This is a very interesting book chapter by a capable philosopher of science arguing for the existence of God by way of quantum physics, along with some evidence from cosmology and metaphysics . So if you’ll make allowances for the inevitable attenuation of scholarly integrity that occurs whenever a lesser intellect attempts to translate the ideas of a more sophisticated intellect into terms that he can understand, permit me to summarize the article:
Here is an essay about how current developments in theoretical physics refute physicalism (the theory that reality is exclusively material or physical, as defined by the physical sciences, and nothing more— nothing “supernatural”, like religious belief ). Quantum physics, the article claims, refutes physicalism (hereafter also referred to as “physicalism” or “materialism”) because:
1. Individuated physical (material) entities require certain well defined physically discernible properties (like a measurable space-time location). — BUT the subatomic (quantum) particles of which material entities are comprised (like electrons, bosons, fermions, virtual particles) don’t have this attribute (experiments have demonstrated this by even separated quantum particles from their own supposed properties—particles have been separated from their spin for instance)
2. Individual physical-material entities must be numerically distinct from one another—-BUT quantum field theory and relational interpretations of quantum mechanics refute this possibility (quantum fields as complete wholes are more fundamental than their derivative constituent material particles, which are all ultimately aspects of these single wholes)
3. Physical-material entities must interact with other physical entities via Causality —- BUT quantum non-locality violates this principle (separate points in spacetime influence one another in a non-causal way)
Beyond quantum evidence for the ultimate non-materiality of what we perceive as the physical universe, there is a long philosophical tradition which argues that:
1. A completely physical-material universe must be causally complete (must be a self-sufficient closed system of cause-effect). This is inconsistent with physical-materialist science however, because scientifically physical entities/events must be a consequence of physical causes. so there must be at least one Uncaused self-sufficient cause of the entire physical causal chain that produced our universe. Since all physical-material causes must be caused themselves, this uncaused cause must be outside the material-physical world (it must be supernatural).
2. So, This cause can’t be physical itself since scientific physical-material entities/events must have a cause (and this cause must be outside the physical world, for the above reason).Further, the entire physical process that caused the universe can’t be an uncaused cause of itself for the same reason. (Despite David Hume’s and Bertrand Russell’s —and perhaps Steven Hawking’s—famous claim that the physical-material universe could be its own cause). In addition , Claiming that the first cause of the physical universe is just another causally complete (self- caused) physical entity or force, violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason or Principle of Sufficient Causation (the fundamental principle that anything in the universe must have a causal explanation)—And refuting the PSR in this way would undermine all causal explanations and thus invalidate scientific reasoning and physicalism itself.
The above evidence from quantum physics, and philosophical arguments that the physical-material explanation for our universe can’t be complete, is also supported by current cosmology. This means that the physical universe as understood via our best current cosmology must have an extra-physical transcendent cause. Our physical universe via the Penrose-Hawking singularity (the “Big Bang” as the origin of the physical universe evinced by the cosmic microwave background, the course of Hubble expansion rate greater than 0, the second law of thermodynamics, and the necessity of Wheeler-Dewitt boundary conditions for quantum-level-cosmology-based explanations of cosmic origins) must have had a beginning and could not be the result of an infinite causal regress. Because of the above philosophical demonstration of the impossibility of physical/causal completeness, the physical universe must have had a beginning that transcends the physical world. Further the arbitrary but logically necessary existence of universal physical laws governing the behavior of the physical universe, suggests that these constraints were imposed on the physical universe from outside, rather than somehow arising/emerging from material substances themselves.
Since the physical-material world is comprised of quantum (subatomic) forces, but is different in nature than than these quantum level forces, the macroscopic (observable/ larger than subatomic) world of physical science, is only a consciously created model or symbol for the microscopic (subatomic) reality that it describes or represents to us. It only gives us a useful model for predicting the behavior of the observable physical-material world— not a description of the substance of what it really IS. This also suggests that our perceived material reality is a creation of conscious thought, and, because consciousness underwrites quantum dynamics, that consciousness may well be the fundamental substance or dynamic under-writing our universe. Quantum decoherence (a theory of quantum physics that attempts to reconcile how our apparent physical-material universe could somehow emerge from quantum-level forces) can’t solve the measurement problem (why/how measurement allows the underlying quantum reality —and consciousness that underlies THIS reality—to produce the observable material macroscopic world). The phenomena described by quantum physics simply don’t exist in any material form until they are observed and (via the London-Bauer interpretation, and Penrose’ argument that consciousness cannot be reduced to any scientifically-mathematically determined algorithm) this must be a conscious observation. In short, the macroscopic material world’s apparent substantiality and stability is merely an epiphenomenon of microscopic immaterial quantum statistical probabilities, made manifest via conscious measurement.
The article then describes how various interpretations of quantum physics attempt to preserve the possibility of of a materialist metaphysics, and concludes that these cannot be coherently justified. Philosophical theories that attempt to preserve the ultimate “structure” (mathematically describable laws and enduring design of the physical universe) that is immaterial itself, while accepting the insubstantiality of the material substances/entities that are structured, seems incoherent as well (Steven Hawking’s comment about the problem of connecting the ultimate laws of physics on one hand, with the material universe that is contingent upon these laws on the other hand —“what breathes fire into the equations” “why does the universe bother existing at all”— seems like a good expression of this dilemma.)
Thus, the article concludes, The above evidence from quantum physics, Combined with philosophical arguments and cosmological evidence from spacetime cosmology (described above) of a definitive beginning for the material universe from outside the material universe itself, the philosophical and empirical implausibility of physical laws arising from nature itself, and the sheer statistical improbability of the the universe’s “fine-tuned” laws arising randomly, all suggest that the material universe is the result of intelligent conscious outside (supernatural) creation.
Why this is an effective argument for “God” (let alone the Abrahamic Gods specifically) as opposed to just an argument for panpsychism, consciousness—-or against physicalism-materialism generally. But it does at least make space for an Abrahamic God, which was the intent of the author
