God exists

The initial quantum has all the essential properties commonly attributed to God

God is acceptable as a conclusion, not as an explanation

The 'God explanation' - the notion that there is an infinite, all powerful, all knowing and all good being, commonly referred to as God, who created the entire universe out of nothing - scores very badly as an explanation for the phenomenon that the universe appears to contain purposed phenomena. Granting, for the sake of discussion, that the above mentioned properties of God are not in direct contradiction with the observed universe, this explanation gets the worst possible Occam score: an unbounded paradox. As QO scores much better, we shall not pay the 'God explanation' further attention.

However, this is not the end of the matter. For although God is not a good point of departure for explaining apparent purposes, God is quite admissible as a conclusion arising from simpler explanations (i.e. explanations with a lower Occam score). And as it just so happens, the simplest explanation, namely QO, leads almost inescapably to the conclusion that there exists a being with properties very similar to those the Bible attributes to God, who purposed the universe for life. Granted, the similarity is not perfect, but it is decidedly better than the similarity between traditional Christian conceptions of God and the properties the Bible attributes to God, so that is not a valid reason for believers to reject QO.

QO postulates that all that is originated from a single quantum, and is entangled with that quantum, in a single, ultimate wave. What might the properties of this ultimate wave be? Could it be God? Then it would have to be self-aware and capable of acting in the universe. And it would fit in better with traditional conceptions of God if it was a personal being.

Self-awareness

There is a mechanism, implicit in Quantum Mechanics, which makes it possible for a wave to exhibit behaviour which can best be understood as ‘self-awareness’, the ability to detect and react to its own states. This mechanism is demonstrated in the principle on which all chemistry is based – the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two electrons with the same spin can be in the same orbit around an atomic nucleus at the same time, even though two electrons with opposing spins can. For the exclusion principle to work, the wave system consisting of the two electrons and the atomic nucleus must have some mechanism by means of which it is aware of the spins of the electrons. This awareness is not the result of any force which operates on the particles; it is there, that is all. For it detects, but this detection involves no exchange of energy, as far as we can see. Because it involves no exchange of energy, it is not subject to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and there is no structural barrier to the awareness being complete. 

In fact, the Pauli exclusion principle is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to uniqueness detection. Quantum Mechanics is pervaded with phenomena which can be adequately understood only when we assume that the same sort of thing in the same place with the same properties is, by definition, the same thing, existing only once. The existence of these phenomena points toward there being some sort of awareness mechanism built into the most basic structure of reality. Whatever it is that connects a wave and a particle, connects the complex wave of the atom with its constituent particles and enables the wave to know that a particular slot – an orbital with a particular spin – is already occupied by an electron.

When we combine this type of self-awareness with the idea that a Platonic form – such as “electron” – influences all its manifestations, then there is no particular reason why this awareness should be limited to particular locations. The awareness could extend to all parts of the wave, and Occam’s razor leads us to prefer the conclusion that it is, because we would otherwise have to hypothesize reasons why the awareness extends to some parts of the wave and not others. Therefore we may conclude that a wave could be aware of all of its components, and seeing that the ultimate wave includes all that there is, then it is potentially aware of everything.

Is the ultimate wave a conscious, personal being?

All that is complex in multiple senses exhibits personality. Personality is the product of unity and diversity, combined in such a way as to make the unity more profound and the diversity richer than either of them would be on their own. All sorts of things can exhibit personality to some degree: animals, houses, towns, designs of all sorts, even the earth. Because the ultimate wave is at one and the same time an enormous diversity and a unity, we have no particular reason to deny that it, too, exhibits personality.

When personality is combined with consciousness, we speak of a personal being. So the question arises: Is the ultimate wave conscious? To answer this question, we must consider what it is that makes us conscious. Out of which ingredients is our consciousness composed? On this matter, opinions are sharply divided, so I will hazard a best guess:  an ability to sense the environment, the ability to formulate thoughts in which this sensory information is transformed, and a sense of self. All of these ingredients are present in the ultimate wave, and therefore the razor dictates that we should regard the ultimate wave as being conscious, and therefore as being a personal being.

Is the Ultimate Wave intelligent?

Similar considerations apply to the question as to whether the ultimate wave is intelligent. We attribute our intelligence to the intricately interconnected complexity of our brains. The ultimate wave has far greater complexity, and there is every reason to expect that the waves of which it composed are intricately interconnected. In other words, there is every reason to believe that it is an intelligent personal being.

Does the Ultimate Wave have intentions?

To intend something, there must be a difference between an initial state and a desired state, and the conscious will to move from the one to the other. This is not necessarily a difference in time, for the notion applies equally well whether the transition is slow, fast or as good as instantaneous. If we grant that the ultimate wave arose by a process of differentiation rather than aggregation, then the difference between the undifferentiated and the differentiated state can be construed as an intention. Or, to put it another way, when waves are derived from other waves, the difference between them is something that the original waves can be regarded as having achieved and as having willed. Therefore we may conclude that the ultimate wave may be considered to have intentions.

It is one thing to have intentions, and quite another to be able to put those intentions into effect. Can the ultimate wave put its intentions into effect? In particular, can the ultimate wave consciously affect outcomes in our world? For although waves affect everything, period, that is not the same as saying that whatever the ultimate wave intends, happens. There is a difference between waves and particles, and an uncertainty which is associated with their interactions. For although waves and particles each behave perfectly predictably, when a measurement is made of a property of any particle, that property may take on any value that the wave permits, and once it has taken on that value, the wave is also changed. Because the value is unpredictable, the change to the wave is also unpredictable. In consequence, the ultimate wave cannot achieve all its intentions.

This is not to say that the ultimate wave is entirely at the mercy of chance. At the level of our perception, quantum measurement effects are statistically insignificant. They can only impact our experience via the nail in the horseshoe effect: for want of a nail, the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse, the battle and hence the kingdom were lost. Recent developments in science make even this effect to be less of a problem than it at first appears. For it is possible to use what is known as the Quantum Zeno effect in order to ensure that the measured value of a property of a particle or quantum system remains stable, if this value is suitable to the purpose of the measuring system, and to change it into the desired value by means of a rapid succession of slightly changing measurements, if it is not. In consequence, if some Platonic forms are stronger than others, they shall prevail not only in the ultimate wave, but also in our world. The ultimate wave plays dice, but they are loaded.

Is the Ultimate Wave God?

Using nothing but basic physics and Occam’s razor, we have arrived at the notion that there is an entity which is outside of space, but aware of all that is within space, and that this entity can best be conceived of as an intelligent, personal being that is capable of having purposes and affecting our world in accordance with them. These are the characteristics which the great monotheistic religions have traditionally attributed to God.

However, there is no need to identify the ultimate wave with God – and certainly not for those who believe in divine revelation. For them the razor is, by definition, subordinate to that which has been revealed. They are free to conclude, for example, that ultimate wave merely coincides with the world of forms, which, according to the neo-Platonist Plotinus, is two stages removed from God. But there are also options in which God is not identical with the ultimate wave, which we can adopt whilst applying Occam’s razor wherever we can because they require no additional entities. It is quite consistent with the arguments presented thus far to hypothesise that God consists only of an upper layer of constituent waves within the ultimate wave, perhaps those waves which do not directly interact with our phenomenal world. It is also possible to identify only the original quantum, from which all other quanta are derived, with God.

Even if it was God, the entity we have described is a long way from a God which adherents of Judaism, Christianity or Islam would recognize. Before we can conclude that they are one and the same, there are several issues that must be addressed. Can this entity be good, if there is evil in the world? Can this entity be conceived of as being both one and many? What basis does this entity offer for morality? These issues are addressed in the domain Religion.

It must be stressed that thus far we have only demonstrated that a particular line of reasoning leads us to conclude that a being that resembles God is likely to exist. But we have not proved this to be the case; no argument which makes use of Occam’s razor can ever be regarded as a proof. Given that we cannot even prove that we ourselves exist, that can hardly be regarded as a dismissal of the argument. However, the argument line in this lemma does prove something indirectly. It proves that the notion that God exists is worthy of being taken seriously; it is neither ridiculous, incredible nor an insult to our intelligence. The notion that God exists has often been rejected because we could not conceive how such a God could interact with the universe, but we cannot apply this line of reasoning consistently without rejecting Quantum Mechanics too. Isn’t it time to re-examine the arguments which led us to dismiss the God-hypothesis?

Competency issues

Our conclusion must not be misconstrued as religion impinging on the domain of science. It is quite the reverse: it is science impinging on the domain of religion. Science can tell us things about the Ultimate Wave, additional to and potentially conflicting with revelation. God, or at least the manifestation of God in the ultimate wave, is a proper subject of scientific study, and the mechanisms by means of which God may interact with the universe are no longer beyond the pale of science. At last, areas of thought which, throughout human history, have been the exclusive domain of religion and revelation, can be approached by means of science and reason.