With advent, Christians anticipate the coming of Jesus, the Emmanuel, God with us. For those of you that are not familiar with Christian tradition, the four weeks of advent are themed Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love, and are ordinal. The first, Hope, deals most with Schrödinger’s cat and quantum physics. In fact, Hope can be an exercise in probability, the measurement of certainty or uncertainty depending on how you look at things. The following blog entry is my take on how quantum physics and hope are related. I must admit that I’ve cheated here and taken most of following from a paper I wrote, but the topic was close enough to allow me to do it. Sorry if it reads a little dryer than usual. And longer.
Quantum physics, the physics that happens on the particle level has ramifications that can broaden and perhaps enrich a person’s faith. While true that on the macroscopic level, Newtonian physics works quite well in a very deterministic fashion, quantum physics is not so predictable. In fact, that is the way quantum physics operates, on a level of probability. Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that one cannot know the position AND momentum of a particle at the same time. Because light is used to make measurements, the precise properties of particles are unknowable. Light with its wave frequency (the number of waves in per second) property is in essence the “ticks” on a ruler. More precise measurements can be made with higher frequency light. Higher frequency light however, has more energy, so when measurements are made with higher frequency light a “bouncing” effect makes the measurement more imprecise (David W. Nelson). This paradox of sorts leads to the idea that reality is unknowable. Either humans in trying to measure it introduce uncertainty, or a precise theoretical state may exists, but is unknowable to the inquirer. In either case, quantum physics suggests that there is uncertainly abounds, which necessitates the use of probability.
The uncertainty that arises out of knowing and not knowing is illustrated by Erwin Schrödinger’s famous cat paradox. Intended as a critique of Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation, a cat is placed in a closed box with what amounts to a 50% chance of being killed within an hour. After that hour, one intuitively “knows” that the cat is either dead or alive. This is similar to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s duck-rabbit figure. One can either see the figure as a duck or a rabbit, but not both simultaneously. The Copenhagen interpretation however, posits that until the observer actually looks into the box, the cat is both alive AND dead. Viewed in another way, the various s and p orbitals (concepts students are taught in high school) represent electron “clouds” or snapshots of probable places electrons can be. A gestalt picture (a sphere or a lobe) provides a concrete picture of reality despite arising out of probability. The electron is either at a location or it is not. The Copenhagen interpretation does not deny such a picture of reality, but takes probability to its logical end where the electron cloud exists only after measurements have been made. Until then, the electron simultaneously exists and does not exist in particular location in a “cloud.” In either model however, human interpretation or “consciousness” of reality causes uncertainty. In one model, the electron is interpreted as being in a theoretical reality while in the other an unknown state until observed. The state of the electron is created by human minds. The uncertainty of quantum physics and human participation thus relates to hope because it too is an exercise in uncertainty.
Hope has gotten a lot of attention in the past two US presidential elections and is a topic of conversation in the Shawshenk Redemption. In one instance, hope can wrought change while in the other, drives a person into insanity. By in large however, hope’s operation is due to whether one takes on a Copenhagen interpretation or the alternative multiple world interpretation. For those that follow Copenhagen, hope is to a degree within the human hand in creating reality. What is brought out of uncertainty into fruition, though imperfect, is what we have. Hope is a forward driving in that it remains with us as we move into the future. Alternatively, in a multiple world interpretation, every reality occurs but does not communicate with each other. This could be comforting since everything one does is essentially due to chance, even if strongly influenced (consider that a world did indeed spawn with your alternative decision), and one does not need to worry about what actually happens. The consequence however, is that hope becomes some far off reaching ideal that may or may not ever be reached, that one must be satisfied with circumstance no matter how much one desires what hope can offer.
Now how does quantum physics apply to ideas about God and how God may work? Part of this question relies on God’s knowledge, traditionally deemed all-knowing. Surely, God would know exactly where electrons are, and according Job 38:33, God answers saying, “Do you know the laws of the heavens or impose its authority on earth?” This implies that God is indeed omniscient. The question explicitly remains however, to what degree and for what purpose? To try to use scientific concepts in describing God’s knowledge is a hypothetical exercise. The fact that we do not even know “what” God is makes God as a divine “measurer” seem ridiculous. God does not “measure” where a particle is located, yet the assumption that God just “knows” seems equally dissatisfying. There is an uncertainty about God, about God’s transcendence or immanence.
Of course, God cannot be scientifically provable, and in a certain sense, neither can religion provide a proof for God’s existence. The only thing that we as humans have as “data” are the effects, or human experience, that may or may not be Godly. It is not within the scope of this essay to try to prove God’s existence. Rather, the affirmation that God is mystery precludes God from being put into Schrödinger’s box. Language by its very nature cannot fully convey human experience, but there is no alternative but to use words to communicate to another the authentic experience of God. Theological words too however, are a result of the tension between form and function, between who God is and how God works. Thus, we are confronted with the same quantum conundrum. In making “observations” about God, are we defining the state of God though uncertain, or are we “splitting” into a world where God is who God is but not God in another? Does God somehow exist in a perfect state that is above all conditionality as most philosophical abstractions tell us? The answers to these questions are the very reason we have so many stories about God.
If however, Christians choose to believe that God truly creates new possibilities, then they must also be prepared to consider that God also operates with probability or chance! The speculative notion that God is anything but the classically depicted God must be undertaken, with the idea that a there must be a balance between God’s transcendence and immanence. Is God omnipotent? Some consider that based on the conditions of the world that God is not. Others think that God consciously self limits God’s power. The alternative is to consider that God while still omnipotent cannot break the rules that God Godself has created. Is God omniscient? If chance is a part of the parameters of God’s creation, then God’s knowledge while not limited in the plurality of potentials is limited in what actually is brought into being as history unfolds through human action. God attempts to provide direction to reality and is creative because new possibilities truly arise apart from any “blueprint” drawn up in the beginning. Simply put, God takes on risk.
Such a concept of a “God that plays dice” was certainly disturbing to Albert Einstein, and continues to be for most people of religious faith. God as a cosmic gambler threatens divine omnipotence and the ideas about purpose and justice in the world. God’s uncertainty for creation must be given some weight however, whether as God’s operational parameter or as a physical reality itself because God is a Creator God. This is important because to not consider the element of chance predisposes one to hold a God who operates in a one-directional predetermined fashion, that out of all the possible worlds, THIS one is the one purposely created. In such a world, religious life does not have any function. Blessing and curses hold no meaning, nor does prayer do anything since everything is in the hands of a sovereign God who has already chosen to bless, curse, or answer prayer. Worse still is the idea that if you pray hard enough, you will get a boon, as if God selectively favors people above others based on “goodness.” For instance, some are more “blessed” because they are more faithful to God than others. This is precisely a God who does not play dice. Rather, it is a God who caters to human concern, to which Bohr (in conversation with Einstein) responded, “Do not tell God what to do.” In other words, creaturely determination cannot constrain the ultimate freedom of a God who in God’s creative capacity takes on risk. Taken in context, the element of chance, of probability, allows creativity (something new) to manifest. Prayer has its power in the creative moment with God and the supplicant. In this sense, reality as we know it is co-created with God through creative human response made available because of chance. This is risky venture indeed!
A final consideration takes us back to Job, and his plight in front of God. The disquieting thing about Job is that God allows the Devil to test Job even though God knows that Job is a blameless, righteous man. In context of what has been discussed, it certainly appears that God is gambling with Job’s life. Furthermore, God provides Job with no answer, but only an admonishment of Job’s knowledge of the situation. What if God did not know how Job would respond? If this is true, then by playing “chance” with Job, the creative possibility of Job’s experience of God was made possible, and the less God knows, the more creation is able to respond. Does this mean that people must suffer in order to experience God? No, not necessarily, for there could be worse conditions than the current plight people find themselves. Rather, it is the idea that perhaps a “perfect” world was never meant to exist. Instead the cosmic unfolding of history is the ultimate story of God and God’s relationship with creation, which requires chance for its fullest development.
In the season of advent, Christians anticipate the coming of Jesus because Christians claim him to be the hope of the world. Not only hope however. Jesus is also Peace, Joy, Love and the Christ. Jesus, amidst all the uncertainty is Emmanuel, God with us. Jesus is the joy we feel because there in a God/Man is the realization of our hope. In Jesus, Christians encounter the love of God expressed for the world and its people and that God chooses to be “entangled” with creation. Yes, entangled. Although, there might be an infinite number of possibilities, the workings between God and creation collapse a particular reality into being. It might not be perfect, but we have a hope….perhaps THE hope, that works with us and guides us to a better future.
So….as a new year dawns (post Mayan Apocalypse),
Hope of the world, O Christ of great compassion:
speak to our fearful hearts by conflict rent.
Save us, your people, from consuming passion,
who by our own false hopes and aims are spent.
Hope of the world, God’s gift from highest heaven,
bringing to hungry souls the bread of life:
still let your Spirit unto us be given
to heal earth’s wounds and end our bitter strife.
Hope of the world, afoot on dusty highways,
showing to wandering souls the path of light:
walk now beside us lest the tempting byways
lure us away from you to endless night.
Hope of the world, who by your cross did save us
from death and dark despair, from sin and guilt:
we render back the love your mercy gave us;
take now our lives and use them as you will.
Hope of the world, O Christ, o’er death victorious,
who by this sign did conquer grief and pain:
we would be faithful to your gospel glorious;
you are our Lord, and you forever reign!
Recent Comments