Eager to improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, the thirty-odd academics differed on the best ways to talk about a completely quantum mechanical (non-Copenhagen) universe. Some think of it as ‘Everettian,’ i.e. as a ‘multiverse’ composed of a large but indeterminate number of branching autonomous ‘worlds’ in the sum of which everything that is physically possible happens…The sticking point was not his logic or his mathematics, but the implication that in some sense (hence the name ‘Many Worlds’ theory) it pointed to the actualization of all possibilities…Deutsch was joined in that analysis by conference organizers Simon Saunders and David Wallace of Oxford; both have written extensively on how to deal with uncertainty in an Everettian multiverse wherein all outcomes are realized.
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=many-worlds-in-oxford
From what I’ve read, many atheists champion the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics because they think it eliminates the need for God.
But one ironic implication of the formulation I just quoted is that if the many-worlds interpretation is correct, then there’s an actual world that corresponds to Bible history–where the events of OT and NT history occur.
And it seems to me that the same holds true for Feynman’s theory of multiple histories.
Steve Hays: "But one ironic implication of the formulation I just quoted is that if the many-worlds interpretation is correct, then there’s an actual world that corresponds to Bible history–where the events of OT and NT history occur."
ReplyDeleteD'oh!
And I assume that the dogmatically certain atheist's response to you would be that the world that corresponds to Bible history just isn't the world that we happen to be living in now.
I'm not sure... There's a distinction to take into account, but I'm not sure what it implies.
ReplyDeleteIn many-worlds, every possible solution of a wave-function is realized. Or in other words, every possible result occurs. But if something isn't a possible result, it doesn't occur. (For instance, electrons will only be found in their possible orbitals. The ones that people learn in chemistry.)
So... I don't know whether that's a problem for your post.
Well, if you must know, I'm trying to throw the Terminators off the sent by diverting them to parallel worlds. Don't tell Skynet what I'm up to.
ReplyDeleteSkynet would do better if it didn't buy all its equipment from Acme.
ReplyDeleteMee meep.
If all possibilities are actualized, does it then follow that there is a world in which Satan triumphs and God is unseated? Or is this possibility disallowed by an over-arching constraint (i.e. electrons behaving according to observed physical laws in "this" actualized world)?
ReplyDeleteThis would also allow a world in which the RoadRunner NEVER escaped Wile W Coyote.
Jugulum said:
ReplyDelete---
(For instance, electrons will only be found in their possible orbitals. The ones that people learn in chemistry.)
---
Ah, but that's the rub. Because the "rules" that set the possible orbitals, as you say above, were, according to modern cosmologists, fairly ad hoc fluctuations that occurred within the first couple of nanoseconds after the big bang. In other words, why is the magnetic force stronger than gravity (I mean, something the size of a kitchen magnet can thwart the gravitational pull of an object the size of the Earth and lift a metal paperclip up)? Because that force just happened to break symmetry at that point. But it wasn't REQUIRED; it was random.
So if the Big Bang happened again (in a different multiverse or whatever) there's no reason that the laws of physics would have to be the same as they are here.
And I assume that the dogmatically certain atheist's response to you would be that the world that corresponds to Bible history just isn't the world that we happen to be living in now.Alternatively, TUAD, such an atheist could say that, even if there exist at least one universe which corresponds to Biblical history, that correspondence would be merely a result of probabilities ("it had to happen somewhere") and wouldn't at all support the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteJugulum is right about the scientific possibilities with regard to quantum mechanics, but the sci-fi possibilities are often speculated as an infinite number of possible discrete timeline combinations or observable histories. Hey, that's the stuff good stories are made of, so why not?
ReplyDeleteBut my observation is that if you speculate along the sci-fi track with regard to theological or philosophical presuppositions, then you must ask what's possible and what's not possible with regard to the same worldviews.
For example I may argue as one who holds to reformed theology that there is only one history possible: the one God created; so what's the big deal if all possible histories exist? The naturalist may believe that an infinite number of discrete possible histories exist except those that would prove the existence of God (as though our history didn't).