# Does Quantum Physics Prove the Existence of God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2000, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208 "2000-10-25T02:47:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/21 "2000-10-25T17:32:17Z")
_I do not think that theory means what you think it means_ 1. The Many Worlds model addresses branches between probable results, it says nothing about **conceivable situations**. It is not correct to state that the Many Worlds model predicts that any conceivable being/environment must exist in some branching universe. You would first have to demonstrate that a branching occured from a decision point for which your conceived outcome **had a non-zero probability of occuring**. Now, if you can demonstrate the branch point which might have resulted in an omnipotent being, then you have **the beginnings** of a case. 2. I think you are a little loose with your statements about what **has been demonstrated** about or by particle physics. For instance: > [@](#): > > the Many Worlds Interpretation is wrong then all bets are off. It is [h]owever supported by a lot of experimental data, and unless you have a better explanation… Please cite for me any experimental results which support the many worlds interpretation over the Modified Copenhage, or Pilot Waves, or any of the myriad other models extant. > [@](#): > > Many subatomic particles are quite cavalier about what we consider the “Laws of Physics.” . . . 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. I assume you are discussing such theoretical constructs as tachyons and some of the more exotic muons. Hey, I like 'em too. But it is important to keep in mind that the behavior, and the existence, of said particles is still a matter only of conjecture (albeit, conjecture backed by some pretty impressive mathematical constructs). > [@](#): > > Light has a wave/particle duality. It’s not one. It’s not the other. It’s both. No. It’s neither. Under certain conditions it exhibits behavior associated with one or the other (or both). **omnipotence: to paraphrase a certain literary giant . . .** _I do not think that word means what you think it means_ Onn the one hand, you claim an onipotent being must be able to contradict logic. On the other hand, you use logic to “prove” that there cannot be more than one omnipotent being. See the problem? 1. An omnipotent being exists. 2. Said being creates an exact copy of itself. 3. there can be more than one. **ooops** > [@](#): > > 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. Aside from the other objections I have to this argument, exactly what part of the Many Worlds interpretation od you use to support the idea that information (or anything else) can be transmitted between divergent Universes? ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/22 "2000-10-25T17:32:17Z")
(not trying to be argumentative, just debating points…) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > …like the Highlander “There can be only one!” Omnipotent being. Why? Some of our statements may have underestimated “omnipotence”, but perhaps you underestimate “an infinite number of universes”. Like I was trying to say, if omnipotence can occur once, it can occur an infinite number of times. Can one omnipotent being destroy another? Sounds like a stalemate to me. (along the same lines of “can God create a rock so big that even He Himself cannot lift it?” or “what happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object?”) > [@](#): > > 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… Although there is lots of supporting evidence supporting quantum mechanics, there is no evidence for the existence of other universes. I’ll stick with that. Perhaps like Gaiman’s Destiny, the path ahead is infinitely forked, but when looking back, only a straight path is visible. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/23 "2000-10-25T17:34:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > [BMost 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. \*\* I’m not most theists. In fact my supreme being makes Yahweh look like a bush leaguer (no pun intended.) I still think you’re not seeing the scope of omnipotence implied by MWIQP. All a being would need to be omnipotent would be to select awareness across the multiverse. In one universe the being is wholly evil. It selects awareness there. Another wholly good. Another it creates a rock it can’t lift. In another it lifts it. Etc. Etc. All a being needs to do in order to become omnipotent is sect its POV across the multiverse. Then it can effectively do whatever it wants in violation of whatever anybody cares to claim as impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/24 "2000-10-25T17:37:12Z")
I also note that if there is an omnipotent being who can affect other universes and break all physical laws, one of the possibilites is that he destroyed every last possible-world from the beginning to the end of time. If this is a possibility it must have happened, by the argument of your hypothsis, since all possibilites exist. So why are we still here? [Edited by Gaudere on 10-25-2000 at 12:41 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/25 "2000-10-25T17:46:44Z")
> [@](#): > > In one universe the being is wholly evil. It selects awareness there. Another wholly good. Another it creates a rock it can’t lift. In another it lifts it. Etc. Etc. All a being needs to do in order to become omnipotent is sect its POV across the multiverse. Then it can effectively do whatever it wants in violation of whatever anybody cares to claim as impossible. Hey! I am omnipotent. But only in my dreams (it’s a valid point of view). Down on your your knees and worship me, dog!![sub]hey, how’s that for a straight line[/sub] You know, the flip side of able to do all things in “the right” Universe is being unable to do anything in “the wrong” Universe. To paraphrase a certain literary giant . . . ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/26 "2000-10-25T17:52:11Z")
Hooooold it right there, folks. **Can** there be more than one omnipotent being? If God is infinite, and the Universe is infinite, and time is infinite, and God exists out of time, I don’t see any room for another omnipotent entity/force/thing. It’s that “existing out of time” thing that I think is most important. If there is force that exists outside of quantum law, outside of cause and effect, and outside of the Many Universes, then there really _can_ be only one. **Poly** : > [@](#): > > Somewhere in the infinity of universes, Cthulhu lives in R’lyeh, hungering. > [@](#): > > In some universe, Phaedrus was right. I honestly don’t know which scares me more. Ph’nglui mgwl’nafh Phaedrus R’lyeh . . . Eeesh. > [@](#): > > Has anyone read Niven’s “All the Myriad Ways”? But of course. 🙂 Remember, though, that Niven’s result was precisely the _opposite_ of **Scylla** ’s. If everything that can be done is being done, what’s the point? In “AtMW,” God was irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![knappy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@knappy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/knappy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/27 "2000-10-25T18:02:05Z")
As I understand the many-worlds interpretation, the number of worlds is large, but not infinite. There is a finite amount of mass and energy in the universe, and a finite number of possible quantum states for each quantum event. There’s a big difference between very large and infinite. An infinite difference, in fact. Top physicists like Steven Hawking, Murray Gell-Mann & Richard Fenyman have stated they accept many-worlds. I believe one of the reasons they accept it is that it explains many apparent ‘coincidences’ that resulted in intelligent life appearing in the universe. Without invoking a deity. It’s a Bayesian slam dunk that given the fact that observers exist, then whatever events needed to occur to produce those observers must have happened. But they happened in our ‘world’; most of the other worlds didn’t produce intelligent life. Is many-worlds strange? I think so. There are worlds in which you did not grab a cup of coffee this morning. There are pink unicorns on other worlds (naturally as we can’t communicate with those worlds, they’re invisible to us.) So, I agree with Gaudere’s response; Scylla has not demonstrated how an omnipotent being could arise from one of a finite number of quantum possibilities. Also God (under most people’s concept of God) should exist in a non-contingent way with respect to all the many worlds. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/28 "2000-10-25T18:10:17Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s that “existing out of time” thing that I think is most important. If there is force that exists outside of quantum law, outside of cause and effect, and outside of the Many Universes, then there really can be only one. Why? I see no reason to axiomatically restrict the set of “beings outside of time” to one member. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/29 "2000-10-25T18:22:52Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s that “existing out of time” thing that I think is most important. If there is force that exists outside of quantum law, outside of cause and effect, and outside of the Many Universes, then there really can be only one. Why? I see no reason to axiomatically restrict the set of “beings outside of time” to one member. Knappy: Thanks. That is basically what I was saying above but expressed much more concisely. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/30 "2000-10-25T18:25:40Z")
The actualization of the BB mass can be described as a fluctuations in waves of nothingness. It can also be described as the actualization of a virtual mostly self-anhiliatory mass. the results are SiG. It is of exactly equal possibility that that mass could have actualized as a '73 Buick Centurion, or God, or whatever. Since virtual particles do actualize ALL THE TIME, that leaves possibilities infinite. A neutrino zipping through a cloud chamber may leave a pattern of dashes with spaces in between them as it phases in and out of existence. In another universe that pattern may be exactly complimentary so that overlapped they form a straight line. Whether that is the same particle in both universes is a truly meaningless question. It is more the “same” particle than you are the “same” person that existed a split second ago. an omnipotent being could of course create a duplicate of itself. Both would still be the same being. It could of course destroy all possible universes. It could of course also recreate them. And Spiritus: I can think of an adjunct for a Pilot wave interpretation. I don’t know what you mean by wrong universe. Of course, as Andros points out, my supreme being is pretty irrelevant as well. Not only can he do anything, he does. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/31 "2000-10-25T18:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > It is of exactly equal possibility that that mass could have actualized as a '73 Buick Centurion, or God, or whatever. On what do you base this assignment of probabilities? > [@](#): > > Since virtual particles do actualize ALL THE TIME, that leaves possibilities infinite. 1. If a virtual particle came into being in every cubic micron of the Universe for every millisecond since the Big Bang, and if each one of those “actualizations” had a million possible quantuim states associated with it, you would still not have an infinite number of Universes. 2. Please cite the experimental results that demonstrate the “actualization” of virtual particles. > [@](#): > > A neutrino zipping through a cloud chamber may leave a pattern of dashes with spaces in between them as it phases in and out of existence. After a neutrino is detected, and after it leaves the kind of trail you suppose, then it might be profitable to discuss what explanations might account for the particular result observed. Surely you are not assuming that a cloud chamber represents a uniform medium at the level of teh neutrino? > [@](#): > > Whether that is the same particle in both universes is a truly meaningless question. The question of whehter matter may be transmitted between divergent Universes is meaningles??? Hardly. > [@](#): > > The actualization of the BB mass can be described as a fluctuations in waves of nothingness. I do not believe that this is correct. Please give the mathematical model or develop a meaningful way in which I am to interpret “fluctuations in waves of nothingness”. > [@](#): > > It can also be described as the actualization of a virtual mostly self-anhiliatory mass. I have no idea whether this is correct. Please help me interpret “actualization of a virtual mostly self-anhiliatory mass”. > [@](#): > > an omnipotent being could of course create a duplicate of itself. Both would still be the same being. Why? What prevents this being from creating a new entity that is as powerful as itself? > [@](#): > > I can think of an adjunct for a Pilot wave interpretation. Then share it, by all means. But what I actually asked for were experimental results that supported the Many World’s interpretation but not the Pilot Wave interpretation (or the Modified Copenhagen, etc.) > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean by wrong universe. In the model you proposed, the Universe(s) in which your being cannot lift the rock, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/32 "2000-10-25T19:54:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Can there be more than one omnipotent being? If God is infinite, and the Universe is infinite, and time is infinite, and God exists out of time, I don’t see any room for another omnipotent entity/force/thing. > > It’s that “existing out of time” thing that I think is most important. If there is force that exists outside of quantum law, outside of cause and effect, and outside of the Many Universes, then there really can be only one. Despite objections, I think this is on target. Consider how one distinguishes between things – they are in different places, shaped differently, exist at different points in time, and so on. An eternal object existing outside of space and time and illimitable cannot be distinguished from a second object with the same characteristics. > [@](#): > > an omnipotent being could of course create a duplicate of itself. Both would still be the same being. Only sort of true. They would possess the same characteristics, and therefore be the same being, but with one significant difference: one would have created the other. They would therefore be the Parent God and the Child God. Or, in sexist language… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/33 "2000-10-25T19:59:53Z")
Spiritus: > [@](#): > > \*\*On what do you base this assignment of probabilities? \*\* The specific configuration and mass of the BB is Random. The potential configurations are limitless. No specific configuration is favored over any other. Of all possible configurations it is certainly true that many are similar to what we observe and realtively few resemble a '73 Buick. The mass of the BB is generally accepted to have actualized in exactly the same way that virtual particles do. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Bang! That big supercollider in Illinois (I’ll find the name if you want) is generally credited with debunking the concept of parity. Most of the BB anhiliated itself. The small fracion of a percent that is SiG is leftover of that disparity. > [@](#): > > \*\*1) If a virtual particle came into being in every cubic micron of the Universe for every millisecond since the Big Bang, and if each one of those “actualizations” had a million possible quantuim states associated with it, you would still not have an infinite number of Universes. \*\* How about we just consider one particle, and one second, and one point in space? You can divide a second up as finely as you want. In fact you can do so infinitely. At each one of those particular points in time there is a possibility of a virtual particle actualizing. There’s your infinity. > [@](#): > > \*\*2) Please cite the experimental results that demonstrate the “actualization” of virtual particles. \*\* I refer of course not to just force carriers, but the spontaneous creation and destruction of matter which occurs all the time. It’s an especially well documented phenomenom. Try Google, or read _The God Particle_ or _The Demon Haunted World_ for some particularly good Laymen’s descriptions. > [@](#): > > \*\*The question of whehter matter may be transmitted between divergent Universes is meaningles??? Hardly. \*\* Try this thought experiment: You step into a teleporter. Your body is broken down, converted to energy, sent around the world and reasembled. Are you the same person? How about if we send the information and assemble you from energy on the spot? I’m not sure it’s a meaningful question if you are an exact copy. Is the real you dead or alive? If a neutrino actualizes in one universe at the exact moment it disapears in another with the exact same velocity and momentum, are they the same even if they are unconnected? Does it matter? It’s just as meaningless a question. I suspect your next few questions are disingenuous as you seem conversent with BB theory, and particle physics in general. > [@](#): > > \*\*In the model you proposed, the Universe(s) in which your being cannot lift the rock, etc. \*\* Yes it does make a kind of paradox out of omnipotence. One can and can’t, does and doesn’t do everything. The same paradox applies to an omnipotent being cloning itself. It’s omnipotence basically contains everything or has that potential (for lack of a better word.) If two things contain each other aren’t they the same? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/34 "2000-10-25T20:02:48Z")
You wouldn’t have an all powerful God, people. Because It would have to do everything! Any time it did not do something, there would still be another universe where it did do that same thing. Thus your all-powerful God is actually an all-weak one under your scheme, since it has absolutely no will by which to exercise or not exercise it’s supposed all-power. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/35 "2000-10-25T20:12:12Z")
Yeah, as it turns out omnipotence kinda sucks. I know what I’d do though. I would only pay attention to those Universes where Claudia Schiffer was my nympho sex-slave. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/36 "2000-10-25T20:15:31Z")
Spiritus: Here’s a particularly simple on point link concerning virtual particles: [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY122.HTM](http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY122.HTM) ---
**Author:** ![knappy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@knappy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/knappy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/37 "2000-10-25T20:35:27Z")
Scylla said: > [@](#): > > You can divide a second up as finely as you want. In fact you can do so infinitely. At each one of those particular points in time there is a possibility of a virtual particle actualizing. There’s your infinity. I don’t agree. Spacetime is quantized. There is a smallest unit that can’t be subdivided. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/38 "2000-10-25T20:41:26Z")
knappy: I wasn’t aware of that. Do you have a link or info where I could learn more? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/39 "2000-10-25T20:43:48Z")
There’s a limit to x in 1/x sec.? What is it? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208/40 "2000-10-25T21:18:18Z")
The many-worlds theory believes that the universe splits no more often than every Planck unit of time, which is considered to be 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds. Actually, I believe the original theory only had the universes split when something is observed and it collapses the wave function, forcing the electron to be either one place or another. [http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html](http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html) “Also, by combining Planck’s constant, the constant of gravity, and the speed of light, it is possible to create a quantum of length (about 10[sup]-35[/sup] meter) and a quantum of time (about 10[sup]-43[/sup] sec), called, respectively, Planck’s length and Planck’s time. While saying that energy is not continuous might not be too startling to the average person, since what we commonly think of as energy is not all that well defined anyway, it is startling to say that there are quantities of space and time that cannot be broken up into smaller pieces. Yet it is exactly this that gives nature a finite number of routes to take when an electron interferes with itself.” Here’s a link using QM to disprove theism, BTW: [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin\_smith/quantum.html](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/quantum.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-quantum-physics-prove-the-existence-of-god/38208.md?page=3)