Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[ThazzarBaal]

Sounds a lot like the big bang theory without the possible intelligent design addition.

 

[Write4U]

Definition
A quantum creationist is a believer in quantum creationism. Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness.

Theorem 1
This definition is well-defined.

Proof:

"Chaos Theory" (from the "scientific scriptures") ....

Chaos theory
Area of study

Description
Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities. Wikipedia

First book: Chaos: Making a New Science

Equation

What is the chaos theory equation?
The equation x(n+1)=3.95[x(n)][1-x(n)] is chaotic because it is deterministic, as can be seen by the multiplication of the previous term in the equation. The equation begins by an arbitrary choice of a starting point. The table shows the equation with three different starting values: 0.892, 0.893, and 0.894.
https://mathmusic.pages.roanoke.edu/chaos-theory/#

Keyword: "arbitrary choice of starting point", i.e "no intent required".

Chaos Theory
Chaos theory appears to be a random collection of points and lines; however, it is completely the opposite. Chaotic functions are nonlinear functions that are practically impossible to predict (Fractal Foundation Chaos Theory). This leads to graphs and figures that are disjointed and as such they are given the name chaotic. [/quote]
Background:

The main difference between chaos and randomness is the deterministic factor of chaos. This means that the system has order even if it is difficult to see. Chaotic systems are recursive meaning that each data point was found by using the point value before it. These connections are rarely obvious and that is why people assume that these points were created from randomness (Liebovitch 118).

Chaotic equations are interesting because they are sporadic, and they are greatly affected by seemingly minute differences. Some of these small changes happen when different values are used as the first value of a function, also called initial conditions.

Initial conditions are a large part of this because one of the definitions of chaos is that, “if a system is rerun with almost the same starting conditions, the values of the variables measured at the same time of the two runs separate from each other exponentially fast as a function of time” (Liebovitch 168).

This explains why when initial conditions are off by small amounts, the end result is different from the original by a noticeable amount. Many chaotic equations are shown side by side with other cases that have nearly identical initial conditions, because this shows the extent of the chaos. The most famous chaotic idea is the butterfly effect which states that if a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the world it will affect if a tornado occurs or not somewhere else in the world (Chaos 2019). The butterfly flapping its wings is the initial condition and the tornado or lack thereof is the exponentially different result that can occur from this scenario. Thus that one small difference of the butterfly’s wings changed the recursive relationship of the Earth’s climate to create a tornado or not.

https://mathmusic.pages.roanoke.edu/chaos-theory/#

Without intent the concept of a motivated God becomes superfluous.

Physical "creation" is the unfolded physical expression of probabilistic value-potentials (quanta) enfolded in the permittive dynamic fabric (condition) of space-time.

 

[DaveC426913]

Physical "creation" is the unfolded physical expression of probabilistic value-potentials (quanta) enfolded in the permittive dynamic fabric (condition) of space-time.

 

[exchemist]

View attachment 5491

Spot-on.

Another thread hijack…….

 

[billvon]

View attachment 5491

Don't forget MICROTUBULES!

 

[Write4U]

Another thread hijack…….

From what to what? IT's easy to throw insult out, but it is a little harder to support the ad hominem with facts.

If that sentence confuses you, it is not in the message enfolded in the delivery, but your inability (or refusal) to give it some thought and unpack it before you kick the stool with a knee-jerk inanity.

And that applies to all 3 of you.

 

[exchemist]

From what to what? IT's easy to throw insult out, but it is a little harder to support the ad hominem with facts.

If that sentence confuses you, it is not in the message enfolded in the delivery, but your inability (or refusal) to give it some thought and unpack it before you kick the stool with a knee-jerk inanity.

1) Chaos theory has nothing to do with speculations about the start of the universe.

2) quanta are not “probablistic value potentials”.

3) a “permittive dynamic fabric” is not a “condition”.

You are, as usual, trying to wrench this thread round to your personal religion.

 

[Write4U]

1) Chaos theory has nothing to do with speculations about the start of the universe.

Are you making the argument that the universe started in an orderly "designed" manner and not as the result of a spontaneous probabilistic event?

2) quanta are not “probablistic value potentials”.

Then, pray tell, what are quanta if not expressions of interactive "values". To space-time, quanta are potential values that may become expressed in reality as matter.

2) a “permittive dynamic fabric” is not a “condition”.

Does space-time permit dynamic interactions?
Does that suggest that space=time IS by definition a permittive condition?

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Do you think that the "beginning " was different for you than it was for me?

You are, as usual, trying to wrench this thread round to your personal religion.

No, you refuse to give thought to a different perspective of the same thing.

Chaos was not an "initial condition" of space-time? What then caused the gradual ordering of spacetime into dynamic regular and irregular causal patterns?

Motive? " Intent"?

 

[origin]

What then caused the gradual ordering of spacetime into dynamic regular and irregular causal patterns?

My mom.
You sure do like to write weird meaningless 'sciency' sounding sentences.

 

[Write4U]

Were this to be so, it follows that things far, far simpler than an entire universe should pop into existence far, far more often.

I agree, I do not believe in "irreducible complexity", but occasionally probabilistic mutations spawn new configurations that allow for new survival techniques. I see that as Quantum Creationism. And evidence can be found wherever you look. And it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

My mom.

Voted best comeback. 5 stars.

 

[origin]

but occasionally probabilistic mutations spawn new configurations that allow for new survival techniques. I see that as Quantum Creationism.

There is no reason to call a mutation a 'probabilistic mutation', it adds nothing.
You can call a beneficial mutation 'Quantum Creationism' if you want but the rest of us will just stick with beneficial mutation.

 

[exchemist]

Are you making the argument that the universe started in an orderly "designed" manner and not as the result of a spontaneous probabilistic event?
Then, pray tell, what are quanta if not expressions of interactive "values". To space-time, quanta are potential values that may become expressed in reality as matter.
Does space-time permit dynamic interactions?
Does that suggest that space=time IS by definition a permittive condition?

Do you think that the "beginning " was different for you than it was for me?
No, you refuse to give thought to a different perspective of the same thing.

Chaos was not an "initial condition" of space-time? What then caused the gradual ordering of spacetime into dynamic regular and irregular causal patterns?

Motive? " Intent"?

A moment’s googling will tell you the entropy of the very early universe was extremely low. This implies a high, not a low, state of order. So no, “chaos”, whatever you mean by that rather biblical choice of term, is an extremely poor description of it.

I have no idea what you mean by a “permittive condition”. Permittivity to me is the degree to which an electric field is transmitted in a medium.

 

[Baldeee]

Are you making the argument that the universe started in an orderly "designed" manner and not as the result of a spontaneous probabilistic event?

Chaos, as you have already quoted, refers to the nature of a system.
Prior to the creation of the universe there was no system we refer to as the universe.
Thus chaos is nothing to do with the creation of the universe beyond that creation event (if there was one) needing to bring about a chaotic universe/system (assuming one accepts that the universe itself was chaotic at its outset).
I.e. chaos theory kicks in only for an existent universe.

Then, pray tell, what are quanta if not expressions of interactive "values". To space-time, quanta are potential values that may become expressed in reality as matter.

Quanta, in physics, are the smallest parts of a physical entity that are involved in an interaction.
Quantum Creationism, however, is the idea that we create reality through observation.
It is linked to quantum mechanics through the Copenhagen interpretation, as I understand QC, and is given a new-age spin by trying to suggest that you can be in control of what is created.

All you are doing, however, is arguing about quantum mechanics and the creation of the universe.
This is not Quantum Creationism.

Does space-time permit dynamic interactions?
Does that suggest that space=time IS by definition a permittive condition?

I think you are confusing "permittive" with either "permissive" or "permitted".
Permissive means a state of allowing (but not necessary) - i.e. the rules were permissive of smoking.
Permitted means to be allowed (but not necessary) - i.e. the rules permitted smoking.
Permittive is not a word.
Permittivity, however, is to do with electrical energy, and electric fields, as explained by exchemist.

No, you refuse to give thought to a different perspective of the same thing.

Maybe you want to argue this line when you're actually addressing Quantum Creationism yourself?
You don't seem to be.

Chaos was not an "initial condition" of space-time? What then caused the gradual ordering of spacetime into dynamic regular and irregular causal patterns?

Chaos doesn't cause anything, which is the implication of your second question after the first.
Chaos is surely a description of the system, not itself a cause.
If a system made the output bigger than the input, the cause is not "makes bigger", but rather the cause is that part of the system that actually produces the output from the input.
The "makes bigger" is just a relative description of output to input.
Not a cause.

 

[Sarkus]

Quantum Creationism, however, is the idea that we create reality through observation.
It is linked to quantum mechanics through the Copenhagen interpretation, as I understand QC, and is given a new-age spin by trying to suggest that you can be in control of what is created.

Not sure that the latter is quite correct - i.e. I'm not sure that the suggestion is that you can control it. At least not according to this site. Well, at least not from a science point of view. It does seem to wander into the idea that you create your own destiny, and seems pseudoscience at best. But this may not be what "Quantum Creationism" is. It's not as defined in the OP, for example.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: Chaos was not an "initial condition" of space-time? What then caused the gradual ordering of spacetime into dynamic regular and irregular causal patterns?

Chaos doesn't cause anything, which is the implication of your second question after the first.
Chaos is surely a description of the system, not itself a cause.

Yes, I don't think my statement lends itself to your interpretation. The statement was in reference to the probabilistic self-ordering of chaotic systems (see chaos theory). Entropy is a result, not a cause.

What is it that causes the self-ordering of regular patterns within a chaotic system? Surely not entropy?

UNIVERSE CHAOTIC FROM VERY BEGINNING
September 7, 2010 | by Megan Fellman

A new Northwestern study, combined with an early-universe model, shows that the universe was born inherently chaotic.

EVANSTON, Ill. --- Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic. Now he and a colleague have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments.

The study, published by the journal Communications in Mathematical Physics, reports not only that chaos is absolute but also the mathematical tools that can be used to detect it. When applied to the most accepted model for the evolution of the universe, these tools demonstrate that the early universe was chaotic.

Certain things are absolute. The speed of light, for example, is the same with respect to any observer in the empty space. Others are relative. Think of the pitch of a siren on an ambulance, which goes from high to low as it passes the observer. A longstanding problem in physics has been to determine whether chaos -- the phenomenon by which tiny events lead to very large changes in the time evolution of a system, such as the universe -- is absolute or relative in systems governed by general relativity, where the time itself is relative.

more..... https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/09/universe-chaotic-from-beginning.html#

Maybe you want to argue this line when you're actually addressing Quantum Creationism yourself?
You don't seem to be.

On the contrary, it is you who is arguing "entropy", not Quantum Creationism.

Low entropy does not imply "order" at all, it implies a rate of exchange of energy.

When you start with a singularity it is expected to have low entropy. But when a singularity expands at FTL the entropy increases exponentially, no?

Related

Q: Can we infer the Big Bang from the law of entropy? In a past-oriented timeline, entropy should decrease until a point of minimum entropy (the singularity).

A: No. The Big Bang is about the expansion of space. Nothing about entropy says anything about space one way or the other.

The second law of thermodynamics does imply that entropy was lower in the past, but there’s really no such thing as “minimum entropy”. You could say there is one at absolute zero, but the Big Bang certainly wasn’t that.

You could say that there is one if everything is at a point, but that’s not really the Big Bang, either; that’s a singularity to which thermodynamic laws don’t apply. The actual amount of entropy in the universe actually changes as the universe creates more space and more energy.

So yes, we knew that the universe must have had a more ordered past, but you can’t derive any of the specifics of the Big Bang from that.

more… https://www.quora.com/Does-the-entr...crease-decrease-or-remain-the-same-over-time#

 

[C C]

Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Religion binds together a community (or alternatively a fellowship of scattered members) via its systematic practices, thought-orientations, folklore/allegories, standards for conduct, etc.

Whereas this sounds more like a [proposed] ideological subcomponent of a potential religion, than something that would in and of itself be sufficient for accomplishing all that.
_

 

[Write4U]

Whereas this sounds more like a [proposed] ideological subcomponent of a potential religion, than something that would in and of itself be sufficient for accomplishing all that.

IMO there is something that is sufficient in and of itself, not as a causal force, but more as a "guiding equation" in a dynamic fractal environment.

And here it always lands on the definition of a "quantum value" and how relational quantum values interact with each other in a logically orderly (mathematical) fashion that results in the self-forming patterns so ubiquitous throughout the universe.

I cannot see any objection to the concept that spacetime geometry and dynamics are stochastic "quantum creators", and in no way intentionally directed as in ID.

I see a "probabilistic deterministic" mechanism and I mean that the interrelational events are probabilistic but the actual relational functions are mathematically deterministic and measurable. "Value in - Function - Value out".
There can be no simpler creative process. Just right for the beginning...

 

[Write4U]

Not sure that the latter is quite correct - i.e. I'm not sure that the suggestion is that you can control it. At least not according to this site. Well, at least not from a science point of view. It does seem to wander into the idea that you create your own destiny, and seems pseudoscience at best. But this may not be what "Quantum Creationism" is. It's not as defined in the OP, for example.

Roger Penrose sees it exactly the other way around. He believes that the wave function collapse is causal to observation (measurement), not the other way around. And that makes perfect logical sense.
And that approach has so many profound implications and clears up so many fabricated fables.

The Penrose interpretation is a speculation by Roger Penrose about the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Penrose proposes that a quantum state remains in superposition until the difference of space-time curvature attains a significant level.[1][2][3]

"differential equations" are important! They are a sign of creative "guiding principles".

Overview[edit]

Penrose's idea is inspired by quantum gravity, because it uses both the physical constants ℏ and �. It is an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that superposition fails when an observation is made (but that it is non-objective in nature), and the many-worlds interpretation, which states that alternative outcomes of a superposition are equally "real", while their mutual decoherence precludes subsequent observable interactions.

more .... huhhh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation#

 

[Write4U]

A moment’s googling will tell you the entropy of the very early universe was extremely low. This implies a high, not a low, state of order. So no, “chaos”, whatever you mean by that rather biblical choice of term, is an extremely poor description of it.

Chaos Theory is a biblical paper?

I have no idea what you mean by a “permittive condition”. Permittivity to me is the degree to which an electric field is transmitted in a medium.

Permittivity, however, is to do with electrical energy, and electric fields, as explained by exchemist.

Indeed, and what are the implications of a "permittive condition"?
Are we talking about wave function collapse as a creative quantum event? Is spacetime permittive of electro/magnetic wave functions? I hope so.

Electromagnetic (EM) waves are changing electric and magnetic fields, transporting energy and momentum through space. EM waves are solutions of Maxwell's equations, which are the fundamental equations of electrodynamics. EM waves require no medium, they can travel through empty space. Sinusoidal plane waves are one type of electromagnetic waves. Not all EM waves are sinusoidal plane waves, but all electromagnetic waves can be viewed as a linear superposition of sinusoidal plane waves traveling in arbitrary directions.

Electromagnetic waves transport energy and momentum across space. The energy and momentum transported by an electromagnetic wave are not continuously distributed over the wave front. Energy and momentum are transported by photons in discrete packages. Photons are the particles of light. http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m1/emwaves.htm#:~:text

Quanta ...... busy creating stuff!