Does Quantum Mechanics Disprove an All-Knowing God?

(Patrick ) #1

So quantum mechanics is just a theory to you? And not reality?

Designed to Adapt?
(Mazrocon) #2


Aren’t you using the word “theory” loosely there? When everyday people say “just a theory” in everyday situations they typically mean “just a hunch”… But when a scientist says “it’s a theory” they mean that it’s been tested numerous times, and has been elevated from a hypothesis to a theory — I’m surprised to see you, who is very scientifically minded, using “theory” so loosely.

Regarding truth-status I like the following quote: “Not yet proven wrong, despite our best efforts.”


(Patrick ) #3

No a theory is very very solid evidence of provisional truth. An hypothesis is more tentative.

Gravitational theory
Theory of General Relativity
Theory of Special Relativity
Theory of Common decent by natural selection
Theory of Nucleus Synthesis

All very solid. All provisional true.

(Patrick ) #4

oh, let me explain better my comment to Al. Quantum Mechanics Theory, which is the most thoroughly tested and verified theory in all of science says the universe at it base level is inherently random. The state of a photon(electron) exists in one of four states: it is in state 1 or in state 2 or neither state or both states. Crazy but true. The theory says that nobody (including God) knows what state it is in because that is unknowable with certainty (Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
That is reality at its core whether you believe it or not.

(Mazrocon) #5


I don’t think you understand. I just said that a “theory” is not just a hunch, in the scientific sense. But has been well tested.

You said, “So you think it’s just a theory no reality” implying YOU think “just a theory” is “just a hunch”.

In regards to your last comment, this is where you (and other like-minded people) can get ahead of themselves. Science by it’s very definition can only comment on the physical world… It cannot study the supernatural because that is OUTSIDE the realm of the physical. To say that nobody (even God) can predict what’s going to happen is just flat out absurd. This shows a clear misunderstanding, on your part, about what God is… He is not a physical object.


(Merv Bitikofer) #6


It is interesting that every new theory entices its holders into the speculation that this knowledge now has arrived at the core of everything there is to know, and that to understand this now, is to finally understand the deepest levels of physical reality. Excitement over Newton’s and Maxwell’s laws brought this same “we’ve arrived!” exuberance to its generation … that is until Planck and Einstein tipped that over. And QM further upset even Einstein. So I’m glad you are at least freely using “provisional” a lot … it is appropriate in more ways than perhaps even you are guessing. So to think that QM theories now describe all reality at its core may or may not be true (but I’d wager on the latter given how these things have always played out historically). It is more accurate to say: “Quantum mechanical uncertainty is one of the most foundational properties of reality that we’ve seen thus far …” and there are probably deeper principles in play that God put into place that will be in operation whether you believe in them or not. But even if there are no deeper physical principles, (i.e. if God has allowed us to finally “peek all the way down”), God is still God whether you believe that or not.

(Patrick ) #7

Well it really has to do with what “scale” are we talking about. Newton’s and Maxwell’s laws are still good for certain ranges but not other scales - like very the small and in the presence of matter and spacetime warps. Planck and Einstein extend the scales further. QM is fundamental but doesn’t harmonize with GR inside black holes or at the birth of the universe but everywhere else both QM and GR explain the universe extremely well.

Maybe not. QM doesn’t allow God to peek. Reminds me of the “ether” problem of early radio transmission. The ether could still be there but it has no impact on radio transmission and Maxwell’s equations explain things extremely well. Ether is unnecessary.

(Merv Bitikofer) #8


It could well be that there is “nothing there to see”, in the sense that an electron isn’t something that actually has a precise location and velocity, which is how I think I’ve heard it explained before. It isn’t just a very tiny ball. A resonating wave surrounding a nucleus can be a pretty vague thing to “locate”, as our imaginations might model it.

So it is like saying that God cannot see a square circle --which is true of course because it doesn’t exist to be seen. I think it more accurate to say that QM theory says nothing about God, much less God’s alleged limitations. It may have a lot to tell us about God’s creation, however.

(Patrick ) #9

You are correct, there is nothing to see. An electron doesn’t have a precise location. It is either here or there, or neither here or there, or here and there simultaneously! Four possible states. That is reality. We may not like it, understand it, but as far as we can tell it is true about every particle, photon, gluon, quark.

QM says what God can’t know. God can’t know the precise location of an electron because it is unknowable. His knowledge is limited.

(GJDS) #10

Perhaps you can make some significant suggestions on QM and I will be sure to include them in my next set of ab initio QM molecular modelling endeavours. Its funny Patrick, that you, and others such as the Joao chap, do not seem to practice things such as QM, but wish to pose questions on theory and reality - I suggest that practice includes reality.

It may also be useful if, instead of harping, or turning to meaningless generalities, that you and others at least read papers that deal with terms such as random and chance, and then indulge in meaningful debates - again, if you and Joao have published, or developed theory/reality that we can all read and consider, you should bring such to our attention. Otherwise I choose to end this meaningless exchange with you and Joao. I will be glad to refer you to some papers of mine (and others) on QM modelling, if this exchange brings something scientifically significant from you…

(Patrick ) #11

I consider myself an expert in QM especially in QM devices such as lasers, LEDs and QM based communications. I worked 35 years in that field. Presently I work on Quantum Cryptography which uses “impossibility to intercept” properties of QM to make for unbreakable passwords and quantum communications. Also got a fair knowledge of teleportation and other entanglement systems that are being researched today. So I could be a good source of accurate information on the present state of reality concerning QM.

(Mazrocon) #12


I have a very hard time understanding you. You wrote, “QM says what God can’t know. God can’t know the precise location of an electron because it’s unknowable. His knowledge is limited.”

Unknowable (or perhaps indiscernible for us lowly humans, perhaps), but why in the world is it something that God can’t know? If you’re saying it’s something that God can’t know, then QM must be talking about the metaphysical world rather than the physical (what you call real) world.

Again… how can you be speaking for a supernatural reality that exists outside of the physical? That’s like saying “Gravity is super complex… so complex that even an all-knowing being wouldn’t know how it works”… I don’t understand your logic on this point?


(GJDS) #13

In molecular systems, the energies of molecular orbitals are calculated and the probability of electron density in these is computed - when computing micro-states in molecular systems, computations become arduous and even current computers may not be able to deal with reasonably large molecules, and not any of the bio-molecules often inferred in these discussions - with rigorous computations, the spin states and spin pairing or singlet states may also be computed along with other properties. High level computations can provide precise data that has been compared closely to measured values, but the thinking behind dealing with isolated single molecules provides further difficulties. These matters are real QM, so I cannot fathom your comment that seeks to imply a difference between theory and reality.

My comments were related to the term random in biology - this has been discussed at a philosophical and statistical level (eg Wagner), mechanistic constraints level (e.g. Tudor M. Baetu) and in “Evolution and Constraints on Variation: Variant Specification and Range of Assessment” by Trevor Pearce. Other papers are less philosophical and deal more with molecular events and again try to overcome the obvious problems with randomness - these discussions are worth reading as they show that a truly random system in biology is problematic.

My comments are meant to encourage a measured approach to Darwinian thinking in the bio-sciences, and to show how dangerous it is to extrapolate from this into universally aimed usage of such terms, as this would be erroneous scientifically - when such remarks are used to bolster nonsensical theological statements - well I for one see such as humorous/silly. You are entitled to such views, but are not entitled to use science as a pretext to claim you deal with such “reality”.

(Patrick ) #14

Let’s look at a single electron. What is its spin? Quantum mechanic says that its spin is a)clockwise, b) counterclockwise, c) both CW and CCW, or d) neither CW/CCW. Four possible state, not two.

We can make the same statement about an electron’s location, or its energy or its location at time t.
always 4 different possible states. The state the electron is in is unknowable with certainty. We can’t know its exact location because its momentum would be infinite, can’t know it’s energy level exactly because its time duration would be infinite. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Two slits: does the electron go through slit a or slit b? It is unknowable. Because it can be a) Slit a b) slit b c) both slit a and b or d) neither slit a or b. Only these possibilities. It can’t be half way between a and b because it is quantized. One or the other, both or neither.

That is ground truth about every particle or photon in the universe. And every state of every particle or photon in the universe. This is the reality of the physical world, the real world. Nobody can know with certainty what state a particle is in. It is unknowable. When you actually go to measure what state the particle is in, it collapses to one of those 4 states, yes 4 states. Yes the particle can be in two places at once or can be at neither place. And never with certainty from one moment in time to the next.

QM has been studies for nearly a century. It is the most widely verified theory about reality. And it is in practical use -lasers, LEDs, quantum computers, quantum cryptography. All work according to QM.

How is that?

(Mazrocon) #15


I never said that “we can know”. All I was saying is what does that have to do with God knowing or not knowing? Whether it’s in 2 possible states, or 4 possible states, each possible state, fluctuating through out eternity. God is not apart of the physical world, and He created it. On what grounds can you say that He doesn’t know?

There are three broad categories at looking at reality:

  1. Everything we see, smell, touch, taste etc. (the physical world) is an illusion, and we’re all plugged up in the Matrix.

  2. The physical world, what we can sense, is the only thing that is real. This is called philosophical naturalism.

  3. There is a physical world, the world of nature… and then there’s a world beyond that: the supernatural.

These are three basic, metaphysical realities that one ascribes too (my guess is that you ascribe to #2). You keep calling the natural world “the real world”, and it doesn’t bother me, except that you treat it with an absolute certainty.

… it’s great that all those technologies work according to Quantum Mechanics Theory. I’m happy that technology keeps advancing forward. But it doesn’t nullify God’s omnipotence.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #16


God’s knowledge is limited to that which exists.

(Patrick ) #17

An electron exists. Given that God can’t know its precise location destroys the all-knowing claim.

(Patrick ) #18

He doesn’t know the exact position of an electron (or any particle). He doesn’t know everything. The all-knowing claim collapses.

On a practical level, He doesn’t know before NOAA does that the Hurricane is NOT going to hit the New Jersey Coast. So giving Him thanks for sparing us from disaster has not been earned.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #20

How do you know that God does not know it if it does exist?

QM deals with particles that are smaller than the atom. Thus if they are known, we have to be know them indirectly. God does not have to know indirectly, God’s sensors are better than ours.

Besides we really do not understand very well the energy aspects of QM, the weak and the strong forces and how they interact with particles and gravity. Our ignorance far out paces God’s ignorance if any, which I doubt.

The miracle is that God made the universe work intelligibly even when and perhaps even because the quantum world acts strangely.