H as there been a sleight-of-hand? How did mind suddenly get into the picture? It goes back to probabilities. That someone is traditionally called the observer. One can accept the essential outlines of the traditional interpretation first clearly delineated by the great mathematician John von Neumann without endorsing every opinion of Bohr.
There are many people who do not take seriously the traditional interpretation of quantum theory—precisely because it gives too great an importance to the mind of the human observer. In this paradox one imagines that the mechanism in the light-collecting box kills a cat rather than merely making a red light go on.
- One Lord, One Truth, One Faith!
- Annette Capps, Author - Quantum Faith 09/19 by Constance Arnold | Self Help?
- The Powers to Lead: Soft, Hard, and Smart.
- Quantum Faith on Apple Books?
If, as the traditional view has it, there is not a definite outcome until the human observer knows the result, then it would seem that the cat remains in some kind of limbo, not alive or dead, but 95 percent alive and 5 percent dead, until the observer opens the box and looks at the cat—which is absurd. It would mean that our minds create reality or that reality is perhaps only in our minds.
Many philosophers attack the traditional interpretation of quantum theory as denying objective reality. The traditional interpretation certainly leads to thorny philosophical questions, but many of the common arguments against it are based on a caricature. Before the observer opens the box and looks at the cat, he is not in a position to assert definitely whether the cat is alive or dead; afterward, he is—but the traditional interpretation does not imply that the cat is in some weird limbo until the observer looks.
See a Problem?
This is entirely consistent with the traditional interpretation of quantum theory. The traditional interpretation implies that just knowing A, B, and C, and applying the laws of quantum theory, does not always answer except probabilistically whether D is true. Finding out definitely about D may require another observation. The supposedly absurd role of the observer is really just a concomitant of the failure of determinism.
The trend of opinion among physicists and philosophers who think about such things is away from the old Copenhagen interpretation, which held the field for four decades. There are, however, only a few coherent alternatives. So, for example, if the equations assign the number 0. And if an observer looks at the red light, then, since he is just part of the physical system and subject to the same equations, there will be a part of reality 0. So physical reality splits up into many versions or branches, and each human observer splits up with it. In some branches a man will see that the light is on, in some he will see that the light is off, in others he will be dead, in yet others he will never have been born.
According to the many-worlds interpretation, there are an infinite number of branches of reality in which objects whether particles, cats, or people have endlessly ramifying alternative histories, all equally real. Not surprisingly, the many-worlds interpretation is just as controversial as the old Copenhagen interpretation. In the view of some thinkers, the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretation both make the same fundamental mistake.
The whole idea of wave-particle duality was a wrong turn, they say. Probabilities are needed in quantum theory because in no other way can one make sense of the same entity being both a wave and a particle. But there is an alternative, going back to de Broglie, which says they are not the same entity.
Waves are waves and particles are particles. The particles surf the wave, so to speak. Consequently, there is no contradiction in saying both that a tiny fraction of the wave enters the light collector and that a whole-number of particles enters—or in saying that the wave went through two windows at once and each particle went through just one.
Nevertheless, Bohm and his followers have been able to show that many of the successful predictions of quantum theory can be reproduced in theirs. It is questionable whether all of them can be. As Einstein would have wanted, Bohmian theory is completely deterministic. Indeed, it is an extremely clever way of turning quantum theory back into a classical and essentially Newtonian theory. The advocates of this idea believe that it solves all of the quantum riddles and is the only way to preserve philosophical sanity.
However, most physicists, though impressed by its cleverness, regard it as highly artificial. In my view, the most serious objection to it is that it undoes one of the great theoretical triumphs in the history of physics: the unification of particles and forces. It gets rid of the mysteriousness of quantum theory by sacrificing much of its beauty. W hat, then, are the philosophical and theological implications of quantum theory?
The answer depends on which school of thought—Copenhagen, many worlds, or Bohmian—one accepts. Each has its strong points, but each also has features that many experts find implausible or even repugnant. One can find religious scientists in every camp.
- Quantum Faith.
- Annette Capps, Author - Quantum Faith!
- Search form.
- Quantum Faith on Apple Books!
Peter E. Hodgson, a well-known nuclear physicist who is Catholic, insists that Bohmian theory is the only metaphysically sound alternative. He is unfazed that it brings back Newtonian determinism and mechanism. Don Page, a well-known theoretical cosmologist who is an evangelical Christian, prefers the many-worlds interpretation. My own opinion is that the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory still makes the most sense.
- A physicist's case for making room for God in modern science;
- Quantum Faith - Capps | Matter | Atoms;
- Vampalicious (My Sister the Vampire Book 4).
- The Resurrection of Booger Mapes;
- A Quantum Leap of Faith.
- QUANTUM FAITH | Free Listening on SoundCloud?
In two respects it seems quite congenial to the worldview of the biblical religions: It abolishes physical determinism, and it gives a special ontological status to the mind of the human observer. By the same token, it seems quite uncongenial to eastern mysticism. Whether the future will bring more-compelling interpretations of, or even modifications to, the mathematics of the theory itself, we cannot know. And yet matter itself seems to be telling us that its connection to mind is more subtle than is dreamt of in their philosophy. Showing Average rating 4.
Rating details. More filters. Sort order. May 13, C. Hart rated it it was amazing. Quantum Faith is a short read with easy-to-understand, life-changing truths and concepts. This faith-building union of science and Holy Scripture principles gives us essential tools to bring positivity and change to our lives. Overall, this book opened a new pathway in my life. Big statement, but true.
Tommy Cicero: Quantum Faith – Pretakanje glasbe – Poslušajte na Deezerju
Highly recommended. Sep 21, Susan R rated it it was amazing.
A good read Reading this book provoked in me a desire to learn more about Jesus' promises and also put in me an interest to study Quantum physics. Science is my least favorite subject, but the connections made between the Lord's teachings and quantum physics is fascinated. It's short to the point. Dec 09, Camille Heid rated it it was amazing. Amazing This book clearly brings practicality of God's Word on faith to your everyday life!!!! If you are a student of the Law of Attraction this book is for you if you are truly a seeker of truth.
Aug 28, Jeff Rivers rated it it was amazing. I believe words have power, in prayer, affirmations and towards others.
This book just adds another point of confirmation for me. Definitely recommend. Sep 12, Stephanie Young rated it it was amazing. Life Changing Each sentence is so powerful! To live a powerful life we must do what it says! Simple book but so profound! Food for life This book is a must have and must read companion for life, easy to read and understand, if you apply its principles, it will revolutionize your life! Dec 20, J. Matthews rated it really liked it.