it does not break any physical laws, even if it messes with our perceptions of what we thought the world should be. But so what? Hell, we used to assume heavier things fell much faster than lighter things, then we found out that wasn’t true. Does that mean the bowling ball and ball bearing we drop off a tower were breaking any physical laws? Of course not, they just messed with our assumptions by actually doing what the physical laws told them to do, not what we thought they should do. It just meant the physical laws weren’t what we thought they were. Your defintion of “omnipotent” includes “can break all physical laws”, and that’s something a physical object simply cannot do.

Most theists define “omnipotent” as being able to do anything logically possible. Without being bound by logic, you shoot your own argument about there only being one omnipotent being in the foot, since saying that you can have only one omnipotent being is a logical statement, and so any omnipotent being would not be bound by it. And of course, then he can be both wholly good and wholly evil, run around making rocks so big he can’t lift them and then lifting them, there’s no reason for evil in the world but we have it anyway, etc.