A Very Unusual Proof for the Existence of God

[jfraatz]

Though I'm a theist, I'm a physics student and I am not a fan of substance dualism. This being the case I have a rather unusual argument for the existence of God that derives almost purely from science (and a little philosophy -but not anything many atheists would not already agree with). This does not argue for a particular God perse, but rather just a scientifically definable generic God. (God could be of  the Deist, Pantheist, Christian, Muslim or Hindu varieties -I'm not addressing that here or even if  this is a religious God)

Now the argument goes as follows though it requires a slight knowledge of quantum mechanics;

1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing as no particles exist by definition outside of it to measure and collapse it by normal means.
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (This is from Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model of the mind)

Conclusion: The wave-function of the universe is a mind.

And of course it would only make sense to refer to such a being as a universal mind as God.

Here's the video if anyone is curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

Now granted Penrose's model is somewhat controversial but it is well within the bounds of scientifically acceptable discussion. This being the case is this a strong empirically verifiable argument for the existence of God? (God need not be supernatural in the conventional sense here.) Atheists and agnostics what do you guys think?

[i_am_i]

I don't see how it makes sense to refer to a universal mind as God with a capital G.

The use of the ninth symphony is appropriate, though.

Brothers, above the starry canopy
Must a loving Father dwell.
Do you bow down, millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek Him beyond the starry canopy!
Beyond the stars must He dwell.

[Heretical Rants]

2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (This is from Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model of the mind)

Does it say that minds are self-collapsing wave functions or that self-collapsing wave functions are minds?
Order matters here.

How are you defining "mind" ?

[Davin]

What do you mean by "wave-function of the universe"?

It would be in very bad form to use a wave function on the universe.

[VallartaPete]

I am the last person you would come to for scientific support.

I am curious if this is correlation driven much like Lewis Black on Glenn Beck’s Hitler correlations connecting Obama to Hitler. As a favorite expression goes ... "All German Sheppard's are dogs but not all dogs are German Sheppard's" therefor I inferred from your post that there was an equation being made not an exception. As in "All German Sheppard's are dogs THEREFOR all dogs are German Sheppard's"

Is my lack of scientific knowledge blinding my understanding of your question?

[Whitney]

2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (This is from Roger Penrose's Orch-OR model of the mind)

Does it say that minds are self-collapsing wave functions or that self-collapsing wave functions are minds?
Order matters here.

How are you defining "mind" ?

I was going to ask the same things for the same reasons.

I'd also note that even if this argument ends up holding any water stated as is that a controversial scientific hypothesis is not much of a basis for a proof since it's still undergoing verification itself.

And the apatheist in me wants to add this question:  Why should we care if it is valid and does prove that the universe is a gigantic mind?

[Sophus]

This sounds like the New Agey stuff Victor Stenger has already refuted.

[jfraatz]

@Sophus

No this is not New Age stuff. Both of these are based on hard science. Orch-OR is the more debatable of the two but that is an actual model of the mind thought of by Roger Penrose.  I know what you might think it looks like, but both of these premises are based on things that we either already know or things that are currently being debated in scientific circles (ala the Orch-OR model).

Now if it WERE New Age proper it fit into a mentalist "What the Bleep do we Know?" paradigm. This is definitely pseudoscience. We know this because the New Age paradigm makes the outside world dependent on the human mind. If this were the case we could not to science -as all of our experiments would change depending on how we wished them to be. There would be no objective reality in this paradigm.

The difference with this however is that this IS NOT dependent on our minds. Granted it's dependent on God's mind, but because our Orch-OR processes are not identical with the large scale Orch-OR process we can't control stuff directly with our minds. This being the case we can still observe and experiment on a world that is distinct from our minds. So this is compatible with a workable philosophy of science. This is not saying that we can magically use quantum mechanics to think the world into whatever form we want it. There is a mind-independent (of OUR minds) world out there in this model.

This being the case the model hinges on it's two premises:

1.) Penrose's Orch-OR model
2.) The wave-function of the universe being self-collapsing.

2.) has to be right because by definition no particle exists outside of the universe to collapse the wave-function of the universe. If there was such a particle the universe would by definition no longer be the universe -as it would not be the totality of all physical objects.

This means that the model pretty much stands or falls on 1.). Now this is a controversial model to be sure, but it's not pseudoscience (Penrose is up there with Hawking in regards to his scientific credentials) and the model is falsifiable. So the point being though is that if Orch-OR is true then this conclusion also follows. This is not to say that Orch-OR is true from the onset (though I have pretty strong reasons to think that it is), but the larger point is that this conclusion is entirely conceivable within current scientific ideas. (though granted the idea involved is polarizing and very controversial)

[jfraatz]

"Does it say that minds are self-collapsing wave functions or that self-collapsing wave functions are minds?
Order matters here."

Yes that is important and it's the later. (self-collapsing wave-functions are minds). The way to show this is to realize that observation is physically identical to wave-function collapse. So if "observation = collapse" then it automatically follows that "self-observation = self-collapse." It's like a "by necessity" sort of thing rather than a contingent thing.


"I'd also note that even if this argument ends up holding any water stated as is that a controversial scientific hypothesis is not much of a basis for a proof since it's still undergoing verification itself."

True, but I'm pretty sure Orch-OR is correct. (though of course that is a whole separate discussion in itself)
After reading Penrose's books most of the criticisms leveled against him derived from sort of a "materialist politics of academia" direction.

They basically didn't like it because it used a real live "Cartesian ego" with real actually "Platonic a priori knowledge" as premises. Due to what to be frank seems a sort of peer pressure neither of these things is popular in academia despite both of them being intuitively obvious. When you look out at the world for the first time without getting into clever arguments against it you automatically know that "Cogito ergo sum" and that the stuff you study in your grade school math book really is "there" in some sense and not just a construct made up by humans.

"And the apatheist in me wants to add this question:  Why should we care if it is valid and does prove that the universe is a gigantic mind?[/quote]"

Ah true! The "Ignostic" position! LOL I feel you. I have some friends like this. Well I guess it's interesting because even if it is just a Deist sort of God it still causes one to step back and think for a bit. And of course if you want to get really fancy you can get into other stuff like Jung, natural theology, Neoplatonism etc. etc. This is separate and not entirely in the scope of science but if one is interested in serious religious type arguments, something like this is a good starting point to make one stop and ask: "Hmm, I wonder if...?"

[jfraatz]

Well yes, all German shepherds are dogs but not all dogs are German Shepherds. But in this specific instance all self-collapsing wave-functions do happen to be minds.

If we assume monism to be true (which I think isn't a problem for atheists), then whatever is there is the whole thing. Reality is one at the bottom. So if wave-function collapse is all that there is when an observation occurs, (be it mental or with a piece of non-mental measuring apparatus) then it automatically follows that wave-function collapse is one and the same with observation. Does this make sense sort of?

Now if that is true, we can then readily figure out what the mind is in terms of physics. The mind is self-observation and since observation = collapse (if we are to agree that substance dualism is false) it automatically follows that self-observation is by definition self-collapse.

So it's not that some self-collapses are mental and some are not. It's that by definition self-collapse = self-observation.

[notself]

So it's not that some self-collapses are mental and some are not. It's that by definition self-collapse = self-observation.

How do you get from self-collapse = self-observation to god?  What does this god do if anything?  Is this god a creator? Does this god require worship or obedience?  Will this god make the coffee in the morning?

Or... are you just trying to support the idea of pantheism?

[Davin]

I'd still like to know what you mean by "wave function of the universe." We use wave functions to determine the location, direction or speed of a particle, how can this be used on the universe?

[Martin TK]

I find that when one has to STRETCH to prove the existence of a god, then the god isn't worth stretching for.  I still hold out for the simpliest concept, if there is a god, he would have to be fairly simple and easily explained.

[Recusant]

Hello, and welcome to HAF, jfraatz.

Your idea is interesting. I'm enjoying this thread, and look forward to your further explanation of the relation between the "wave function of the universe" and a hypothetical deity as you answer questions from members here.

I find it intriguing that Hawking's "wave function of the universe" is used by Quentin Smith in this article to try to show that theism actually has no basis from our current understanding of the universe. Have you heard of this line of reasoning?  If so, what are your thoughts on it?

They basically didn't like it because it used a real live "Cartesian ego" with real actually "Platonic a priori knowledge" as premises. Due to what to be frank seems a sort of peer pressure neither of these things is popular in academia despite both of them being intuitively obvious. When you look out at the world for the first time without getting into clever arguments against it you automatically know that "Cogito ergo sum" and that the stuff you study in your grade school math book really is "there" in some sense and not just a construct made up by humans.

Intuitively obvious to you perhaps.  The question of "is math invented or discovered" (Platonic ideals actually existing  being the basis for "math is discovered, not invented") is not settled, and to act as if it is, and to use the "discovered" position as a premise, is dubious.  Have you tried running your ideas past the fine people at Physics Forums?

[SSY]

I have a couple of problems with this.

Firstly, while a wavefunction for a universe seems a little strange for me, I am willing to let you off stating it more rigorously, but the self collapsing part I disagree with. The wavefunction could simply be un-collapsed (indeed, to me this seems more plausible, for if every component of the wavefunction had collapsed into an eigenfunction, then the universe would be very strange indeed, I am not sure if thought could even exist in such a place).

You have already acknowledged that the theory put forth by Penrose is not verified (come to think of it, is it even verifiable?)

I also disagree with giant mind=God, though you were kind enough to leave out definitions of both mind and god, so this is harder to judge. Heuristic arguments will get you no where, I would expect a student of physics to understand that.

Lastly, since Penrose would presumably would agree with both your premises, do you think he would accept your argument for God?

P.S. How would you normalise the wavefunction of the universe?