Quantum Theory, God, and Carl Peterson | Quantum Theology – Patheos

Quantum TheologyCarl Peterson, physicist

Quantum theory and God? Any connection? Should we construct a quantum theology(OMurchu, 2021)?

Hybrid physicist and theologian, the late John Polkinghorne, would certainly answer in the affirmative: we need quantum theology. Questions of causality ultimately demand metaphysical answering (Polkinghorne, 2006, p. 139). However, such metaphysical answering might not be simple. Why? Because Niels Bohrs Copenhagen version of quantum theory is indeterminist, while David Bohms holistic version is determinist. Whats a theologian to do?

Let me elaborate slightly. Copenhagen indeterminism is observational, not ontological. Bohmian determinism provides an ontology, a comprehensive worldview. Still, we ask, what is a theologian to do about these competing models of quantum mechanics?

Hybrid physicist and theologian Robert John Russell proposes a theological answering with his principle of NIODA (Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action). Russells quantum theology is based on Copenhagen indeterminism. Still, we ask: might Bohms metaphysical answer and Russells theological answer be compatible? Well ask physicist Carl Peterson.

In this Patheos post, Id like to turn to a controversy youre not likely to learn much about on social media or Patheos. Its the debate among physicists over the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM for short). What happens within the atom at the quantum level? Do those fast moving electrons and photons obey deterministic laws? Or not?

Why is this important? Because exploring sub-atomic physics brings us as close to fundamental to reality as we can get. Thats why. And, mystery of all mysteries, micro-reality seems to be indeterministic. That is, it seems to be. Maybe theres a determinism that is hidden. Mmmmm? Might this affect quantum theology?

So, dear reader, I recommend you bracket out for a few moments any preset views you hold about supernaturalism, miracles, and anti-religious venom. Simply listen in on a controversy within science that could have implications for quantum theology. We will ask as John Horgan in Scientific American asks, What does God, Quantum Mechanics, and Consciousness Have in Common? Our proposed answers will look quite different, let me warn you.

Carl Peterson (Ph.D. Ohio University) is a physicist working both in academia and private industry. He taught physics and chemistry at Ohio Wesleyan University and Columbus State University. He has published on the electronic structure of polyatomic molecules. Today, as an independent scholar, he seeks to break the hegemony of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and advocates instead for David Bohms ontological interpretation in quantum theory.

Carl Peterson is not a quantum theologian. Yet, what he says about physics should make a quantum theologian sit up and take notice.

Our atheist friends keep whining that there is no such thing as a supernatural realm (Atkins, 2006). This means, there is no such thing as a miracle. And, if there are no miracles, then religion is bunk. Curiously, atheists can be just as superstitious as the religious believers they renounce. But, thats another topic.

What is our present topic? Here it is: how does God work in the natural realm without supernatural intervention? The problem with atheists talking about supernaturalism is that they leap and scream like cheer leaders for naturalism. But, theologians are quite happy with studying how God works within the natural world in ordinary ways. So, by staring at the cheer leaders, our atheist friends have not noticed the actual game being played.

When we turn to the actual game being played, we see questions that require both scientists and theologians to address. Here is such a question: how can God act in the natural world providentially yet not supernaturally or miraculously? At the quantum level within the atom, does God act in such a way that we experience it at the level of our human experience?

This is the kind of question asked by my friend and colleague, Robert John Russell. Bob is founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. Bob thinks he finds an answer in the indeterministic interpretation of QM.

When we shift to an indeterministic world, a new possibility opens up. One can now speak of objective acts of God that do not require Gods miraculous intervention but offer, instead, an account of objective divine action that is completely consistent with science.(Russell, 2008, p. 128).

Relying on indeterminism at the microlevel, Bob advances his QM-NIODA theory: Quantum Mechanical Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action. If God acts together with nature to produce the events of objective divine action, God is not acting as a natural, efficient cause(Russell, 2008, p. 128). Or, Essentially what science describes without reference to God is precisely what God, working invisibly in, with, and through the processes of nature, is accomplishing(Russell, 2008, p. 214).

In what follows, Id like to put Bobs theological interpretation of QM to the test. How? By interviewing physicist Carl Peterson. Carl, as you will see, will not grant the indeterminist interpretation of QM put forth by Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school. What might this mean for Bobs NIODA theory(Russell, The Physics of David Bohm and Its Relevance to Philosophy and Theology, 1985)?

CP.1. I dont believe the indeterminist interpretation at Copenhagen is mistaken. Its just inadequate. Or, better, Bohms ontological interpretation is more adequate.

But first, alittle bit of history about Bohms interpretation!In February of 1951, Bohm published an advanced book that he entitledQuantumTheory (Bohm D. , Quantum Theory, 1951). This book has twenty-three chapters. When one reads the last two chapters, it seems that Bohm accepted Bohrs response to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosens (EPR) criticisms of quantum mechanics not being complete, in favor of Bohrs indeterminist interpretation.

However, after publishing the book, and discussing it and the EPR criticism about quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein, Bohm started rethinking some of his concepts and statements in the book. Primarily, about hidden variables and the, well known, underlying concerns with the Copenhagen interpretation and its measurement problem. Bohms first two papers setting forth his renewed thoughts on those subjects were received by Physical Review on July 5, 1951. This was four months after the publication of his book. Bohm entitled his papers: A suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables I & II (Bohm D. , A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hiddon Variables I and II, 1952). In his acknowledgment he thanked Dr. Einstein for several interesting and stimulating discussions.

Now to Bohms Hidden Variables interpretation! Bohm put the wavefunction in the form normally used to have the Schrdinger equation (SE) reduced to classical mechanics. Next he inserted it into the Schrdinger equation (Bohm called the SE the mathematical apparatus). And then, by separating the real and imaginary parts he obtained two equations of motion, one forR, and one forS. However, Bohm did not proceed directly to the classical limit, as is usually done, by setting the quantum of action,h=0, in the equation of motion forSsincehnever equals0.He theorized there might be more microstructure associated with the quantum field than had previously been determined or realized by retaining the quantum of action (That was his visionary move).

The questions arising on suggesting more microstructure became, by producing two equations of motion, that are rigorously equivalent to the SE. What is their physical interpretation? Does the microstructure add to the underlying independent reality of the wavefunction? Does its ontology still lead to agreement with experimental observations? Keep in mind there is no ontology associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. So, Bohm went to work on answering these questions!

TP. Interjection. Recall what Polkinghorne said in the citation above: Questions of causality ultimately demand metaphysical answering(Polkinghorne, 2006, p. 139). Bohms ontology of QM provides such an answer. This ontological interpretation attracts Carl Peterson. TP

CP. Bohm reinterpreted the wavefunction as representing a fundamentally real field described by its amplitude function, R, and its phase function,S.Moreover, there are real particles. And, every real particle is never separated from its quantum field with a well-defined position that varies continuously and is causally determined. Bohm found that the average momentum is related to the phase function. And highly important, Bohm noted every particle in the equation of motion for S containeda classical potential,V, plus an additional term with the quantum of action.Bohm theorized the term could be considered an additional potential, which he called the quantum potential.

Furthermore, the quantum potential is the microstructure which introduces new concepts not considered or even accepted as essential in the structure of classical physics. Lets name a few: a), the quantum potential depends only on the mathematical form of its wavefunction, and not on the intensity of the quantum field. This is different from, for instance, the Newtonian gravitational potential, which tends to decrease with increasing distance apart. b), The reaction of each individual particle may dependnonlocallyon the configuration of the other particles regardless of distance, where the particle position and momenta arehidden variables. c),active information, different from the usual understanding in classical physics as a quantitative measure in communication but understood by Bohms interpretation as a feature of the quantum potential, in which very little energy directs or uses a much greater energy, he gives examples in many of his works, such as radio waves and the DNA molecule, d).Wholeness, whereby every region of space is connected by the quantum potential into an unbroken wholeness or unifying whole. Bohm discusses all these concepts in his book with B. J. Hiley,The Undivided Universe (Bohm D. a., 1994).

The mathematical apparatus still provides the necessary values for observed quantities just as the Copenhagen interpretation does. But it also provides for particles and trajectories in a completely deterministic system. That is, the initial position of a particle uniquely determines its future behavior. And in the words of the late James T. Cushing, which I have memorized, Here we have a logically consistent and empirically adequate deterministic theory of quantum phenomena. And I might add, whats the problem; why dont we use it?

CP.2. You ask: what does this quote from Bohm mean? I really like Bohms personification of his proposed view on the concept ofunbroken wholeness(Bohm D. , Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980) for interpreting two significant, as well as necessary, discoveries of twentieth century physics: Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. These two discoveries led to continued advancement in physics and the search for understanding the reality of the physical world, when many physicists believed there was nothing else to be accomplished in their discipline.

Let me state this question another way. What does it mean that Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are not consistent mathematically, but display anunbroken wholenessin their concepts?

Bohm was seeking some way forward where the mathematical apparatus would apply to both theories without contradictions in their concepts. What Bohm found was that relativity theory and quantum theory have the quality ofunbroken wholenessin common, although it is achieved in a different way, but theorized it may be a way forward.

First, lets consider how wholeness is achieved in relativity theory. Simply put, the basic idea is that a point in spacetime is called an event, which is totally distinct from all other point events. So, all structures may be seen as configurations in a universal field, which is a function of all the space-time points. Therefore, the field is continuous and inseparable. A particle (physical object) in the field has to be treated as a singularity or stable pulse of finite extent. The field around the stable pulse lessens in intensity with increasing distance from it, but it does not shrink to zero. As a result, allthe fields for the stable pulses merge to form a single structure, of unbroken wholeness. A singularity in space-time is non-mechanistic construct, which is independent of the Cartesian grid system.

Next, consider how wholeness is exhibited in Bohms interpretation of quantum theory. It is achieved throughactive informationlisted as a concept represented by the quantum potential. The quantum potential is the microstructure for transmitting influences on distance parts of the correlated quantum system through nonlocal connections. It basically interconnects all distant objects of the quantum field into a single system, and as Bohm states, with an objective quality ofunbroken wholeness.

In physics, all fields are defined by space-time points put in order and understood using the Cartesian co-ordinate grid. And, if necessary, they are extended to curvilinear coordinates. But it is a mechanistic order, whose parts have and independent existence in different regions of space and time. So, it has been and continues to be inadequate for ordering the unbroken wholeness and contradictions of quantum theory and relativity theory. Such a situation calls for seeking a different order that will allow both theories to be consistent conceptually, and potentially pave the way for further advancements to these theories. Bohm has suggested theImplicate Order,but this would be a discussion for another interview or paper.

CP.3. How do I, Carl Peterson, think a scientist should include consciousness? First let me emphasize:I am a Bohmian, no doubt. And work by Bohm on An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory (Bohm D. a., 1994) has shown there is a consistent and empirically adequate deterministic theory available.

In that regard, it would be fruitless to try to account for consciousness within the Cartesian coordinate grid system. In fact, any research in which the Cartesian coordinate grid system is used would not cohere with consciousness. Why? Because it is mechanistic.

However, paradoxically, it takes a conscious mind to be aware, to think, and do critical work in physics. This becomes clearer in quantum theory. Even so, consciousness doesnt appear in the equations.

Again, being a Bohmian I will follow his lead. It is Bohms proposal that the implicate order is where quantum theory and consciousness become compatible. And I agree with his proposal.

What is the implicate order you ask? My answer is: implicate order theory takes what quantum theory and relativity theory have in common, wholeness, and works naturally with their contradictions, which come from using the Cartesian grid, through the mental, physical and sensory awareness that embraces consciousness.

The theory is limited! No physical theory gives a perfect replica of reality, since a theory is part of the thought process. And the thought process is limited by information humans receive and their memory for retention of that information.

CP.4. You ask me about QM-NIODA. How might it change if the Bohmian interpretation was adopted rather than the Copenhagen interpretation?

Let me state emphatically that Bohmian determinism is compatible with QM-NIODA ontological indeterminism, and the measurement problem doesnt exist with Bohms interpretation. And, the quantum potential presents new concepts that have to be considered since they dont exist in the Copenhagen interpretation.

So, it seems to me that changes would come about because much of the activity that occurs in the microworld happens because of the quantum potential in Bohms interpretation. But Russell labels these thorny issues. Setting that statement aside, there are two types of changes that seem necessary to locate the physics for NIODA to cohere with the Bohmian interpretation. Number one leads to number two. I briefly discussed some features of number two earlier. The two types are:

1) new developments in physics always require attention to language. This is necessary to communicate the perception and thinking about the new development. Therefore, language would be the first type of change in NIODA.

2) different factors underlie the different language. Specifically, Russells NIODA needs to account for quantum potential as Bohmn articualtes it. Bohms visionary insight of recognizing the quantum potential, since activity is taking place in the quantum world because of it. Therefore, the features brought in by the quantum potential are most important as well with the different language. I mentioned four earlier. I see those as most crucial. Lets set the stage!

The mathematical form of the wavefunction sets the quantum field. And then, nonlocality locates Divine Action in the quantum world, since it is completely the product of the quantum potential. Recall from earlier question that the quantum potential doesnt exist in the classical limit, therefore nonlocality doesnt exist there either. Enter active information, which is produced in the quantum field, allowing influences on remote parts of the quantum system to respond in a correlated manner. Moreover, the quantum potential interconnects every region of space and imparts a quality of inseparable wholeness. In other words, the wavefunction for the quantum system determines the nonlocal connections on its distant parts.

CP.5. Yes. A way forward in physics from this point starts by setting aside the Cartesian coordinate grid system. I dont believe the contradictions between relativity and quantum theories can be completely overcome within this grid system. Let me quote something I said recently in our ETI: Academic and Societal Implicationsbook.

Bohm found a way, and that way is a new order, which encompasses the different kinds of unbroken wholeness in both quantum and relativity theories. And that new order, beyond the order of the everyday sensory world in which experiments are carried out, is one that can provide a clear consistent and logical connection for all our concepts; that is mathematical and physical. It is a deeper submerged order for the creative understanding of underlying concepts, and perhaps, even unseen levels of reality.

I might add: this may not be complete answer. But it is a beginning. It points a way forward. Sadly, there are a too few physicists following this route.

Do Patheos bloggers take up quantum theology? Sometimes.

But, not every Patheos blogger is happy with quantum theology. Especially Will Duquette. Duquette modestly formulates his own laws. Heres one thats relevant: Every application of quantum mechanics to philosophy or religion is absurd. Absurd? Why? Duquette says that a theologian is too ignorant to rightly weigh the import of physics. He contends, further, that a physicist is too smart to dabble in theology. What about a hybrid physicist-theologian such as Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne or Robert John Russell? Duquette says, contrary to the testimony weve just assembled: if the speaker is both a quantum physicist and a philosopher/theologianhell be too wise to apply quantum mechanics to philosophy or theology. This makes Duquettes reasoning more absurd than his law.

What motivates our discussion here on divine action in natures world is the obligation to construct a reasonable and intelligible worldview that explains Gods providential yet non-interventionist action. Quantum theory entices the theologian like a yummy ice cream cone on a hot sunny day.

But, one step at a time. Before the quantum theologian can deal directly with divine action in natures world, the question of the relationship between objective fact and subjective consciousness must be resolved. Henry Stapp, physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, has worked on this question for decades.

Quantum mechanicsassigns to mental reality a function not performed by the physical properties, namely, the property of providing an avenue for our human values to enter into the evolution of psycho-physical reality, and hence make our lives meaningful(Stapp, 2017).

What we see most forcefully in the quantum ontology of David Bohm is a grounding for both consciousness and what consciousness knows in a single holomovement. This QM ontology attracts Carl Peterson.

This should attract Robert John Russell as well. Bohms notion of undivided wholeness in a single holomovement provides an inclusive ontology that coheres with quantum theory and adds a level of wholeness to Russells QM-NIODA.

In conclusion, Robert John Russell need not choose between the indeterminism of Copenhagen and the determinism of Bohm. His quantum theology could benefit from both.

Ted Peters directs traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. He authored Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) as well as Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). Along with Martinez Hewlett, Joshua Moritz, and Robert John Russell, he co-edited, Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Intelligence (2018). Along with Octavio Chon Torres, Joseph Seckbach, and Russell Gordon, he co-edited, Astrobiology: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (Scrivener 2021). He is also author of UFOs: Gods Chariots? Spirituality, Ancient Aliens, and Religious Yearnings in the Age of Extraterrestrials (Career Press New Page Books, 2014). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

Atkins, P. (2006). Atheism and Science. In e. Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (pp. 124-136). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bohm, D. (1952). A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hiddon Variables I and II. Physical Review 85, 166-193.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge.

Bohm, D. (1988). Postmodern Science and a Postmodern World. In e. David Ray Griffin, The Reenchantment of Science (pp. 57-68). Albany NY: SUNY.

Bohm, D. (1990). A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter. Philosophical Psychology, 3(2), 271-286.

Bohm, D. a. (1994). The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum theory. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.

OMurchu, D. (2021). Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics. New York: Crossroad.

Polkinghorne, J. (2006). Quantum Theology. In e. Ted Peters and Nathan Hallanger, Gods Action in Natures World: Essays in Honor of Robert John Russell (pp. 137-145). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.

Russell, R. J. (1985). The Physics of David Bohm and Its Relevance to Philosophy and Theology. Zygon 20:2, 135-158.

Russell, R. J. (2008). Cosmology from Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science. Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.

Stapp, H. P. (2017). Quantum Theory and Free Will. Switzerland: Springer.

Continue reading here:

Quantum Theory, God, and Carl Peterson | Quantum Theology - Patheos