Theo-Physics: Of God, Bosons and Texan Butterflies -- Guest Post by Todd Gnarly, Super-Fundie

Can physics be used to inform theological inquiry? Is a new field of “theo-physics” right around the corner? Can concepts in physics be useful in answering questions of relevance to theologians?

 

Consider a common atheist objection to the existence of God: Science has demonstrated that the universe obeys impersonal laws of nature, none of which exhibit anything but indifference to the moral values that God is supposedly concerned with. Since there’s no need for Him to push the planets around their orbits, the thinking goes, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot for Him to do. And since there’s no leeway in the laws of nature – the law of conservation of energy, for example, is more than just a friendly suggestion from Mother Nature – there’s no room for God to intervene in human affairs by performing a “miracle” (defined as an occurrence that violates the laws of physics.) This leaves God, if He exists, standing in the cosmic unemployment line.

The standard response to this objection runs something like, “God made the rules and He can break them by performing miracles any time He likes.” Although this response is far from incoherent, I wonder if there might be another answer. Could God act in human history without even bothering with miracles – that is, without violating the laws of physics? Modern science provides a tantalizing glimpse of how God might be able to manipulate events at the subatomic level that could ultimately result in history-changing events, all without violating the laws of physics.

According to quantum theory, the movement of elementary particles (subatomic particles such as bosons) is inherently random, a feature known as quantum indeterminacy. It is important to note that inherent randomness differs radically from apparent randomness, the type of randomness we encounter in everyday life. To say that a process is apparently random would be to leave open the possibility that if we had the right technology, the right measuring instruments or the right theoretical knowledge, we could predict with certainty what would happen next. For example, I could predict with absolute certainty whether a flipped coin will land heads or tails if I had enough information about the muscle movements of the coin flipper, the coin’s exact shape and the local air currents. To say that the motion of subatomic particles is inherently random, by contrast, is to say that no information would be enough to make an accurate prediction. Indeed, the movement of an individual subatomic particle cannot be precisely predicted no matter what information is available, because this movement is not the result of any physical cause.

Since subatomic particles are the building blocks of matter, and since the motion of these building blocks is inherently random, does this introduce quantum uncertainty into everyday life? Need I be concerned, for example, that the next time I step on the brakes as I approach a busy intersection that quantum indeterminacy will cause the moving parts to behave randomly, thereby resulting in brake failure? The answer to that particular question is no, I needn’t be concerned. After all, how many subatomic particles are contained in a brake apparatus? Although we can’t predict what a particular subatomic particle will do, it is just as easy to predict the behavior of a large group of particles as it is to predict that if you flip a coin a million times you’ll end up with somewhere around 500,000 heads. Given the “billions and billions” of quantum “flips” occurring in a brake apparatus, even the most conservative actuary wouldn’t raise your auto insurance premiums based on “quantum indeterminacy risk.”

Strictly speaking, it is not mathematically impossible for quantum indeterminacy to cause my brakes to fail (or for a million coins to all land heads, for that matter) -- it is just vanishingly unlikely, that’s all. So unlikely, in fact, that a comparable event has probably never occurred anywhere in the universe at any time in its 13.7 billion year history. Quantum indeterminacy is microscopic, and microscopic effects cancel each other out by the time they reach the macroscopic, day-to-day world of coins, brake drums and traffic lights.

At what level along the continuum between the macroscopic and the microscopic worlds to quantum effects start to matter? OK, so a brake apparatus is not subject to quantum indeterminacy. What about blood platelets? Amoebas? Individual molecules? Atoms? As your frame of reference shrinks, quantum indeterminacy starts to matter at some point. Is there any way to build a chain of cause and effect that extends from this microscopic “quantum point” all the way up to the macroscopic realm of coin-sized (or people-sized) objects? Could a random quantum event, for example, trigger a chain of cause and effect that leads to a typhoon on the other side of the world?

A field of study in mathematics known as chaos theory demonstrates how part of this chain might be constructed. According to chaos theory, some systems such as the weather are so sensitive to the variables that drive them that a microscopic change in initial conditions can exert a wildly disproportionate influence on the entire system. The example most often quoted in popular science literature is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a typhoon in Japan a month later. Could quantum indeterminacy influence the firing of neurons in a Texan butterfly’s brain, causing it to flap its wings and thereby cause a typhoon in Japan?

 

The answer to this question should be obvious – yes, it’s at least possible. When a contingent quantum event occurs in a physics laboratory, it is observed by a scientist (or by a Geiger counter, for example, which Geiger counter is then observed by the scientist). This observation stimulates a thought in the mind of the scientist, which is reflected by the pattern of neuron firings in the scientist’s brain. Are insect brains so much more difficult to manipulate?

In this way we can construct at least one pathway for a causal link all the way from the microscopic quantum realm to the macroscopic realm of ordinary human events. And if there’s one pathway, there might be others, which suggests that God could manipulate apparently random quantum events in statistically unremarkable ways to, for example, cause a Texan butterfly to flaps its wings and…well, you know the rest of the story. See here for an account of a couple of astrophysicists who agree with this idea.