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

[Yazata]

I agree.

However at this point it may be worth re-iterating that the reasons why a number of religions propose a personal god have little or nothing to do with first cause or any other Science-related argument. They are based on the teaching and example of various historical, or at least arguably historical, figures and are grounded in literature, ritual, music, tradition and personal aesthetic and emotional experience. They have far more to do with the humanities than with science and their real purpose is to guide individual people in living their lives. The thing that irritates me about Dawkins and Krauss is their pig-headed insistence that religion is about trying to answer questions about the cosmos and therefore if they can provide answer to that via science, it destroys religion. That's just balls.

Since this is supposed to be the forum for scholarly consideration of religion, I'll quote this from Wikipedia about the ancient Roman philosopher Varro:

"Marcus Terentius Varro in his (lost) Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum established a distinction between three kinds of theology: civil (political) (theologia civilis), natural (physical) (theologia naturalis) and mythical (theologia mythica). The theologians of civil theology are "the people", asking how the gods relate to daily life and the state (imperial cult). The theologians of natural theology are the philosophers, asking about the nature of the gods, and the theologians of mythical theology are the poets, crafting mythology."

Those distinctions are still pretty much in use. Today the big distinction in the study of religion is between what are termed 'natural theology' and 'revealed theology'.

Natural theology is concerned with what we can (supposedly) know about God through examination of the natural world. It's the province of the traditional theological arguments: the design argument, the first cause argument and so on. The recent 'fine tuning' arguments belong here. Natural theology kind of reduces God to a set of metaphysical functions. (As for me, I'm an agnostic regarding most of natural theology and an atheist regarding the rest.)

Revealed theology is concerned with what (supposedly) can only be known through revelation. It includes things like Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God's revelation in the Quran and so on. (As for me, I'm an atheist regarding all revealed theology.)

And there's a vague and heterogeneous category that we can call Popular religion, the religion of how people actually believe and behave out on the streets. It may have little to do with philosophical thought or with orthodox religious traditions or revelations. It probably extends to belief in UFO aliens, ghost hauntings, spiritualism and similar things. (I have some sympathy with this one but don't really share it, beyond a tremendous sense of profound mystery that constantly surrounds me at every moment. That's what has always attracted me to philosophy.)

Historically, Deism is probably best described as doubt about revealed theology with continued adherence to natural theology. Once the Protestant reformation ushered in an era of skepticism about many of the fundamentals of Catholic belief (Mary, the Saints...) which were central to popular religiosity, all in the name of what's written in the Bible, the genie (of modernity) was out of the bottle. The next generation of thinkers started thinking skeptically about the Bible as well. So the more avant-garde European intellectuals entered into a period when natural theology was emphasized. (We see it in the writings of the British empiricists, the 'philosophes' and the 'Age of Reason' in general.) That's why Deism is often said to be the idea that God created the universe (the first-cause and especially the design argument seemed unassailable) but then let it operate according to its own inherent "laws" (which opened up space for the new Scientific Revolution and its Newtonian mechanics).

I think that Dawkins is basically right that Darwin was perceived as knocking the support out from under the design argument, previously natural theology's strongest. It's part of why we see Deism disappearing in the 19th century, to be replaced by full-frontal Atheism. (But I think that Dawkins is smoking crack if he thinks that Krauss has the same historical importance today.)

 

[exchemist]

Since this is supposed to be the forum for scholarly consideration of religion, I'll quote this from Wikipedia about the ancient Roman philosopher Varro:

"Marcus Terentius Varro in his (lost) Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum established a distinction between three kinds of theology: civil (political) (theologia civilis), natural (physical) (theologia naturalis) and mythical (theologia mythica). The theologians of civil theology are "the people", asking how the gods relate to daily life and the state (imperial cult). The theologians of natural theology are the philosophers, asking about the nature of the gods, and the theologians of mythical theology are the poets, crafting mythology."

Those distinctions are still pretty much in use. Today the big distinction in the study of religion is between what are termed 'natural theology' and 'revealed theology'.

Natural theology is concerned with what we can (supposedly) know about God through examination of the natural world. It's the province of the traditional theological arguments: the design argument, the first cause argument and so on. The recent 'fine tuning' arguments belong here. Natural theology kind of reduces God to a set of metaphysical functions. (As for me, I'm an agnostic regarding most of natural theology and an atheist regarding the rest.)

Revealed theology is concerned with what (supposedly) can only be known through revelation. It includes things like Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God's revelation in the Quran and so on. (As for me, I'm an atheist regarding all revealed theology.)

And there's a vague and heterogeneous category that we can call Popular religion, the religion of how people actually believe and behave out on the streets. It may have little to do with philosophical thought or with orthodox religious traditions or revelations. It probably extends to belief in UFO aliens, ghost hauntings, spiritualism and similar things. (I have some sympathy with this one but don't really share it, beyond a tremendous sense of profound mystery that constantly surrounds me at every moment. That's what has always attracted me to philosophy.)

Historically, Deism is probably best described as doubt about revealed theology with continued adherence to natural theology. Once the Protestant reformation ushered in an era of skepticism about many of the fundamentals of Catholic belief (Mary, the Saints...) which were central to popular religiosity, all in the name of what's written in the Bible, the genie (of modernity) was out of the bottle. The next generation of thinkers started thinking skeptically about the Bible as well. So the more avant-garde European intellectuals entered into a period when natural theology was emphasized. (We see it in the writings of the British empiricists, the 'philosophes' and the 'Age of Reason' in general.) That's why Deism is often said to be the idea that God created the universe (the first-cause and especially the design argument seemed unassailable) but then let it operate according to its own inherent "laws" (which opened up space for the new Scientific Revolution and its Newtonian mechanics).

I think that Dawkins is basically right that Darwin was perceived as knocking the support out from under the design argument, previously natural theology's strongest. It's part of why we see Deism disappearing in the 19th century, to be replaced by full-frontal Atheism. (But I think that Dawkins is smoking crack if he thinks that Krauss has the same historical importance today.)

All good and interesting stuff.

It was James's reference to a personal god I was addressing. This would presumably be the province of revealed rather than natural theology.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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:

Psalm 33:9
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Q.E.D.

As for this topic of debate, I propose that quantum creationism is a religion.

Theorem 2
Quantum creationists exist.

Proof:

Prof. Alexander Vilenkin, Director, Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, satisfies the definition of a quantum creationist.

Q.E.D.

proof of existance of belief is not proof of fact of that which is believed.
that is called opinion.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

proof of existance of belief is not proof of fact of that which is believed.

No such conclusion was entertained.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

No such conclusion was entertained.

Theorem 1
This definition is well-defined.

Proof:

Psalm 33:9
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Theorem 2
Quantum creationists exist.

Proof:

Prof. Alexander Vilenkin, Director, Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, satisfies the definition of a quantum creationist.

"belief" as a facet of scientific proof is by its definition repeatable by a process that is not individual or individuated.

(my point) thus; to use 'proof' & 'belief' inside the same sentence to determine a value of the whole is by its design, flawed in the nature of both Belief & Fact.

thus; rendering 2 competing paradigms that illicit values pertaining to both inside the same comlete outcome offer bias as a means to formulate.

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest

In the Orch OR proposal, reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs by an objective factor - Roger Penrose's quantum gravity threshold stemming from instability in Planck-scale separations (superpositions) in spacetime geometry.
Output states following Penrose's objective reduction are neither totally deterministic nor random, but influenced by a non-computable factor ingrained in fundamental spacetime. Taking a modern panpsychist view in which protoconscious experience and Platonic values are embedded in Planck-scale spin networks, the Orch OR model portrays consciousness as brain activities linked to fundamental ripples in spacetime geometry.

https://www.scopus.com/record/displ...inward&txGid=fd478df9d4e8d592c2aad3be38ec317f

 

[Dennis Tate]

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:

Psalm 33:9
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Q.E.D.

As for this topic of debate, I propose that quantum creationism is a religion.

Theorem 2
Quantum creationists exist.

Proof:

Prof. Alexander Vilenkin, Director, Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, satisfies the definition of a quantum creationist.

Q.E.D.

I think that I may be something of a Quantum Creationist myself.

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that I may be something of a Quantum Creationist myself.

There's a conundrum that comes along with such a belief.
Read up on Boltzmann brains.


The short version is:

For a hypothetical universe that has popped into existence out of nothingness is incalculably unlikely, but not zero.

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

A brain is one of the most complex things we know, but it is vastly simpler than an entire universe. Indeed, it is vastly simpler than an entire planet full of brains that have bodies to keep them alive.

So: disembodied brains should spontaneously pop into existence - floating in the vast emptiness of space - for no other reason than a chance configuration of gaseous molecules and dust.

In fact - if this universe has formed spontaneously out of nothing through some quantum improbability - it follows directly that it should be bursting at the seams with Boltzmann brains.

(This is oversimplified for space. See the Wiki article for a more thorough treatment.)

 

[Dennis Tate]

There's a conundrum that comes along with such a belief.
Read up on Boltzmann brains.


The short version is:

For a hypothetical universe that has popped into existence out of nothingness is incalculably unlikely, but not zero.

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

A brain is one of the most complex things we know, but it is vastly simpler than an entire universe. Indeed, it is vastly simpler than an entire planet full of brains that have bodies to keep them alive.

So: disembodied brains should spontaneously pop into existence - floating in the vast emptiness of space - for no other reason than a chance configuration of gaseous molecules and dust.

In fact - if this universe has formed spontaneously out of nothing through some quantum improbability - it follows directly that it should be bursting at the seams with Boltzmann brains.

(This is oversimplified for space. See the Wiki article for a more thorough treatment.)

But... chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe gives an explanation of the Cyclic Model of the universe that would add infinite time for fundamental and / or nearly fundamental energy to move around and form circuitry previous to the comparatively recent Big Bang event of merely thirteen point eight billion years ago. This radically alters the probability.

The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a false memory of having existed in our universe) than it is for the universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. It was first proposed as a reductio ad absurdum response to Ludwig Boltzmann's early explanation for the low-entropy state of our universe.[1]

In this physics thought experiment, a Boltzmann brain is a fully formed brain, complete with memories of a full human life in our universe, that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Theoretically, over an extremely large but not infinite amount of time, by sheer chance atoms in a void could spontaneously come together in such a way as to assemble a functioning human brain. Like any brain in such circumstances, it would almost immediately stop functioning and begin to deteriorate.[2]

That chapter entitled The Anthropic Principle does imply infinite time for fundamental energy to be moving around ..... so... it should form circuitry of some type and begin to learn and learn and learn and experiment.

 

[Write4U]

But... chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe gives an explanation of the Cyclic Model of the universe that would add infinite time for fundamental and / or nearly fundamental energy to move around and form circuitry previous to the comparatively recent Big Bang event of merely thirteen point eight billion years ago. This radically alters the probability.

I like the direction this is taking, but I doubt that this current universe is older than 13.8 billion years.

That chapter entitled The Anthropic Principle does imply infinite time for fundamental energy to be moving around ..... so... it should form circuitry of some type and begin to learn and learn and learn and experiment.

I agree with that logic, but how do we get past the BB, the chaotic beginning of this universe? It's obvious that whatever came before this universe, did not transfer to this universe.
3 fundamental particles emerging from a state of pure chaos?

It is my position that 13.8 billion years is plenty long for this mathematical universe to evolve and pattern itself as it has.

13 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, a trillion trillion years, what difference does any of that make? It is and always will have been a probabilistic event.

Regardless of what came before, it is clear we know this time it worked.

 

[Write4U]

Natural theology kind of reduces God to a set of metaphysical functions. (As for me, I'm an agnostic regarding most of natural theology and an atheist regarding the rest.)

I'm agnostic, leaning to certainty of "natural teleology", as described in Chaos Theory and the proposition that certain mathematical (logical) conditions made it necessary for the universe to evolve as it has.

That's why Deism is often said to be the idea that God created the universe (the first-cause and especially the design argument seemed unassailable) but then let it operate according to its own inherent "laws" (which opened up space for the new Scientific Revolution and its Newtonian mechanics).

My problem with that is, when the universe was created there was no design whatever, there was only chaos. Why is there an assumption that a motivated designer was necessary, when creation itself was chaotic and without design, and not the idea that it was just "necessary" for a chaotic creation to occur?
However I totally agree that the universe operates in accordance to its own inherent (mathematical) laws, which, I believe really explains everything.

I think that Dawkins is basically right that Darwin was perceived as knocking the support out from under the design argument, previously natural theology's strongest. It's part of why we see Deism disappearing in the 19th century, to be replaced by full-frontal Atheism.

Yes, Cause/Causation needs not be by design. It is a fundamental axiomatic logical operation. It does not need to be motivated, nor precise, and may be probabilistic, as long as it is causal, which is exactly what appears to have been causal to the BB. No design, no order, just chaos.
Then an hierarchical ordering via logical processes, which recognized and named "physics'

IMO, a motivated creator being is not only supernatural, it is superfluous.

 

[Dennis Tate]

I like the direction this is taking, but I doubt that this current universe is older than 13.8 billion years.
I agree with that logic, but how do we get past the BB, the chaotic beginning of this universe? It's obvious that whatever came before this universe, did not transfer to this universe.
3 fundamental particles emerging from a state of pure chaos?

It is my position that 13.8 billion years is plenty long for this mathematical universe to evolve and pattern itself as it has.

13 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, a trillion trillion years, what difference does any of that make? It is and always will have been a probabilistic event.

Regardless of what came before, it is clear we know this time it worked.

Some other articles that I read elaborated on this which to my thinking indicates the type of energy that would lead to the Cyclic Model of the universe that Hawking and others postulated that could mean an essentially infinite number of Big Band plus grand collapses before our rather recent BB of 13.8 billion years ago.

M-theory suffers from the same flaws that string theories did. First is the problem of empirical accessibility. Membranes, like strings, are supposedly very, very tiny—as small compared with a proton as a proton is compared with the solar system. This is the so-called Planck scale, 10^–33 centimeters. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of membranes or strings that we have for, say, quarks would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around, scaling up from our current technology. Our entire solar system is only one light-day around, and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator, is 27 kilometers in circumference.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

That is similar to what I read back in the 1990's.....

"The real burden in the next three centuries will not be the development of fancy mathematics, but the experimental testing of these ambitious theories. All current thinking about total unification assumes that the effects of linking all the forces and particles together will only become manifest at energies that are some trillion times greater than those currently attainable in particle accelerators. Probably we shall never reach such energies directly" ( A Theory of Everything" Volume 21 of "The World ofScience)
www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

[Dennis Tate]

I like the direction this is taking, but I doubt that this current universe is older than 13.8 billion years.
I agree with that logic, but how do we get past the BB, the chaotic beginning of this universe? It's obvious that whatever came before this universe, did not transfer to this universe.
3 fundamental particles emerging from a state of pure chaos?

It is my position that 13.8 billion years is plenty long for this mathematical universe to evolve and pattern itself as it has.

13 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, a trillion trillion years, what difference does any of that make? It is and always will have been a probabilistic event.

Regardless of what came before, it is clear we know this time it worked.

Some other articles that I read indicates the type of energy that would lead to the Cyclic Model of the Universe that Hawking and others postulated that could mean an essentially infinite number of Big Bang plus grand collapses before our rather recent BB of 13.8 billion years ago.

M-theory suffers from the same flaws that string theories did. First is the problem of empirical accessibility. Membranes, like strings, are supposedly very, very tiny—as small compared with a proton as a proton is compared with the solar system. This is the so-called Planck scale, 10^–33 centimeters. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of membranes or strings that we have for, say, quarks would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around, scaling up from our current technology. Our entire solar system is only one light-day around, and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator, is 27 kilometers in circumference.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

That is similar to what I read back in the 1990's.....

"The real burden in the next three centuries will not be the development of fancy mathematics, but the experimental testing of these ambitious theories. All current thinking about total unification assumes that the effects of linking all the forces and particles together will only become manifest at energies that are some trillion times greater than those currently attainable in particle accelerators. Probably we shall never reach such energies directly" ( A Theory of Everything" Volume 21 of "The World ofScience)
www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

I get the impression that Hawking and others think that the energy that could produce the Cyclic Model would exist for infinite time rather than merely just before the BB. So in what way was that energy moving around and could it form something like computer circuitry and begin to learn and evolve????

So in a sense..... "Quantum Creationism" might be both science or religion... but it would indicate that the first Intelligence.... was first and foremost a Scientist and Inventor.... and would get into Philosophy somewhat later on after other intelligences had been invented.

 

[Write4U]

Some other articles that I read indicates the type of energy that would lead to the Cyclic Model of the Universe that Hawking and others postulated that could mean an essentially infinite number of Big Bang plus grand collapses before our rather recent BB of 13.8 billion years ago

Let's assume a "cyclical multiverse" is correct. And grant that "creation is a first instance".

It would make the multiverse as the created object infinitely long ago and this universe an evolved expression of the multiverse, just like humans were not created but evolved from a prior expression of hominids and by extension from multi-biology....

But if Creation is a first instance, the concept of an infinite number of cycles produces a contradiction.

When applying any kind of logical unpacking of chronological events, the entire premise of Creationism becomes very confusing.

Moreover, I really think Occam was correct and that "irreducible complexity" also presents a contradiction in terms of evolutionary processes.

Which would effectively rule out the concept of a created multiverse, fully stocked with budding universes, where most other universes became extinct by virtue of natural selection, and this universe is a survivor of the species of physical universes.

And that might be possible given the simplicity of early particle formation.

 

[Write4U]

How To Re-Make The Big Bang 4 min

Well a little one anyway... Europe's CERN particle accelerator squirts protons toward light speed; then smashes them together, producing a tiny event similar to the start of our universe. Here's the step by step recipe.

Depending on which combination of particles the researchers smashed together, the tiny, liquid-like globs of plasma formed one of three distinct geometric shapes: circles, ellipses or triangles. [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang & Early Universe]

This graphic shows how different types of atomic collisions produce quark-gluon plasmas in distinct shapes over time. In the top row, a single proton was smashed into a gold atom to create a circular blob of plasma. In the middle row, a collision between a deuteron (a proton-neutron pair) and a gold atom forms an elliptic blob. In the bottom row, a collision between helium-3 and a gold atom forms a triangle. (Image credit: PHENIX/Nature 2018)

https://videos.space.com/m/q0seZKVo/how-to-re-make-the-big-bang?list=9wzCTV4g

 

[Dennis Tate]

Let's assume a "cyclical multiverse" is correct. And grant that "creation is a first instance".

It would make the multiverse as the created object infinitely long ago and this universe an evolved expression of the multiverse, just like humans were not created but evolved from a prior expression of hominids and by extension from multi-biology....

But if Creation is a first instance, the concept of an infinite number of cycles produces a contradiction.

When applying any kind of logical unpacking of chronological events, the entire premise of Creationism becomes very confusing.

Moreover, I really think Occam was correct and that "irreducible complexity" also presents a contradiction in terms of evolutionary processes.

Which would effectively rule out the concept of a created multiverse, fully stocked with budding universes, where most other universes became extinct by virtue of natural selection, and this universe is a survivor of the species of physical universes.

And that might be possible given the simplicity of early particle formation.

If it were designed.....
and is somewhat like a work of art.....
it could be that the Creator is at this time in a phase where this type of universe is the favourite.


That might be due to the Creator enjoying this type of universe more.....
or it could be because the Creator does not want to leave all of us behind and has to slow down to bring us up to speed.

 

[Write4U]

If it were designed.....
and is somewhat like a work of art.....
it could be that the Creator is at this time in a phase where this type of universe is the favourite.

Plasma is Art?

That might be due to the Creator enjoying this type of universe more.....

Yes, and wouldn't it be fun if pigs could fly?

or it could be because the Creator does not want to leave all of us behind and has to slow down to bring us up to speed.

What are you talking about? God does not want all of us behind?

Oh, just 90% of all species which have gone extinct. We are privileged ones, but of course so are Covid viruses.

If this was God's plan of creating a perfect world, he has failed miserably.

OTOH implacable Quantum creationism produces the exact results we can observe today. I see no benign intent by some supernatural Daddy. It's all in accordance with mindless mathematical physical interactions.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Plasma is Art? Yes, and wouldn't it be fun if pigs could fly? What are you talking about? God does not want all of us behind?

Oh, just 90% of all species which have gone extinct. We are privileged ones, but of course so are Covid viruses.

If this was God's plan of creating a perfect world, he has failed miserably.

OTOH implacable Quantum creationism produces the exact results we can observe today. I see no benign intent by some supernatural Daddy. It's all in accordance with mindless mathematical physical interactions.

There is evidence from some aspects of parapsychology that indicates that nothing is extinct but prehistoric time periods can still be visited..... it is just that the technology for us humans to do that is not available yet. The Jurassic Park movies give us an idea of how badly that could turn out if we could visit the distant past.

 

[Write4U]

There is evidence from some aspects of parapsychology that indicates that nothing is extinct but prehistoric time periods can still be visited..... it is just that the technology for us humans to do that is not available yet. The Jurassic Park movies give us an idea of how badly that could turn out if we could visit the distant past.

No Dennis, you are engaging in false equivalency.

Using some surviving fossil DNA to restore an extinct species is not anywhere the same as visiting prehistoric times, when the earth's ecology and biosphere was completely different than it is now.. In order to go back to that time one would have to travel back in time and that is impossible. The only way to travel back in time is by observation at extreme distances, where an observation of a distant "present" arrives in our present after having traveled millions of light years, and is completely beyond our physical ability to revisit, even if traveling at the speed of light.

On earth, traveling back in time is impossible, in spite of the entertaining stories of time-machines. The mathematical physics involved just will not allow this. For one thing, your own personal time-line will always go forward, and physically traveling back in time while you physically go forward in time creates a unsolvable paradox, IMO..

 

[Write4U]

What I find totally illogical about religion is the fact that God is assumed to be a motivated entity, which is where all the religious conflicts stem from.

Contrary to religious teachings, A motivated God is NOT a common denominator.
Every religion has their own interpretation of God’s wishes and desires and where they are incompatible the most human cruel behaviors and bloody wars in the name of God can be the result.

Why cannot everyone agree that a purely stochastic guiding force of Universal mathematics is demonstrably the single most logical answer to the question?

No emotion, no intent, no anger, no desire, no reward. Just mathematically based cause and result. No one to blame, no one to claim victory. However, use incorrect mathematics and the results will be mathematically "confounded".

Is this too simple in scope? Why do we have Science to describe the mathematical nature of Nature? It’s simplicity? Or perhaps, it is too complicated?

Has anyone ever gone to war over mathematics or are mathematics all the same to everyone and everything in the universe?

Can it be argued that mathematical values and functions are the Common Denominators of Everything . Think about it!

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

It is neither. It is the causal conversion from subtle potential (the Implicate) to gross physical expression (the Explicate) in reality. What humans believe has absolutely no influence on this timeless chronology. We are merely another probabilistic result.