7 comments

  1. While it is intriguing to postulate possibilities not only for man AND God based on quantum theory, the Copenhagen Interpretation is fast approaching postmortem status. The metaphysics of the German contingent led by Bohr has been overwhelmingly documented – they wanted a quantum that was “neither wave or particle” before “collapse”. But most have inferred that the quantum, “before collapse” was in an “either or” state that was only determined probabilistically. At present, there is a growing community of scientists that have peered behind the curtain of the mystical quantum and realized that a better and more consistently demonstrable model of the quantum was proposed by de Broglie. Bohr’s contingent was successful in shouting down de Broglie’s Pilot Wave Theory at the 1927 Solvey conference. It wasn’t until 1950 when David Bohm, who wrote a textbook on Quantum Theory, still being dissatisfied with the Copenhagen Interpretation of the double slit experiments that he revisited de Broglie’s Pilot Wave and with some modification has given a more intuitive model of the quantum. That is, the de Broglie-Bohm model of the Pilot Wave Theory where the quantum has a field associated with it. That model satisfies the relevant equations of motion without the invocation of the “mystery” state of the quantum.

    Bohr wanted a way to change epistemology and found it in the ambiguity of the mathematics of the equations of motion for the quantum. The de Broglie-Bohm model has situated the quantum back in the world where causality is uniform and intuitively explained.

    http://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

      1. Some in the Open Theism community have thought to press the case for “free-will” base on the putative “quantum indeterminacy” between wave or particle . The truth is, that the postulation that the quantum is both wave and particle is not founded on a purely scientific, or at least metaphysically free, scientific method. Consequently, Open Theism derives no help in their affirmation of the freedom of the will, and runs the risk of compromising the legitimacy of the “open theism” position per see by invoking metaphysically disguised scientific claims.

          1. That and, it behoves even the academic professors of open theism to make sure they actually understand the mechanics of Quantum as formulated before they make metaphysical assumptions.

Leave a Reply