I’ve been doing a little reading about quantum theory. After watching What the Bleep Do We Know?, I went down to Borders and found Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction by John Polkinghorne. I read Polkinghorne’s The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker several years ago and really enjoyed it. As its title implies, “Quantum Theory” is a very brief look at the basic ideas, questions, and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. Polkinghorne does a great job of not getting too technical, while at the same time communicating the “cloudy fitfulness” of quantum theory. If you’re looking for an entry point into this subject, give this book a try. I’ve got The Elegant Universe sitting on the bookshelf and I plan to crack it open sometime in the not too distant future as well.
Polkinghorne concludes “Quantum Theory” with the following:
It seems appropriate to close this chapter with an intellectual health warning. Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, but it is not so odd that according to it “anything goes”. Of course, no one would actually argue with such crudity, but there is a kind of discourse that can come perilously close to adopting that caricature attitude. One might call it “quantum hype”. I want to suggest that sobriety is in order when making an appeal to quantum insight.
We have seen that the EPR effect does not offer an explanation of telepathy, for its degree of mutual entanglement is not one that could facilitate the transfer of information. Quantum processes in the brain my possibly have some connection with the existence of the human conscious mind, but random subatomic uncertainty is very different indeed from the exercise of the free will of an agent. Wave/particle duality is a highly surprising and instructive phenomenon, whose seemingly paradoxical character has been resolved for us by insights from quantum field theory. It does not, however, afford us a license to indulge in embracing any pair of apparently contradictory notions that take our fancy. Like a powerful drug, quantum theory is wonderful when applied correctly, disastrous when abused and misapplied.
Here’s my favorite quote from “Faith of a Physicist”:
Mistakes by natural theologians in the past do not preclude the possibility of success in the present. The science of 1750-1850 made plenty of mistakes too (phlogiston, caloric), and had ideas which were eventually fruitful but in a somewhat different form from that envisioned by their orginators. As a scientist I am often struck by theologians persistent fears of getting it wrong. …a willingness to explore ideas which might prove mistaken, or in need of revision, is a necessary price of scientific progress. One would have thought that the intrinsic difficulty in doing theology would encourage a similiar intrepidity. At times that has been so, but not always. I am not, of course, denying the existence of many wild flights of contemporary theological fancy, but saying within its more sober core I detect a degree of disinclination to take intellectual risk, particularly where it involves interaction with another discipline.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
ummm… whoa…
what the bleep are you talking about?
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. Sounds interesting, but I don’t really want to put forth the effort to try to wrap my feeble mind around it just yet… maybe in the future, or maybe I’ll just read your synopsis of it all.
Beneath His Mercy,
Brian
Wade, Great post……….. Are you on crack!!?? 🙂 I think I got a few words of what you said (the, maybe, or, etc.), but what you are saying I haven’t a clue. Could you put it in earth language? I think I am interested.
Have a blessed day!
Brad
A friend of mine watched ‘What the Bleep Do We Know’ and is fairly sure he’s figured out what the world is all about. I watched it and found it to be as much a religous film as anything else.
Quantam theory is interesting.
Wade, thanks for sharing this. I’ve been out of the loop and hadn’t even heard of that movie. Science and theology should remain friends, as theology is “faith seeking understanding.” But most ministers I know shy away from topics of this depth. I plan to look into these resources later this year.
I’ll take a stab at translating to English…
Just as in quantum physics there are more things that we don’t know than things we do – yet the things we do “know” help explain things that didn’t fit the “old model” – and the more we learn, the more we learn we don’t know…
The same can be true of our knowledge and certainty relating to God and Christ. And to think that there is more “behind the wall of our understanding” as it relates to the physical world, and that He created it all – should give every one of us pause to consider that there is so much more than we perceive on every level of life – physical, spiritual, emotional, etc.
It is a different worldview, yet it wants to be fully sufficient and broadly impactful, just as the Newtonian view molded or impacted nearly all other aspects of thought and life when it was introduced.
It is a paradigm shift of massive proportion (massively small! 😉 It is an excellent allegory to the emergent movement and this postmodern time.
Great translation Michael. I don’t understand everything I’m reading about Quantum mechanics, but what I do understand reminds me that all search for truth must be grounded in humility and the assumption that there is more out there that we don’t than we do.
You mention mistakes by scientists. In the 19th century, they spent considerable time attempting to measure the characteristics of the hypothesized “ether”, the supposed medium that was thought necessary for the propagation of light. Einstein effectively ended this activity with his better explanations. Raised and educated in the 20th century, I used to wonder why they ever pursued the idea. Having recently read “Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind” by Arthur Zajonc, I now understand that it was a necessary endeavor. The way the pursuit of understanding of the wave nature of sound and light unfolded, it was an obvious path to pursue. Their assiduous efforts produced new information and new instruments and deeper thinking. The lesson of this? Being wrong and failing are necessary for scientific progress. Perhaps the same holds true for our spiritual advancement as well.
Wade: I sent this article to John Clayton. I`m waiting for a translation! Fred
Sorry not on topic at all, but can’t find your e-mail address anywhere. I’m just putting you on notice, you’ve been tagged for a book meme at http://expatteacher.blogspot.com/2005/07/book-meme.html Can’t wait to see your answers.