The following applies the "eternalness" and the "omniscience" of "God's nature" to the time symmetric quantum mechanical model (which I introduced in my response to Dr. Reid) to show how a teleology might be introduced into the time evolution of creation (and our lives) as a "natural" source of statically rare events. The "miracle claim" that I have chosen as my vehicle to illustrate how this might occur is the "Origin of Life Mystery".
The physicist,
cosmologist and astrobiologist, Paul Davies reported in his paper
titled, "Does Quantum Mechanics Play a Non-Trivial Role In Life?" that
"[s]imple calculation shows that it would take much longer than the age
of the universe, even if all the matter in the universe consisted of
pre-biotic soup, for even a single protein to form by chance..." and
that "...the classical chance hypothesis [to explain the Origin of Life]
seems unsatisfactory."
Is Dr. Davies correct in his opinion?
Richard
Cevantis Carrier (who is an historian and fervent advocate of
metaphysical naturalism), reported on 46 "probability of life" studies
in a 2004 paper in which Dr. Carrier argued that all of the studies
which had rendered the natural origin of life to be statistically
impossible (one change in 10 to the 50th power or less) were flawed.
Nonetheless, considering that the age of our universe is estimated to be
13.7 billion years (e.g. 13.7 x 10 to the 9 power years) the
probabilities that Dr. Carrier reported for life to have originated in accordance with the "presumptive
laws of nature" seem incredibly small:
Barrow and Tipler (1986: 565) one chance in 4.3 x 10 to the 109 power
Borel, cited in Baudin (1962: 28) one chance in 10 to the 50 power
Bradley and Thaxton (1994: 190) one chance in 4.9 x 10 to the 191 power
Bradley and Thaxton (1994: 322–323) one chance in 10 to the 65 power
Bradley and Thaxton (1984: 145) one chance in 10 to the 117 power
Bradley and Thaxton (1984: 146) one chance in 10 to the 45 power
Bradley and Thaxton (1984: 157) one chance in 10 to the 175 power
Cairns-Smith (1984: 47–48) one chance in 10 to the 109 power
Coppedge (1973: 76) one chance in 10 to the 8,318 power
Coppedge (102) one chance in 10 to the 106 power
Coppedge (109) one chance in 10 to the 161 power
Coppedge (111) one chance in 10 to the 119,701 power
Coppedge (113) one chance in 10 to the 35 power
Coppedge (249) one chance in 10 to the 236 power
Coppedge (235) one chance in 10 to the 339,999,866 power
Cramer (1998) one chance in 10 to the 119,701 power
Eden (1967: 7) one chance in 10 to the 325 power
Foster (1993: 79) one chance in 10 to the 650 power
Foster (82, 172) one chance in 10 to the 88,000 power
Foster (39–40) one chance in 10 to the 68 power
Foster (52) one chance in 10 to the 163 power
Guye, via Lecompte du Noüy (33–34) one chance in 10 to the 243 power
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (1981: 24) one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power
Hoyle (1981: 526–527) one chance in 4 x 10 to the 69 power
Huxley (1953: 45–46) one chance in 10,000 x 10 to the 1,000,000 power
Ludwig (1993: 274) one chance in 10 to the 2,300,000 power
McFadden (2000: 98) one chance in 10 to the 60 power
McFadden (98) one chance in 10 to the 41 power
Morowitz (1979: 99) one chance in 10 to the 399,999,896 power
Morris (1974: 60–61) one chance in 10 to the 53 power
Morris (64–65) one chance in 10 to the 450 power
Morris (69) one chance in 10 to the 299,843 power
Overman (1997: 54–55) one chance in 10 to the 536 power
Quastler (4) one chance in 10 to the 301 power
Quastler (6) one chance in 10 to the 255 power
Quastler (46) one chance in 10 to the 20 power
Quarter (58) one chance in 10 to the 6 power to one chance in 10 to the 30 power
Sagan (1973: 45–46) one chance in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power
Sagan (45–46) one chance in 10 to the 130 power
Salisbury (1969) one chance in 10 to the 415 power
Salisbury (1971) one chance in 10 to the 600 power
Schroeder (1997: 91–92) one chance in 10 to the 850 power
Yockey (1992: 154–157) one chance in 2 x 10 to the 53 power
Yockey (1981) one chance in 10 to the 60 power
Yockey (1992: 154–157) one chance in 2.3 x 10 to the 75 power
Yockey (1981) one chance in 10 to the 125 power
(SOURCE:
R.C. CARRIER, "The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a
natural origin of life", Biology and Philosophy 19: 739–764, 2004.)
It
should be noted that only six out of these 46 studies could support any
argument that the natural origin of life was even possible within the
time our universe has existed (13.7 x 10 to the 9 power years) with the
most optimistic (Quarter, 58) providing a range of probabilities from
one chance out of 10 to the 6th power to one chance out of 10 to the
30th power. It would appear that, at best, the probability that life
arose naturally in accordance with the conventional scientific
explanations is vanishingly small.
Is there an alternative?
According
to a 2009 paper, "The consensus is growing that the emergence of the
living cell from prebiotic syntheses is related with the onset of a
particular phase of matter made of a macroscopic coherent state of
biochemical reactions where the interaction with the ambient results in
the Darwinian evolution. The coherent state of living matter could
emerge in the proximity of a critical point (biological order at the
edge of c[h]aos) (Rupley et al. 1988), and there is growing experimental
evidence that quantum coherence could play a relevant role (Engel et
al., 2007, Hagan et al. 2002). In this scenario the key physical problem
is how it is possible that the quantum coherence phase could resist to
the de-coherence attacks of temperature (Barrow et al. 2004; Davies
2004)."
[SOURCE: Evading Quantum De-coherence in Living Matter by
Feshbach Resonance Antonio Bianconi, Rocchina Caivano, Nicola Poccia,
Alessandro Ricci, Alessandro Puri, Michela Fratini; Orig Life Evol
Biosph (2009) 39:page 335]
Is decoherence the only problem in applying quantum mechanics to resolve the Origin of Life mystery?
Dr.
Davies would say: "no". He goes on in his 2004 paper to write that
"Quantum mechanics may offer a radical alternative ...[to the classical
chance hypothesis]. Since quantum systems can exist in superpositions
of states, searches of sequence space or configuration space may proceed
much faster. In effect, a quantum system may 'feel out' a vast array of
alternatives simultaneously. In some cases, this speed-up factor is
exponential (Farhi and Gutmann, 1998). So the question is: Can quantum
mechanics fast-track matter to life by 'discovering' biologically potent
molecular configurations much faster than one might expect using
classical estimates?"
In answer to his own question, Dr. Davies (on page 75 of his paper) goes on to write:
"Though
it is easy to believe that quantum superpositions might accelerate the
“discovery” of a specific, special, physical state (e.g., the 'living'
state), there is an element of teleology creeping into this mode of
thought. We might be familiar with what it takes for a system to be
living, but a molecular mixture isn’t. The concept of a 'target
sequence' or 'goal' at the end of a search is meaningless for molecules.
Nevertheless, a quantum search could speed up the “discovery” of life
if there is some way in which the system 'knows when it is getting hot,'
i.e., if there is some sort of feedback that senses the proximity to
life, and focuses or canalizes the search toward it. Sometimes it is
claimed (Fox and Dose, 1977) that 'life is built into the laws of
physics,' i.e., that there is an inbuilt bias or directionality in
physical processes that guide them toward 'life.' Expressed more
neutrally, 'life' constitutes an attractor in chemical sequence space.
But to suppose that such an attractor is conveniently built into the
laws of nature is just too contrived to be believable (Davies, 2003)."
How
does a uniform distribution of matter spontaneously develop a
nonuniform distribution while continuing to obey the standard principles
of nature such as entropy and the conservation of momentum, energy, and
matter? It would appear that unless some "element of teleology" can be
discovered that is "built into the laws of nature, there is little
hope that quantum mechanics can help science resolve the origin of life
mystery.
In what follows, I will first discuss how the
same boundary condition that has been posited to mathematically derive a
background independent quantum gravity, by causal dynamical
triangulation (CDT) theorists, might, in the context of the time
symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics (TSQM) of Drs. Yakir Aharonov
and Jeffery Tollaksen, provide a plausible contextuality to overcome
the issues raised in Dr. Davies' paper and potentially resolve the
"origin of life" mystery.
Specifically, I will, by
speculatively joining aspects of CDT and TSQM research, attempt to show
how a form of "teleology" may be introduced into the time evolution of
creation. Let's begin:
In quantum mechanics, the initial
quantum state of any system evolves over time into a probability
distribution of all possible states consistent with the initial boundary
condition. If an initial state is assumed in which a universal set of states
and spacetime geometries are subsumed, a probability distribution of
possible states, including all observable states, will necessarily
arise. Applying time symmetry, this probability distribution will
simultaneously appear as the set of all futures and the set all
histories which can arise from and lead to this common point of
origination and destiny. As this point of origination constitutes both
the system’s beginning and ending boundary condition, all actualizations
must occur within this contextuality.
If the big bang is
then understood to have occurred as an actualization event within this
preexistent contextuality, it would constitute the initial boundary
condition for our universe and, inter alia, embody all of the laws of
physics pursuant to which our universe could thereafter evolve. All
subsequent actualizations would then be strongly bounded by this and the
set of all immediately preceding actualizations; but would also be
subtly influenced by a future unity or destiny toward which all of our
possible futures would necessarily converge.
As can be
seen, this speculation introduces a kind of “teleology” into the
time-evolution of Creation which is the vary factor Dr. Davies saw
missing . From the frame of reference of Dr. Carrier and science, the
process is an entirely “natural phenomena” while the centripetal
convergence toward unity may, from the frame of reference of the
theologian, be understood as the "Divine destiny" of creation "ordained
by God”. The beauty of the speculation is that “determinism” comprised
of contingency preserves “Free Will” within that contingency. In other
words, human choice exists within those individualized boundary
conditions of each person’s “Now”. Additionally, as to the "Origin of
Life" question, we now have an "end" which potentially provides the
"feedback" loop and "attractor in chemical sequence space" that, in
Davies' view, any quantum mechanical explanation to the Origin of Life"
mystery would require.
Key Scientific Assumptions:
There are two key assumptions that I have made in this speculation that require further explanation.
The
first assumption relates to the systems' initial state. For the
purposes of this conjecture, I have assumed that the initial state is a
superposition of states, to include all possible space time
geometries. As noted in Wikipedia, "Quantum superposition is the
fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all
possible states that an object can have. The principle of superposition
states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible
arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in
another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a
superposition of the two...."
Additionally, my assumption that the
initial state is a superposition of possible states is equivalent
to that made by a promising quantum gravity theory called "Causal
Dynamical Triangulation".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causaldynamicaltriangulation, and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep¬th/0509010
As
you will note from the cited resources, my initial state and that
assumed in Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) are equivalent. You
will also see that Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) has had some
significant successes and is now the third leading quantum gravity
theory--behind string theory and loop quantum gravity. Although CDT is
way too nascent for any predictions about its ultimate success to be
made, CDT appears to be emergent, with both string and Loop Quantum
Gravity theorists taking a harder look at it in the last few years.
The
second critical assumption involves time symmetry. In this regard,
please note that virtually all of the laws of physics are time
symmetric. I wish the consideration of time symmetry in the context of a
final boundary condition were entirely original to me. It is not. For
example, Roger Penrose, in the article titled “The Big Bang and its
thermodynamic legacy, wrote:
“Normally, one thinks in
terms of systems evolving into the future, from data specified in the
past, where the particular evolution takes place is determined by
differential equations. ... One does not, on the other hand, tend to
think of evolving these same equations into the past, despite the fact
that the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics are
symmetrical under a reversal of the direction of time! As far as the
mathematics is concerned, one can just as well specify final conditions,
at some remote future time, and evolve backward in time.
Mathematically, final conditions are just as good as initial ones for
determining the evolution of a system.” (Quoted from Roger Penrose, The
Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Universe, Chapter 27, “The Big
Bang and its thermodynamic legacy”, p. 687)
Additionally, you might wish to review the paper by Yakir Aharonov and Jeffrey Tollaksen titled “New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics” (See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1232 Jun 2007) which I quoted in my response to Dr. Reid.
It must next be asked if the claims of those
promoting TSQM should be believed? In this regard it is extremely
relevant that recent studies have quantitatively confirmed predicted
outcomes which were unique to the TSQM formulation of quantum mechanics.
As these outcomes cannot be explained by the traditional formulations
of quantum mechanics, it appears that paradigm shifting "proofs" of TSQM
are both beginning to be reported by independent research groups and to
be recognized in the popular media. Again, you may wish to review the paper I cited in my response to Dr. Reid.
Again considering the "natural" origin of life as a "miracle claim", John Jamieson Carswell (J.J.C.) Smart wrote, in his book "Atheism
and Theism" "Reply
to Haldane":
"As a philosopher I am happy enough if we can see that the
origin of life is not impossible according to physical principles and
cosmological knowledge. We do not need a detailed theory of it to
prefer a naturalistic explanation (thin and as yet speculative as it may
be) to a supernaturalist explanation. (page 152)
Hopefully, you will agree that the argument I have proffered provides an even better alternative in that it provides a plausible
"Origin of Life" narrative in which both scientists and theologians
might be able to agree.
Theologians
may, nonetheless, have much difficulty in accepting the concepts I have presented.
However, it should be noted that the conjecture was inspired by an
ontology that began with Plato and the Neo-Platonist, found expression
in Islamic philosophy and culminated in Writings of the Bábí and Bahá’í
Faiths. Christians and Jews will need to recognize that, consistent with
the conjecture I have proffered, there are two creation stories in the
Bible. As noted in Marcus J. Borg’s book “Reading The Bible Again For
The First Time”; " The first three chapters of Genesis contain two
stories of creation, written about four hundred years apart. The first
one, Genesis 1.1–2.3, was probably written in the 500s BCE. Commonly
called the “priestly” or “P” story, it is part of a larger block of
material extending through the Pentateuch and reflecting priestly and
ritual concerns. The second one was written earlier. It begins in
Genesis 2.4 and continues through the end of chapter 3. Perhaps written
in the 900s BCE, it is commonly called the “Yahwist” or “J” creation
story, because the author uses “Yahweh” as the name of God.
In his book, “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins does not reject the God of Spinoza and
Einstein “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”
Instead Dawkins rejects, for himself and the vast majority of
scientists, that there is any possibility that the Einsteinian God can
be teleologically active in Creation. What I have tried to proffer a plausible scientific basis to believe that the "Einsteinian God" could be
teleologically active and that statistically improbable events (miracles) could
occur.
However, the casualty in all of this is the theologian's concept of God may need to be abandoned.
"Therefore
consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they
create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of
all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and
worship imagination (or illusion)."(Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablets of Abdu'l-Bahá
v3, p. 562