Is Quantum Uncertainty a Certainty?

 

The following is written by a nonscientist.

Quantum physics relies entirely on the concept of pure randomness.  However, when closely examined, the concept suffers from several fatal defects. Here is a brief summary of them.

1. Quantum randomness violates the chain of causality.  It functions as an uncaused cause.
2. Quantum randomness is proposed as a fundamental basis of physical reality; but were this a fact, then it would invalidate science and reason as instruments of understanding nature.
3. Pure randomness in quantum physics is regarded as if it were a causative agent, when in fact, randomness is only a mathematical tool, not a particle or any other component of space-time.
4. What we interpret as pure randomness can instead, better be thought of as an interaction between our universe and some external reality, such as a parallel universe, or a higher order hyper-universe, or something else.

The concept of parallel universes is a speculation not subject to testing, but there is another possibility along these lines.  That other possibility has to do with the phenomenon that we all experience as internal consciousness and free will.  These must be carefully separated from external observations of consciousness.  It is the internal experience of consciousness, and its resultant exercise of free will, that is the unexplained phenomenon that leads to an understanding of what we interpret as quantum randomness.

Therefore, the conceptual conflict between a universe governed by strict causality, and one governed by quantum randomness, can be resolved by recognizing that neither of these governs physical reality.  The universe is governed by conscious volition, which does not arise from physical reality, but rather, gives rise to physical reality.

The end result of this line of thought leads inevitably to the conclusion that physical reality is intelligently designed by a purposeful, all powerful creator, that is the God of the Bible.

Quantum Probability

Until quantum mechanics came on the scene, probability seemed an easy concept.  It simply provided a means of calculating uncertain outcomes.  More precisely, it calculated what our expectations should be of outcomes that, as a practical matter only, could not be precisely determined in advance. 

A simple example is provided by the question of how many times a coin flip will land heads during a hundred flips.  The expectation is fifty, give or take a very few.  Although the actual outcome could be anywhere from zero to a hundred, it is very likely that the coin will land heads forty-five to fifty-five times, and extremely likely that it will do so forty to sixty times.

According to this concept of probability, the uncertainty of the outcome is due to the practical difficulties of knowing all the parameters that determine the outcome of a coin flip.  In the cases where we can know them, and their effects, there is no need for the concept of probability.  One might say that, in this sense, chance does not exist.  There is only the illusion of chance, because we cannot know all the factors.  Statistics became a useful tool for managing uncertainties, but not in itself a force of nature.

Nature, so to speak, did not operate on chance, because nature already “knew” the outcome of every coin flip.

Then along came quantum physics and the Uncertainty Principle.  Uncertainty had suddenly been found to be embedded in the universe itself, as if it were a real thing, or a real property.  The outcome of a quantum event was no longer a certainty, not even when all the relevant factors were known.  Not even nature itself (so to speak) knew when a given nucleus of Uranium-238 will decay.  Only the probability could be known, but of the precise moment, not even nature knew.

Einstein disputed this, declaring that there must be “something more,” some factor as yet unknown. That factor, in principle at least, would make the moment of nuclear decay a precisely calculable certainty.

Bohr disagreed, and so far, physics has declared Bohr the winner of the debate.

If Bohr is correct, then pure randomness determines the precise outcomes of uncertain events.  The precise moment of nuclear decay is inherently uncertain.  To say it another way, the precise outcome is inherently unknowable until it occurs.

What this concept of pure probability does is to define pure chance as a causative factor in physics.  Until this concept was adopted, all causative effects were considered knowable (in principle), and all outcomes predetermined.

With quantum uncertainty, the universe went from being on autopilot to being piloted by unpredictability.

If we are to give random chance the role of “causative factor” in physics, it seems obligatory to distinguish random chance from mythical magical leprechauns.  While facetiously stated, this is not a facetious problem.  Other than for the mathematics, quantum physics offers no clue as to what is this thing that manifests itself as random chance.

This is the problem that gave rise to Einstein’s famous quote about God not playing dice.  Is quantum probability only an outward manifestation of a hidden certainty (the “something more”), or is it an actual thing in itself, a force, a factor of causation?

Physics is split between two theories, relativity and quantum. Each is necessary, each is verified by experiment, and yet they are seemingly incompatible with each other.  When something like that happens, and if we cannot find a flaw in either theory, if neither theory can ever yield—if this is so, then the problem is not with the theories themselves, but with our perception.

Presently, quantum theory holds that nothing is certain, not even the location of the moon.  When Einstein asked, is the moon where we see it, he was questioning the Heisenberg Principle of an electron’s uncertain location in reference to its known velocity.  The answer to that dilemma may be statistically comforting, but in terms of the definition of quantum chance, the moon could literally be anywhere.  Any electron anywhere in the universe could, with but the collapse of its probability wave, emerge anywhere else, at any time.  This applies to each electron in the moon—or the earth, or us.

Given this enormous potential power, physics cannot brush aside the question with a statistical calculation of vanishingly small probabilities.  The question here is not whether the moon will in fact ever vanish, but rather, do the laws of nature permit it to do so randomly?  Forget the odds, and focus on the potential.  Focus on the natural principle.

If the only true order in the universe is statistical chance, then while God may not play dice, science does.  Is there a way out of this, or must science accept that the only underlying order in the universe might be chaos?

One possible concept of quantum randomness is that it is the influence of something like a parallel universe, a universe entirely unlike our own, one in which, what we consider random events are not random at all, and which collide with our universe in some manner that we interpret as truly random.  This concept, as already stated, is speculative and not subject to testing.

Is that what science has become? Has it met a brick wall in which it must rely on speculation—albeit reasonable speculation, to explain things such as the fine tuning proposal?

If so, then why not examine three familiar concepts which might contain the germ of a solution?  These three are life, consciousness and free will.

.
.
.