Responses follow to some of Peter's recent comments on the "What does
the creation lack?"
thread, pieced together in what I hope is a somewhat coherent fashion.
GLM & PR indicate
attributions.
GLM:
> An obvious question about Peter's
> proposal, & the only one I address here, concerns
> the nature of the "several physical processes for
> which many differing outcomes are possible" and
> for which "There are permanent epistemic barriers
> ... that prevent science from gaining sufficient
> knowledge to predict which particular outcome will
> occur." In his articles he says "they may include
> quantum uncertainties, randomness in elementary
> events, unpredictability due to minute parameter
> value deviations in nonlinear systems liable to
> produce deterministic chaos, and coincidences."
> It's not clear what "randomness" & "coincidence"
> might refer to other than aspects of the other two
> possibilities, which are the ones that really need
> to be considered: Quantum uncertainty & chaos.
PR:
An example of randomness in elementary events: which one of the N bases
in a given DNA gets hit by a cosmic ray or decaying radioactive atom,
producing a mutation. An example of a coincidence: two specific
mutations essential for an evolutionary path occur at about the same
time in a given piece of DNA.
GLM:
"Randomness" in this sense would be predictable if strict
Laplacian determinism were valid &
coincidences of this sort are phenomena of low probability. Both may be
important but from the
standpoint of physics can both be reduced to the quantum or chaos
categories.
GLM:
> A number of people, going back to Wm
> Pollard, have suggested that God acts below the
> level of the uncertainty principle. Bob Russell
> has recently (in his essay in Evolutionary and
> Molecular Biology) connected the idea that God
> acts at the quantum level with genetic mutations &
> evolution. Polkinghorne has emphasized the role of
> chaos in giving God freedom of action in the
> world.
> There's a problem with trying to do this
> entirely with classical chaos, for there the
> equations of motion are still deterministic, even
> though there is sensitivity to initial conditions.
> Therefore free divine action would have to involve
> some type of "violation" of the classical laws,
> even though that violation would be undetectable
> by us. But even though there is no "quantum
> chaos" in the strict sense, divine action at the
> quantum level could provide the variation in
> initial conditions needed for classical chaos.
PR:
Such divine influencing of intial conditions at the quantum level may
decide which path a system
takes at a chaos bifurcation. Such actions at the quantum level
selecting a given bifurcation path
may occur at many points in the origin and development of life. No
"violation" whatsoever need be
involved.
GLM:
You've made explicit what I intended to say.
GLM:
> A proposal that God acts at the quantum
> level to bring about definite results of
> measurement processes (i.e., God collapses wave
> packets) needs to be spelled out more fully. Does
> it mean that God collapses all the wave packets of
> all measurement processes throughout the universe?
> If so, does this happen through some hidden
> variables or simply by decreeing the result of
> each process?
> Or does God only determine the results of certain
> critical processes, such as those required for
> some steps in evolution? If so, what determines
> the results of all other quantum processes?
PR:
My proposal only involves these critical events relevant for biology.
Others may possibly have
occurred in cosmology (cf. the anthropic cosmological principle). I
suppose events not critical for
anything may be left to genuine chance (cf. my paper "How has life and
its diversity been
produced?" PSCF 44/2 (June 1992), 80-94).
GLM:
I find such a proposal vaguely troubling, though I can't easily
put my finger on the difficulty. If
some wave packet collapses are "left to chance" then we've dropped the
principle of sufficient
reason. Perhaps we need to. But then to say that God determines the
results of some of these
collapses means that there is a sufficient reason for the results of
those measurements. Thus God
could provide a reason for all the other measurements, but doesn't.
OTOH, having God engineer the results of all measurements -
especially if this is done
directly & not in cooperation with any hidden variables - would return
God to the position of the
absolute controller of all events, though now as the power behind the
throne instead of the absolute
monarch.
__________________________________________________
PR:
As process theology contradicts biblical theism, I reject it.
GLM:
My previous remarks will have made it clear that I see some
significant theological problems
with the process approach. But if we're going to say that it
"contradicts biblical theism", we also
have to note that traditional philosophical theology, with its
impassible, immutable, perfectly simply
&c deity also contradicts biblical theism. We shouldn't let
philosophical schemes set the rules for
theology, whether they are those of Aristotle or of Whitehead.
____________________________________
GLM
> If I were formulating this claim I would
> insist that God is also active in a continuous way
> in the world, so that such collapsing of the wave
> function would not be the only thing God did.
> I.e., God also concurs with the time evolution of
> the wave function described by the Schroedinger
> equation between measurements.
PR
I agree. I would add that God may also use genuine chance when he
doesn't care about a particular outcome.
GLM
We can't talk about God "using" chance. Chance is not a
particular mechanism but a
statement of our lack of knowledge. As I noted before, to say that the
results of wave packet
collapse are "due to chance" means that they happen literally for no
reason.
__________________________________
PR:
I suggest to
add a healthy biblical dose of human free will. This, together with the
essential points of the incarnation and the cross which George
emphasises, would weigh in towards a biblical solution of theodicy.
GLM:
Theodicy is a legitimate but secondary theological activity. We ought
to be quite hesitant about
"justifying God", which is what the word means. Note, e.g., the way
Paul responds to such
questions in Romans 9:19 - "Who are you to question God?"
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 11 2001 - 20:45:41 EST