Does Quantum Physics Prove God?

[Dialectic]

This is a fun summary on how quantum physics does NOT prove God or the Tao or anything "mystical" in the contemplative enlightenment sense.

I'd read a bit of Chopra's stuff myself starting in highschool, as well as the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, and even then I saw that something funny was going on in their reasoning and that they were stretching a bit to prove a point that doesn't need to be proven, and indeed, can't be proven using third-person objective discourse.

The introduction to Quantum Questions, also found in Volume 4 of the Collected Works, goes into more detail and is mandatory reading for anyone interested in this discussion.

http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/post/39?page=32

Does Quantum Physics Prove God?
May 28, 2006 15:43

Several months ago I had the pleasure of recording a Q&A session with Ken for Integral Naked, in which we fielded various questions from IN subscribers. This, in my opinion, is one of the coolest things Ken has ever recorded. He addresses some of the most popular confusions regarding the relationship of quantum physics and spirituality, confusions which continue to permeate both scientific and spiritual communities by blurring the lines between them and, despite very good intentions, make the actual integration of science and spirit even more difficult.

The actual talk can be found on the second page of our Media collection. This is some cutting edge stuff!

http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html
[Click to Page 2, "Does Physics Prove God," between Ken Wilber and Corey deVos. --D.]

~posted by Corey W. deVos

Does Quantum Physics Prove God?
Ken Wilber and Corey W. deVos

The first question has to do directly with the relation of modern quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove God, does the Tao find proof in quantum realities?

Answer: "Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the last thirty years than has come from quantum physics...."

Ken goes on to outline the three major confusions that have dominated the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism.

#1: Your consciousness does not create electrons. Unlike Newtonian physics, which can predict the location of large objects moving at slow speeds, quantum physics only offers a probability wave in which a given particle, like an electron, should show up. But here's the funny thing: it is only at the moment that one makes the measurement that the electron actually does "show up." Certain writers and theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality actually creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of this idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in which we "qwaff" reality into existence.

Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. As for the former, in his book, Quantum Questions, Ken compiled the original writings of the 13 most important founders of modern quantum and relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each one of them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual realities in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because of physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of their discipline, a feat which requires true genius, they found themselves face to face with those realities that physics categorically could not explain.

Likewise, none of those founders of modern physics believed that the act of consciousness was responsible for creating particles at the quantum level. David Bohm did not believe that, Schroedinger did not believe that, Heisenberg did not believe that. That belief requires the enormous self-infatuation and narcissism, or "boomeritis," of the post-modern ego, and Ken goes into the possible psychology behind all of that.

#2: Quantum vacuum potentials are not unmanifest Spirit. The immediate problem with the notion that certain "unmanifest" or "vacuum" quantum realities give rise to the manifest world, and that the quantum vacuum is Spirit, is that it immediately presupposes a radically divided Spirit or Ultimate. There is Spirit "over here," manifestation "over there," and it's only through these quantum vacuum potentials that Spirit actualizes manifestationówith Spirit set apart from manifestation.

As the great contemplative traditions agree, true nondual Spirit is the suchness, emptiness, or isness of all manifestation, and as such leaves everything exactly where it finds it. Nondual Spirit is no more set apart from manifestation than the wetness of the ocean is set apart from waves. Wetness is the suchness or isness of all waves. By identifying Spirit with quantum potential, you are actually qualifying the Unqualifiable, giving it characteristicsó"and right there," Ken says, "things start to go horribly wrong, and they never recover. These folks are trying to give characteristics to Emptiness. They therefore make it dualistic. And then things get worse from there...."

#3: Just because you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean you're enlightened. Physics is an explicitly 3rd-person approach to reality, whereas meditative, contemplative, or mystical disciplines are explicitly 1st-person approaches to reality. Neither perspective is more real than the other, but each perspective does disclose different truths, and you cannot use the truth disclosed in one domain to "colonize" another. The study of physics, as a 3rd-person discipline, will not get you enlightenment; and meditation, as a 1st-person discipline, will not disclose the location of an asteroid (or an electron). The "content" of enlightenment is the realization of that which is timeless, formless, and eternally unchanging. The content of physics is the understanding of the movement of form within time, i.e. that which is constantly changing. And if you hook Buddha's enlightenment to a theory of physics that gets disproved tomorrow, does that mean Buddha loses his enlightenment?

Ken goes on to suggest that what might be influencing quantum realities is not Suchness per se, but bio-energy or prana, which may be the source of the crackling, buzzing, electric creativity that so many theorists have tried to explain at the quantum level. Of course, it remains to be seen exactly what further research does and does not support.

[bluejives]

There's a lot of trendy spiritual mumbo-jumbo that surrounds much of 20th century modern physics, especially quantum mechanics. A lot of it is driven by a drive to find some kind of hidden meaning encoded in the laws, structures, patterns of the universe.

There is one question that physics, or science in general, cannot answer. The "Why?" question. Physics tells us that E=MC^2. Physics does not tells us why E=MC^2.

At any rate, post-modern physics is approaching the point where it is getting more and more difficult to experimentally prove some of the more exotic theories. String theory, for instance, is simply that, a theory. No one has ever proven string theory in the laboratory. The scientists may or may not realize this, but some of the more outermost frontiers of physics rests on nothing more than....faith.

[lycheng]

The scientists may or may not realize this, but some of the more outermost frontiers of physics rests on nothing more than....faith.

I have to agree with Bluejives. I'm not a practicing physicist (I mostly do engineering), so maybe I'm wrong. It seems to me that physicists are in many ways, the modern equivalent of high priests. I think there's a lot more faith involved in the fields of Cosmology and most certainly String Theory. Don't get me wrong, I think there is solid evidence to support the Big Bang, but there's a lot of highly speculative science that postulates multiple universes and ideas that simply can't be falsified.

When you postulate theories that can't be falsified, then you have one foot out the science door.

lycheng

[bluejives]

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also tells about the limits of axiomatic logic and formal proof in higher mathematics as well. My understanding (which admittedly is flawed, since I am no mathematician), is that it is impossible to prove every mathematical theorem based upon what is standardized as rigorous proof. In other words, there are a large amount (possibly infinite) of theorems that cannot be proven and the best we can do is create a computer program that will verify that theorem, empirically, for a very, very large but finite set.

Also, every mathematical system ultimately rests upon some axiomatic givens, which are accepted to be true (by faith).

[Dialectic]

At any rate, post-modern physics is approaching the point where it is getting more and more difficult to experimentally prove some of the more exotic theories. String theory, for instance, is simply that, a theory. No one has ever proven string theory in the laboratory. The scientists may or may not realize this, but some of the more outermost frontiers of physics rests on nothing more than....faith.

I have to agree with Bluejives. I'm not a practicing physicist (I mostly do engineering), so maybe I'm wrong. It seems to me that physicists are in many ways, the modern equivalent of high priests. I think there's a lot more faith involved in the fields of Cosmology and most certainly String Theory. Don't get me wrong, I think there is solid evidence to support the Big Bang, but there's a lot of highly speculative science that postulates multiple universes and ideas that simply can't be falsified.

While it seems we all agree that physics can't prove God, to equate modern physics with magical or mythical religious structures is going a bit far. It is, in fact, a classic postmodern deconstructionist move. These types of knowledge are not equivalent. Magic/ mythic "knowledge" is not quite the same thing as scientific "knowledge." One is based on hypothetico-deductive reasoning, injunctive (i.e. hypothesis-making and testing) practices, experimenttion and observation, and confirmation with a community of adequate expertise; the other is based on ethnocentric social mythical structures with no empircal basis, and indeed, fuses the spheres of Truth, Morality, and Art such that they all fall under the sway of mythical/ ethnocentric structures, generally, religion. Galileo was not allowed to report what he saw through the telescope. Michaelangelo was not allowed to paint everything he wanted in the Sistein Chapel. A theoretical physicist is far from being a high priest. The faith Bluejives is referring to is not quite the same type of faith as the "faith" in the Christian God to which he's alluding.

My logic cannot be arbitrarily different from your logic; my god, on the other hand, can be arbitrarily completely different from yours.

As I understand the current state of affairs, the physicists and mathematicians also generally agree that no one really knows what the hell is going on right now, and that different string theories explain different phenomena quite elegantly, but some apparently contradict each other. No one is making unfalsifiable claims which they say are absolute truth; they are all quite aware of the fascinating mess in which they've found themselves, and they are simply putting forth hypotheses/ theories which explain the available evidence as best they can.

Finally, note the interesting turn in Bluejives' stance: while we all agree that physics can't prove God, at the same time, Bluejives attempts to use the "essential incompleteness" he perceives in scientific inquiry to justify faith (i.e. belief) in God. A bit of a performative contradiction, I think.

[Dialectic]

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also tells about the limits of axiomatic logic and formal proof in higher mathematics as well. My understanding (which admittedly is flawed, since I am no mathematician), is that it is impossible to prove every mathematical theorem based upon what is standardized as rigorous proof. In other words, there are a large amount (possibly infinite) of theorems that cannot be proven and the best we can do is create a computer program that will verify that theorem, empirically, for a very, very large but finite set.

Also, every mathematical system ultimately rests upon some axiomatic givens, which are accepted to be true (by faith).

As I understand it, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to comprehensive systems capable of self-referential expressions.

A simple example from Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach:

I have A, a low-fidelity phonograph. It only plays certain limited frequencies of music. It can't play certain frequencies of music. It is not a very comprehensive record player, and is "incomplete" because there's just a bunch of stuff it can't play.

I have B, a high-fidelity phonograph. It can play all frequencies of music. It is a very comprehensive record player. I have, however, a record, which can play a frequency which will cause the phonograph to break and shatter. Because the very nature of the phonograph is such that it can play any frequency, it can attempt to play this one, and then it will break. There is an "essential incompleteness" because no matter how awesome and comprehensive a phonograph I make, there will always be a record which will cause it to shatter, which it therefore cannot play. There is a "self-reference" here because the record "refers" to a particular frequency which is a "part" of the phonograph, which causes the phonograph to break down.

A second example, in the same flavor:

This one comes from Cantor. I have an infinite set of numbers, let's say all the real numbers between 0 and 1. Let's take a random sampling of this set:

0.035084937943 ...
0.968234234950 ...
0.457429824390 ...
0.123409401237 ...
.
.
.

This set goes "down" forever and goes to the "right" forever. This would seem to contain every number between 0 and 1, wouldn't it? It's a very comprehensive set.

Now let's take a look at the first digit after the first decimal in the first number: it's a 0. Let's go down one and to the right one (diagonally down/right), and look at that number: it's a 6. Let's go diagonally down/right again: 7. And again: 4.

Now here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to make a new number by adding 1 to every digit we've just looked at in that diagonal, and you can imagine this number going down and to the right forever, too (if a digit is 9, we'll just make it a 0): now what number do we get in this case?

0.1785 ...

And this, friends, is a number that cannot occur in this infinite set. Why? Well, try adding the number to the "end" of the set, say, as the nth number downwards (as opposed to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, that I have here), and doing the diagonal trick again: you will NOT have included the whole diagonal number, because once you get to the nth digit across, the diagonal number's nth digit will be one higher than that of the nth number, and so it is IMPOSSIBLE to contain this number. See for yourself! The infinite set is essentially incomplete.

Again, this occurs because we have made a reference trick: we take a number that refers to the structure of the set itself, and here, we find that the set cannot contain this particular type of self-reference.

Here is a well-known example of paradoxical self-reference:

This statement is false.

The statement is self-referential because, well, it refers to itself. It is paradoxical because if the statement is true, it is false, and if it's false, then it can't be true. The statement is neither true nor false.

So what Godel said, through a very sophisticated formal system involving the use of special types of numbers (of which I don't pretend to have a deep understanding), was that any comprehensive formal system will be able to express theorems which refer back to the system itself, which are unprovable inside the system, making them not-quite-theorems, strictly speaking, and leaving the system essentially incomplete. He pulls a much more sophisticated version of the example above, but I think it's sufficient to give us an idea of the general flavour.

This, however, does not collapse all of logic and mathematics, and so the "faith" one requires in logic and mathematics is, again, not the same "faith" one requires to believe in a Christian God.

(This also, incidentally, represents a sort of "postmodern" turn in mathematics, because it is an example of reason not just examining everything around it, but turning "inwards" and examining itself. This represents a great increase in complexity and has yielded interesting results in all fields of inquiry: scientific, moral/ philosophical, and artistic.)

Now, speaking from a much higher level, it is true that logic, mathematics, reason, do not have "ultimate justifications." The practice of science rests, in fact, on a value: the notion that rationality is better at getting at objectifiable truth than non-rationality. We may call this value "faith," but it's not the same faith at all as in a mythical structure: once one is solidly grounded in a rational worldview, one intrinsically understands the power of reason in discovering and explaining objectifiable truth.

Finally, on an even higher level than that, realization of "God" is not a simple matter of just belief and/or faith. One can be horribly misled if one relies exclusively on culturally-local belief and blind faith. "God," can, in fact, be experienced through direct realization: the existence of God is disclosed through immediate experience. Now, I am not talking about the same "God" as, for example, a culturally-local mythic Christian one who talked to a few people in the desert who believed the world was flat, and who condemned you to hell if you didn't do exactly what he said, I'm talking about the disclosure of the nondual "Godhead" in which space, time, mind, and all things arise.

Put another way, we can say that we have three broad "eyes": the eye of flesh, which sees the world of things, the eye of mind, which sees the world of ideas, and the eye of contemplation, or spirit, which sees the world of divinity. One cannot exclusively use one eye to examine the domains of the others without doing horrible violence to the universe: the eye of mind is not equipped to examine and report on the world of divinity.

Though common Christianity doesn't talk much about direct experience of God, Christian mystics were very well aware of this notion; the works of Mother Theresa (who was not strictly a mystic, but had many divine visions) and Teilhard de Chardin would be a good place to start exploring the Judeo-Christian mystical approach (I'm only passing familiar with this stuff myself). Those interested might want to look into the practice of contemplative prayer.

Remember, if God is truly immanent and omni-present, then worshipping Her/Him would be about more than just knowledge or belief or faith: Her/His presence would be self-evident in direct experience, or Her/Him would simply become another theory or idea or object or cultural trinket, and I think we all agree that He/She is much more than that. God can only be disclosed through the eye of contemplation, or spirit.