Did God Create Chaos?

[serp777]

"Bohmian mechanics is often said to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which should indicate redundancy, i.e., that it is merely an interpretation. But Bohmian mechanics is not an interpretation of anything." (emphasis added)
Dürr, D., & Teufel, S. (2009). Bohmian Mechanics: The Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Theory (Fundamental Theories of Physics). Springer.

"We see, then, that the behaviour of the world is not perfectly determined by any possible purely mechanical or purely quantitative line of causal connection."
Bohm, D. (1957). Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. Routledge.

And just to show I'm not quote-mining a single line from Bohm's most subtle treatment of causation and determinism and thereby misrepresenting him:

"Bohm felt that the situation called for a very careful, more philosophical study of the question of causality and chance, and this resulted in his book Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, which was published in 1957. His basic proposal was that both causality and chance are always needed whenever we are dealing with some limited domain of the physical world. Thus, for example, he was not claiming that the quantum level was completely deterministic. Instead, the determinism suggested by the ontological interpretation ought to be seen as a statistical average of chance fluctuations at a deeper level. A closer study of these chance fluctuations might, in turn, reveal some more lawful behavior, which might, however, turn out to be a statistical average of a yet deeper level of chance fluctuations, and so on. Bohm felt that there was no need to assume a fundamental level, and thus the question whether the fundamental level is deterministic or indeterministic would not even arise" (emphasis added)
Pylkkänen, P. T. (2007). Mind, Matter and the Implicate Order. Springer.

Regardless of the interpretations, all the probabilities in quantum mechanics are deterministic. In other words, using an infinite number of photons in the double slit experiment will create a probability distribution that exactly matches the calculated one.

This does not mean, however, that a single photon is deterministic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Regardless of the interpretations, all the probabilities in quantum mechanics are deterministic.

This is something of a contradiction-in-terms. If outcomes are probabilistic, they aren't determined. It is true that the dynamical wave equation of QM is deterministic, and thus the evolution of the system's state is deterministic. However, the outcomes of measurement are not.

In other words, using an infinite number of photons in the double slit experiment will create a probability distribution that exactly matches the calculated one.

What calculated one? Are you referring to the ensemble interpretation or the reliance on the preparation of (assumed) identical states and a frequentist approach to probability to say that structure of QM itself is based upon the assumption of infinitely many experiments (which, so far, has continuously yielded the right answers in that assuming the statistical structure of QM to be true has never resulted in an experiment in which the preparation and measurement produced a contrary/contradicting result)? I don't follow. For one thing, repeated experiments/tests of/for any phenomenon will tend to be normally distributed over infinitely many trials and the average of infinitely many sample results from the population will always be normally distributed. For another, quantum mechanics doesn't compute probabilities the way probabilities are computed in any other science (or in mathematics). The probability is obtained from the amplitude, never directly computed (another way to put this is that the probability is is obtained from the probability distribution, so that it is impossible to assert any calculated probability will match the probability distribution because it uses the p.d.f. in order to be calculated).

 

[`mud]

Gee...I hate to ask...I apologize before the fact.
In regards to one opinion of another's work,
quote:"

"Bohm felt that the situation called for a very careful, more philosophical study of the question of causality and chance..."

I find that quite confusing, but I'm not too smart in the evidence given here.
Isn't this an opinion of the 'chance of an entity existing" ?
The word "chance" being in question here.
but what did Bohm really mean ?
Sorry about that thought, I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'm sure you will correct my thinking.
Again....I will apologize in advance for my stupidity.
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

Gee...I hate to ask...I apologize before the fact.
In regards to one opinion of another's work,
quote:"

"Bohm felt that the situation called for a very careful, more philosophical study of the question of causality and chance..."

I find that quite confusing, but I'm not too smart in the evidence given here.
Isn't this an opinion of the 'chance of an entity existing" ?
The word "chance" being in question here.
but what did Bohm really mean ?
Sorry about that thought, I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'm sure you will correct my thinking.
Again....I will apologize in advance for my stupidity.
~
'mud

First of all, things on quantum level are counter intuitive and hard to decipher. Actually, we don't understand quantum mechanics really. We only know some of its behavior. So there's a lot of guesswork involved in the research, simply because it doesn't work as we expect normal things to do.

Secondly, research starts with an idea. The idea can come from a feeling or more philosophical ponderings. Einstein's relativity theory started with him imagining himself traveling on a light beam. What scientists feel, think, believe, etc. is always the beginning of new research.

 

[`mud]

OH.... I see.....I'll have to get a bit of that.
Thank you kindly.
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

OH.... I see.....I'll have to get a bit of that.
Thank you kindly.

You're welcome. (I assume it was direct to me. )

 

[Gambit]

What's your end game here? I'm a bit lost on what you're trying to say. You're obviously trying to hint at something here, but I'm not sure what it is. Are you saying that if the Bohm interpretation is true, therefore God must exist? Well, if that's your view, you can bring it up in another thread. I'm not interested in another metaphysical philosophical discussion about God's existence. This thread was focused on chaos/randomness and where it came/comes from.

I think we should briefly recapitulate what has transpired here.

You asked in the OP of this thread: "If there is a designer/creator God, where did chaos or randomness come from? Or does chaos not exist?" (Note that you brought "God" into debate from the get go. So, I don't know why you seem to be crying foul now.)

Later I responded: "I have already explained the source of disorder or chaos in my other thread. God has endowed each creature with free will, which entails some element of randomness or spontaneity." (Note that I specifically stated "creature," not "human being." Why is this signficance? Because I am ascribing free will or mentality to all creatures. I am working within the framework of Whiteheadian process metaphysics, which qualifies as a form of panpsychism - a view which ascribes some form of mentality and free will to all "actual entities" (any animated thing from human beings to single cell organisms, to electrons. IOW, some element of randomness or spontaneity is built into the system.)

Afterwards, you made a comment which seemed to question whether quantum mechanics was a truly random process. I responded by saying: "According to the Copenhagen or standard interpretation, quantum fluctuations are truly random."

Next, you attempted to counter my claim (or, at least, it appeared to me that was your intent) by invoking some evidence that supported Bohm's "pilot wave theory" (a deterministic version of QM). Accordingly, I responded by saying it may be deterministic, but it is not mechanistic. And you responded by asking me why is that relevant (more or less, I'm paraphrasing here)? To which I responded that it is relevant because the Bohmian interpretation entails panpsychism. In fact, I cited Bohm's ascription of "mentality" to an "electron" *(represented mathematically by the quantum potential). (By the way, Bohm's interpretation was informed by Whitehead's meptaphysics.)

So, why is Bohm's panpsychism significant? It's significant, because, in a round-about-way, it supports my original contention that all "creatures" (all "actual entities," which include not only human being but also single-cell organisms and even electrons) exhibit some form of free will and mentality (even if it is only rudimentary). As far as I can tell, the only difference between my explanation and Bohm's is that I am ascribing libertarian free will to electrons, where he appears to be ascribing compatibilist free will.

By the way, I'm not sure that the Bohmian interpretation is completely deterministic.

Recalling notions underlying Bohm's approach, Hiley emphasises that active information "informs" in the sense of a literal meaning of the word: it "induces a change of form from within", and "this active side of the notion of information […] seems to be relevant both to material processes and to thought".[141] He emphasizes: "even though the quantum level may be analogous to the human mind only in a rather limited way, it does help to understand the interlevel relationships if there are some common features, such as the activity of information, shared by the different levels. The idea is not to reduce everything to the quantum level but rather to propose a hierarchy of levels, which makes room for a more subtle notion of determinism and chance".[137]

(source: Wikipedia: Basil Haley)

 

[Ouroboros]

I think we should briefly recapitulate what has transpired here.

You asked in the OP of this thread: "If there is a designer/creator God, where did chaos or randomness come from? Or does chaos not exist?" (Note that you brought "God" into debate from the get go. So, I don't know why you seem to be crying foul now.)

If you don't understand what I pointed out to you there, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

Later I responded: "I have already explained the source of disorder or chaos in my other thread. God has endowed each creature with free will, which entails some element of randomness or spontaneity." (Note that I specifically stated "creature," not "human being." Why is this signficance? Because I am ascribing free will or mentality to all creatures. I am working within the framework of Whiteheadian process metaphysics, which qualifies as a form of panpsychism - a view which ascribes some form of mentality and free will to all "actual entities" in the world, from human beings to single cell organisms, to electrons. IOW, some element of randomness or spontaneity is built into the system.)

Cool. But I wasn't going in that direction with my questions.

Afterwards, you made a comment which seemed to question whether quantum mechanics was a truly random process. I responded by saying: "According to the Copenhagen or standard interpretation, quantum fluctuations are truly random."

And I accept that the Copenhagen or standard interpretation says that.

Next, you attempted to counter my claim (or, at least, it appeared to me that was your intent) by invoking some evidence that supported Bohm's "pilot wave theory" (a deterministic version of QM).

No, I wasn't counter your claim. I was expanding the scope of the views of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation isn't the only view, but there are others.

Accordingly, I responded by saying it may be deterministic, but it is not mechanistic. And you responded by asking me why is that relevant (more or less, I'm paraphrasing here)? To which I responded that it is relevant because it implies panpsychism. In fact, I cited Bohm's ascription of "mentality" to an "electron" *(represented mathematically by the quantum potential). (By the way, Bohm's interpretation was informed by Whitehead's meptaphysics.)

Yeah. I wondered why mechanistic had anything to do with alternative views of quantum mechanics. And I wonder why panpsychism has anything to do with randomness, determinism, or indeterminism of quantum mechanics. I still wonder why you brought that up, but so far I'm failing in understanding why you did.

So, why is Bohm's panpsychism significant? It's significant, because, in a round-about-way, it supports my original contention that all "creatures" (all "actual entities," which include not only human being but also single-cell organisms, molecular-systems, and even electrons) exhibit some form of free will and mentality (even if it is only rudimentary). As far as I can tell, the only difference between my explanation and Bohm's is that I am ascribing libertarian free will to electrons, where he appears to be ascribing compatibilist free will.

So the Copenhagen interpretation must be the right one because of panpsychism supported by Bohm's interpretation? You lost me. Free will is the explanation to randomness, is that what you're saying? Someone else suggested that earlier in this thread too, and I'm not totally against that.

By the way, I'm not sure that the Bohmian interpretation is completely deterministic.

Agree. I didn't say it was completely. But it does make it less chaotic and random. CI suggests a very random "mechanism" (if you now want to use that term), while Bohm makes it more explained.

I think, overall, you're misreading me quite a bit. You think that because I bring up counter-arguments or expanding on the arguments that I necessarily disagree with everything you say, but you're wrong. I think there are things I agree with you on, and other things I don't. But I'm not trying to prove you wrong or me right, but rather bring the different aspects on a focus topic. Free will, God's existence, and other things I feel fall outside the scope by leaps and bounds, but different interpretations of quantum mechanics don't.

 

[Gambit]

If you don't understand what I pointed out to you there, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you.


Cool. But I wasn't going in that direction with my questions.

You asked what appeared to be a straight and forward question in the OP: "If there is a designer/creator God, where did chaos or randomness come from?"

And I provided a straight and forward answer to that question: "God has endowed each creature with free will, which entails some element of randomness or spontaneity."

So, where did chaos and ramdomness come from? God created creatures with free will which entails some element of randomness. That's the source of the chaos. If you didn't want a theistic explanation, then you shouldn't have phrased the question as you did. Moreover, you shouldn't have asked it on a religious debate forum.

No, I wasn't counter your claim. I was expanding the scope of the views of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation isn't the only view, but there are others.

But the fact is that it is the standard interpretation, the one that is most widely accepted by physicists. So to answer your question as to whether chaos exists or not, my response is: According to the standard interpretation, nature is fundamentally indeterminate. Actually, I don't even have to invoke quantum mechanics. I can simply invoke chaos theory. Chaos exists according to chaos theory. (Although chaos theory is determinisitc in one sense of the term, it is indeterminate in another sense. It is indeterminate in the sense that it is inherently unpredictable.)

So the Copenhagen interpretation must be the right one because of panpsychism supported by Bohm's interpretation?

The Copenhagen interpretation and the Bohmian interpretation are two different interpretations. That being said, both can be employed to support panpsychism.

You lost me. Free will is the explanation to randomness, is that what you're saying?

Yes, I have clearly stated that from the get go.

Someone else suggested that earlier in this thread too, and I'm not totally against that.

I would be surprised if he or she ascribed free will to the fundamental constituents of nature.

Free will, God's existence, and other things I feel fall outside the scope by leaps and bounds, but different interpretations of quantum mechanics don't.

Free will and God's existence are definitely within the scope of the topic of this thread based on the question you asked in the OP.

 

[Ouroboros]

You asked what appeared to be a straight and forward question in the OP: "If there is a designer/creator God, where did chaos or randomness come from?"
...
Free will and God's existence are definitely within the scope of the topic of this thread based on the question you asked in the OP.

I hope you have enough language skills to understand a conditional statement. If someone says, "if there is an X, then Y?" is not a question about if X exist, but if Y is true or not under the condition of assuming X to be true. It's like saying, "let's assume for the sake of argument that a certain condition is like X, under that condition is there an Y?"

 

[Gambit]

I hope you have enough language skills to understand a conditional statement. If someone says, "if there is an X, then Y?" is not a question about if X exist, but if Y is true or not under the condition of assuming X to be true. It's like saying, "let's assume for the sake of argument that a certain condition is like X, under that condition is there an Y?"

Before you start casting aspersions on my language skills, I think we should take a look at your entire OP. Shall we?

I thought struck me the other day. If there is a designer/creator God, where did chaos or randomness come from? Or does chaos not exist?

I think there are three scenarios.

1. Chaos and randomness is a natural thing, something beyond God (if there is a God or not)
2. Chaos and randomness is part of God's nature, not created, but something that's eternal/non-temporal/non-spatial like any of the other properties of God
3. God created chaos and randomness.

I'm curious which stand theists, creationists, and atheists take on this. Personally, I'm #1 or #1 if there is a creator/designer God, and not #3. And I have a feeling that any one answer would cause problems for the creationist views.

Based on your OP, it appears that you are making the argument that "randomness" is problematic for a "creator God." However, when I attempt to explain to you why this is not problematic for theism, you start whining and complaining that I'm discussing things beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

Before you start casting aspersions on my language skills, I think we should take a look at your entire OP. Shall we?



Based on your OP, it appears that you are making the argument that "randomness" is problematic for a "creator God." However, when I attempt to explain to you why this is not problematic for theism, you start whining and complaining that I'm discussing things beyond the scope of this thread.

It "appears" to you, but you were mistaken. And I've explained that several times now. Just because it appears like that to you, doesn't mean that was the intent.

So again, I'm explicitly telling you that it wasn't. How much more can it be explained to you? How can I make it clear to you?

 

[Gambit]

It "appears" to you, but you were mistaken. And I've explained that several times now. Just because it appears like that to you, doesn't mean that was the intent.

So again, I'm explicitly telling you that it wasn't. How much more can it be explained to you? How can I make it clear to you?

You can start by creating a new thread with a different title and OP.

 

[Ouroboros]

You can start by creating a new thread with a different title and OP.

I'm done with you. You're intelligent and knowledgeable, but a bully. I have no interest in discussing with you anymore. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

 

[Gambit]

I'm done with you. You're intelligent and knowledgeable, but a bully. I have no interest in discussing with you anymore. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

Suit yourself. But your tack to ignore me and my explanation will not invalidate my argument. Randomness is not as problematic for a "creator God" as you originally thought.