I am talking about the 2016 experimentally verified version of QM. Quantum entanglement was proven experimentally in three experiments last year. Also wave/particle duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle have been shown to be one and the same.
Patrick nothing in my comment negates what you say. I would be the last one to deny that quantum entanglement is real. (Read my ebook the Quantum Catholic when it’s published.) It is not quite true, or perhaps I should say inexact, to say “wave/particle duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle are one and the same”. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is derived from commutation relations between pairs of operators representing canonical variables: coordinate and canonical momentum; time and energy, etc.
The uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality do not proceed from each other, are not identical, and are not derived from one another. DeBroglie introduced the wave nature of particles from a relativistic analog. He calculated the momentum of a photon as p = h / wavelength. (See the hyperphysics site.)He then argued this should hold for particles also. This derivation was prior to that of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
I repeat: If measurement is excluded, quantum mechanics is totally deterministic. The state vector evolves in time in a totally deterministic manner given prescribed initial and boundary conditions (or, to use the Heisienberg representation, the operators representing the state evolve determinisitically). Probability (Randomness) enters when measurement and the observation of measurement occur… It is the case, nevertheless, that some interpretations of quantum mechanics, totally consistent with the experimental results predicted by quantum mechanics, are totally deterministic, . Read the Wikipedia article on interpretations of quantum mechanics: and you’ll see what I mean.
Relates, I believe you’re referring to zero-point energy, and the “cause” can be construed as localization. For a totally free particle, it can have zero energy (although that would require an infinite spatial extension).
In my opinion, this is not a reasonable request. Someone like Dennis Venema whose expertise is in genetics shouldn’t need to respond to philosophical / theological questions. It’s out of his realm of expertise, unless I’m mistaken and he has an MDiv or ThD somewhere in his CV that I haven’t ferreted out. Your expectation assumes that all thinking, committed Christians (almost by definition, must) come down unequivocally one way or another in these matters of God’s sovereignty; it assumes that agnosticism in such matters is not an option for the serious follower of Jesus. This is not the case.
A better request (again, imho, and I do mean the “h” part here) might be that BioLogos would host a “five views” sort of blog-dialogue about these matters. (Perhaps they have already done so.) This would allow the exploration of these matters for those like you who are interested.
By the way, “heresy” used in the colloquial sense is a relative term; there are Christian traditions (yea, even Protestant ones) that find Calvinism (“Calvinism,” I could say, as typically understood) to be heretical, as I’m sure you know.
1 Like
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to venture outside their area of expertise, and I do not think this is what is requested from BioLogos. As I understand it, BioLogos subscribes to the orthodox teachings of Christianity - yet within this context, they have put enormous effort in propagating the neo-Darwinian paradigm (ND), and also have put forward opinions which on my reading, may modify teachings of the Christian faith. While I find the conflict between creationists and TE’s to confuse/muddle this conflict, it is nonetheless clear to me that an agnostic view is not proposed by many contributors to these blogs, in the context found on this site. I have made comments on the theological implications derived from the predominant view of ND put forward on the BioLogos site, so I will not repeat these comments.
Thus it is not that anyone “must” come to one view or another, since the major theological orthodox teachings are said to be accepted on his site. The question revolves about clear statements that promote ND within a theological context - I do not detect an agnostic position on this point. I am not suggesting discussions should not take place, but I do think that if anyone claims orthodoxy, and yet puts opinions that may be contrary to this, it must draw criticisms from others who maintain the centrality of orthodox Christian teachings - the default position imo is that ND is not sufficient (be this any versions of TE. EC. open theism) and this should be made forcefully within a theological context.
1 Like
I appreciate a lot in this comment, Eddie.
I particularly see value in the careful distinction you draw in saying that what you see in the EC movement reflects sea changes in the wider Evangelical community. I also agree that while there has always been a diversity of views about providence and free will within Protestantism, at least in the circles I ran in growing up a couple of decades ago (which were reasonably diverse), Open Theism as a position was always considered outside the bounds of historical orthodoxy. That does seem to be changing in some quarters.
I continue to disagree with you that it is reasonable to line up all BioLogos writers and demand they clarify their views on theology. Sure, you don’t comment this way on Dennis’s blog posts — but in response to this blog post, you state that (emphasis mine)
and this includes Dennis, even if that’s not maybe what you intended. You repeat it again when in this last comment you reference
I still don’t see this as reasonable. It still feels like a witch hunt to me.
Nevertheless I see your point about conversations being dropped. I wasn’t there for most of those conversations, but I don’t doubt your account. Brad may be able to correct you as he corrected MATT (his caps) in the other thread, but your account doesn’t seem unlikely.
In response, my tentative gut-level synthesis (as one very much on the periphery of things and not at all qualified to give an informed opinion) is that I ought to pray that BioLogos might find some vocal scholars on the philosophy / theology / history side of things that are as careful about minding traditional boundaries of orthodoxy as (for instance) you are, yet who are equally adamant that we embrace at least most of the scientific consensus view (and I’m not getting into Neo-Darwinian vs. other evolutionary views, etc. here). It seems that many of the big-name public academics that seem drawn to their programme — I’m thinking here of the likes of Enns, Polkinghorne, Wright, Giberson, and others, though obviously these are all in very different places along the Scale of American Evangelical Acceptability — are more comfortable with outside-the-box thinking in other areas as well. This unfortunately lends weight to the slippery-slope fears of conservative anti-evolutionists, in what then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we had more folks like, say, Tim Keller, who are careful to hew to their Evangelical bona fides, but who could (perhaps unlike Tim Keller) take the conversation still deeper into the gritty academic particulars of the historical / theological / philosophical questions you touch on in your comment here, perhaps BioLogos could gain more traction.
I suspect that pestering the existing columnists about their personal views ad nauseam (my unflattering perspective on your comments, if you’ll forgive me the frankness) may not be particularly productive, but I do see how the lack of which you speak is probably real, and for the success of BioLogos itself, I pray they are able to fill it.
I see your point, though I wasn’t there for your earlier conversations to see the particulars first-hand. See my further reflections in my response to Eddie, which may be germane.
In 2014, a landmark paper proved that the two features of QM, previously considered distinct, are different manifestations of the same thing. See below.
Thanks for the reference, Patrick. It’s a popular science interpretation of a physics paper, and I don’t trust journalists to get the science right, so I’ll read the original paper, before commenting further. (Not every published paper is correct, I should add. ) I note that considerations of entropy enter in to the work. That in itself is nothing new. In 1953 Lande put an equivalence in terms of the Gibbs Paradox. See Continuity, A Key to Quantum Mechanics
I read the original paper. It is really good. I was able to understand the paper because it was all information theory equations which I am familiar with. Here it is: Equivalence of wave–particle duality to entropic uncertainty | Nature Communications
I never thought the day would come…
4 Likes
Thanks Patrick for the reference. I’m not comfortable with the notion of information theory as a foundation for QM–I can think of problems in my own area of expertise, magnetic resonance, where I can’t see how it would apply. However, that may be due to my ignorance of information theory. I’ve found a thesis which explores this and will read that so that I can speak from non-ignorance–so it may be a while until I finally reply to your comment. (The thesis is "Quantum Information Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" by Gordon Timson.)
Thanks again for steering me onto an interesting subject.
1 Like
Well as a long-time student of information theory, I am very comfortable in information theory as a foundation of QM. The Hawkins’ Information Paradox of a Black Hole is fundamentally a QM as information problem.
Have you ever considered being completely open about exactly who you are (your name!), so we can see your work and your reputation among biblical scholars?
2 Likes
Thank you for your statement, which can provide a good basis for discussion. I hope that we can not allow the rancor that was a part of some of our previous discussion to interfere with our coming to an understanding now.
But before I address the issues that you have raised, we need to carefully look at the excellent statement by James Bradley, which is the basis of our discussion of randomness.
> Randomness is [nothing strange or fearful—it’s] a necessary part of living in a complex world in which there are many independent entities. Furthermore, [as other writers here have pointed out,] biological processes use randomness. Also mathematically, the most important theorem in statistics, the Central Limit Theorem, proves that even the most disorderly sets of numbers necessarily follow a highly ordered pattern when aggregated appropriately. Putting all this together, it seems that randomness originates in God and that God has built the world both to incorporate and to manage randomness. Brackets added for some additional clarity.
Randomness is a necessary, integral aspect of life and nature in that we live in a God created complex world. Evolution uses randomness to create changing life forms through Variation, while it uses Natural Selection to create continuity through adaptation to a changing environment. The basic theorem in statistics demonstrates that the most disorderly sets of numbers are not really disorderly when looked at with the proper perspective!
All of this leads me to the conclusion which I had already expected, but this essay clarifies and reinforces, which is Randomness and Order, Change and Continuity, the Many and the One, all of these pairs of seeming contradictions is at the heart of Who God is. God is the Trinity, the Many and the One.
Humans see the Many and the One as opposites and try to do away with one or the other. We religious folks cherish the One and avoid the other. Scientific folk like @Patrick cherish the Many and would like to do away with the One. Both have some good points, but both are wrong in that we all need to embrace both the Many and the One, Who is God the Trinity.
One problem with fully embracing the One and the Many is that we Westerners are still stuck with Western dualism, which leaves out the “and” of the spiritual in the One and the Many. Reality is not dualistic. It is trinitarian, physical, rational, and spiritual.
Eddie, you take a traditionally Western dualistic view of God against Nature. You appear to be looking for the God of the gaps. I am looking for the God of the facts, the God Who rules and works through Nature. God is not Nature, but God created nature to make a home for humanity.
I have shown you and @gbrooks9 how God guides evolution through ecology. You have not denied that it is true. Here you say that ecological Natural Selection can select evolutionary changes, but does not produce them.
There is some truth to this statement, however when one looks at genetic variation, you see how this is not really necessary. God has structured sexual reproduction in such a way to procure a maximum of diversity and change among flora and fauna on earth. In other words God has made life complex through random sexual reproduction Thus God in God’s wisdom has given Natural Selection a huge variety of genetic material available from which to select in order to create positive evolutionary change.
God of the facts. Not God of the gaps.
@Eddie, try to remember that part of the equation is the perception of danger. And if I had someone like you chasing down my every last word . . . I would be very uncomfortable about saying something that might lead to a theoretical Biblical meltdown.
If you recall the Scopes trial, the teacher was found GUILTY; he was FINED. And only later was the verdict overturned on a technicality.
I’m not suggesting that BioLogos writers are anxious about getting fined; only that there doesn’t seem to be any pressing reason to cater to your examinations.
Personally speaking, I’ve never seen any pressing need to answer all your questions fully when it seemed so obvious that you were both ‘hostile’ witness and interrogator! 
George
1 Like