A Quantum Circuit Model in Axiomatic Metaphysics Marek Perkowski and Rev. Tomasz Seweryn God Versus Quantum Mechanics

A Quantum Circuit Model in Axiomatic Metaphysics

Marek Perkowski and Rev. Tomasz Seweryn

God Versus God Versus Quantum MechanicsQuantum Mechanics

Plan of this talk

It is Possible that God

exist

It is Necessary that God

exist

Gödel proof by modal logic

Big bang

Antropic principle

Quantum Mechanics

is True

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum

Mechanics is True

Everett or other Interpretation of

Quantum Mechanics is

True

God can act directly in experimentally

non-verifiable ways in non-animated matter on a quantum level

God can communicate in experimentally

non-verifiable ways with humans

Six axioms of QM

Human consciousness

is on the quantum level

One axiom of Penrose-Hameroff Theory AXIOM 7

One axiom: God exists and controls quantum measurements. AXIOM 8

Plantinga

Shortest formal formulation of this work

(1) the Quantum Mechanics is true, (2) the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (3) God exists,

there is a possibility of miracles through God affecting the results of quantum measurements.

It is impossible to verify in any experiment single interventions in crossovers and mutations.

PLANPLANPart 1 Part 1 – Quantum Mechanics and Quantum

Robots (no philosophy and theology in this part)

Part 2 Part 2 – The problem of miracles and God’s action in Reality (one theistic axiom added – God of Philosophers)

Part 3 Part 3 – Examples of our model

(derived from 1 and 2 using Quantum Robotics formal methods)

PLANPLANPart 1 Part 1 – Quantum Mechanics and

Quantum Robots (no philosophy and theology in this part)

Part 2 Part 2 – The problem of miracles and God’s action in Reality (one theistic axiom added)

Part 3 Part 3 – Examples of our model

(derived from 1 and 2 using Quantum Robotics formal methods)

Dear friend atheist, you can protest only here in Part 2

Part 1

From Quantum From Quantum Mechanics to Mechanics to

Quantum RobotsQuantum Robots

Quantum Mechanics fundamentals are easy and everybody can learn them

There are now easy books that allow to learn quantum mechanics and quantum computing

There exists simulation software to verify all results discussed here.

AXIOMS OF QUANTUM AXIOMS OF QUANTUM MECHANICSMECHANICS

1. Associated with any particle moving in a conservative field of force is a wave function which determines everything that can be known about the system.

2. With every physical observable q there is associated an operator Q, which when operating upon the wavefunction associated with a definite value of that observable will yield that value times the wavefunction.

3. Any operator Q associated with a physically measurable property q will be Hermitian.

4. The set of eigenfunctions of operator Q will form a complete set of linearly independent functions.

5. For a system described by a given wavefunction, the expectation value of any property q can be found by performing the expectation value integral with respect to that wavefunction.

6. The time evolution of the wavefunction is given by the time dependent Schrodinger equation.

You do not have to understand all these axioms now. I will explain the minimum necessary subset in a moment

Every Robot Controller can be designed in one of these three types of logic

Deterministic Logic

Probabilistic Logic

Quantum Logic

• In our reductionist model we reduce psychology to biology, biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics.

• This is a very materialistic approach, so far.

Thus we assume that a human is a robot, but not a classical robot but a robot with quantum controller

Outline

1.1. Quantum Braitenberg VehiclesQuantum Braitenberg Vehicles1. Programmable Braitenberg Vehicles

2. Combinational and Quantum Circuits

3. Deterministic, Probabilistic, and Entangled Behaviors

4. Examples of our Robots

Two Two aspectsaspects

Prepare especially Prepare especially talented teens for talented teens for college researchcollege research

New research area New research area of Quantum Roboticsof Quantum Robotics

Classic Braitenberg

Fear Aggression

Quantum Braitenberg Quantum Braitenberg VehiclesVehicles

Programmable Braitenberg

H

A B

P Q

A = Left Light Sensor

B = Right Light Sensor

P = Motor for Left Wheel

Q = Motor for Right Wheel

Circuit Implemented by Program

Ultrasonic Sensor

Robot Configuration – Additional Sensors

Left Light Sensor

Right Light Sensor

Sound Sensor

Ultrasonic Sensor

Touch Sensor

Representing Gates via Matrices

A

B Q

P

Feynman Gate

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

00

01

10

11

A B P Q Behavior0 0 0 0 Robot stays stationary.

0 1 0 1 Robot moves right

1 0 1 1 Robot moves forward.

1 1 1 0 Robot moves left

Input

Ou

tput

Using Binary Gates





A

B Q

P

Feynman Gate

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

A

B Q

P

And-OR Gates

1 0 0 00 1 1 00 0 0 00 0 0 1

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11




1 1 1 0 Robot moves left.

This behavior is deterministicdeterministic because it can be determined how the robot will react to a given input.

Selected Circuits

A

B Q

P A

B Q

P A

B Q

P

A

B Q

P A

B Q

P

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 1 00 0 0 1

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

Direct Connection Swap Gate Feynman Gate

1 0 0 00 0 0 10 1 0 00 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

Feynman+Swap Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen And-OR Gates

Identity Matrix

1 0 0 00 0 1 00 1 0 00 0 0 1

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1 0 1 00 1 0 10 1 0 -11 0 -1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1

√2

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 1

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

A

B Q

PH

Using Quantum Gates

11

11

2

1

A P Behavior

0 ½ 0

½ 1

Motor stops or moves.

1 ½ 0

½ 1


A P

Hadamard

H

0

1

11

11

2

1* =

1

1

2

1

Which in Dirac Notation is,

1|0|2

1

2

1

Which after Measurement means,

½ probability of ‘0’ & ½ probability of ‘1’

Hadamard Input A=0 Output

• Quantum logic states are often represented in Dirac NotationDirac Notation:• i.e., a|0> + b|1> + c|2>• where quantum states |0>, |1> and |2> are representative of

superpositional states as weighted by a, b and c, such that |a|2, |b|2 and |c|2 are the probabilities of measurement of basic quantum state |0>, |1> or |2> (and |a|2 + |b|2 + |c|2 = 1).

Qubits inhabit the Bloch SphereQubits inhabit the Bloch Sphere

|2>

|1>

|0>

120°

120°

120°

x

z

y

|1>

|0>

180°

180°

x

z

y

>1|>0|>| +βα=ψ

1

0>1|

0

1>0| =,=

1||>|>| 2=c,ic=ψ ii

i

*

*

Dear Friend Atheist, now pay attention.

1. According to Quantum Mechanics, the bottom of observable reality is random. Whole Universe and thus physics, chemistry, biology and psychology is based on random mechanism.

2. Einstein, other physicists and marxists were not able to agree with this, as they understood the consequences of this fact.

3. But Einstein was proven experimentally wrong.

4. Now every physicist agrees with the mathematical model that I present here.

Entanglement Example

A

B Q

PH

Our teens will never forget about the Einstein-Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen robotPodolsky-Rosen robot and hence about the entanglement……

…. because they build it…..

Entanglement Example – Step 1

A B P Q Behavior0 0 0

1

0

0

Robot stays stationary.

Or, moves left

0 1 0

1

1

1

Robot moves right

Or, moves forward

1 0 0

1

0

0

Robot stays stationary.

Or, moves left

1 1 0

1

1

1

Robot moves right

Or, moves forward

A

B Q

P

Hadamard in parallel with wire

1 0 1 00 1 0 11 0 -1 00 1 0 -1

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

H

11

11

2

1A PH

A P Behavior

0 ½ 0

½ 1


1 ½ 0

½ 1


Hadamard

10

01A P

A P Behavior

0 0 Stopped

1 1 Moving

Wire

1

√2

11

11

2

1

10

01 =

Entanglement Example – Step 2

A B P Q Behavior

0 0 ½ 0

½ 1

½ 0

½ 1

Stationary or moves forward.

0 1 ½ 0

½ 1

½ 1

½ 0

Turns right or turns left.

1 0 ½ 0

½ 1

½ 0

½ 1

Stationary or moves forward.

1 1 ½ 0

½ 1

½ 1

½ 0

Turns right or turns left.

A

B Q

P

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen

1 0 1 00 1 0 10 1 0 -11 0 -1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1

√2

H

A

B Q

P

Feynman Gate

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11




1 1 1 0 Robot moves left

1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 10 0 1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1 0 1 00 1 0 11 0 -1 00 1 0 -1

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

1

√2* =

Putting it together

H

A B

P Q

A BFalse False

False True

True False

True True

1 0 1 00 1 0 10 1 0 -11 0 -1 0

00 01 10 1100

01

10

11

01 00

00

01

10

11

Selected Combination

01 10

P QFalse False

False True

True False

True True

1

√2

1

√2

Vector ‘I’

Vector ‘O’

Matrix ‘M’

O = M * I

Measurement

Either the robot will turn left or turn right with equal probability.

Conclusion for philosophers

The mathematics that I have shown demonstrates that:

1.The fundament of existence (Reality) is random

2.A simple model can be built which clearly separates the deterministic, probabilistic and entanglement (quantum) behaviors

3.Operation of the robot (human) can be modeled on a computer assuming standard QM with random number generator.

4.Operation of the robot can be modeled with “simulated God” that controls single measurements

5.These operations can be compared.

Quantum Automaton RobotQuantum Automaton Robot

C

S1

S2M2

M1H

Mood

Combinational logic with probabilistic entangled results

memory

m1

m1

md

Calculations in Hilbert Space

measurements

Logic Diagram of a Quantum Automaton. Use of Hilbert space calculations and probabilistic measurement is

explained. Memory is standard binary memory, all measurements are binary numbers. All inputs from sensors S1, S2 and outputs to motors M1, M2 are also

binary numbers. Mood is an internal state:

Mood = 0 corresponds to rational nice mood and Mood = 1 to an irrational and angry robot.

Part 2

PROBLEM PROBLEM FORMULATION:FORMULATION:

Can God perform Can God perform Miracles?Miracles?

Do all the physicists believe in atheism (materialism) ?

Just few examples of famous quantum physicists who believe in something else than matter are Niels Bohr [Born71, Bohr49], Werner Heisenberg [Kumar08], Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, Paul Davies [Davies80,

Davies91], Albert Einstein [Kumar08], Erwin Schrödinger, Zbigniew Jacyna-Onyszkiewicz

[Jacyna11], Amit Goswamy [Goswamy01,

Goswamy08], Roger Penrose and many other.

The physicists who believe that only matter exists include: Paul Dirac, David Bohm, Steven Hawking Richard Feynman.

• Observe that of the famous “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” who related to QM in their writing) none is none is a physicista physicist

• Daniel Dennett - philosopher,

• Richard Dawkins - biologist,

• Sam Harris - neuroscientist

• Christopher Hitchens - journalist

Victor Stenger is a physicist

1. Many scientists and lay people say:I may believe in some form of Mind or God but

Miracles are impossible and God controlling Evolution is not possible.

2. We will show that if God exists and Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is true than all kinds of miracles are possible just by God controlling results of quantum quantum measurements.measurements.

We add just two axioms to the formal system of quantum mechanics

AXIOM 7. Human and animal brains (and bodies) are quantum computers in a sense that their operation is affected by the quantum phenomena that operate on particles and molecules of the brains and bodies.

AXIOM 8. God, as specified in theistic philosophies, from the very beginning of Universe, has affected and still affects all quantum measurements of all particles in the Universe, particularly the measurements inside brains and between brains and the Universe.

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power

omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

Axiom 7 in other words

This axiom is consistent with some materialistic theories.

Old materialists say: “Human Brain is a Turing Machine”

New materialists say: “Human Brain is a Quantum Turing Machine”.

Comments to AXIOM 8. In this axiom, by “brain and body” we understand the whole human

body, not only the decision making part of the brain. This means, our model includes the immunological system immunological system and other systems that may also

perform quantum calculations, and are definitely based on some quantum phenomena.

The belief from Axiom 8 is still hypothetical, but very possible with respect to recent discoveries [Sarovar10, Engel07]),

To the authors of this paper it is obvious that somehow quantum processes of particles inside the brain and body must affect their operation and thus human thinking and behavior. These mechanisms may be very subtle and difficult to analyze and prove.

Even if this Axiom 7 is not true, most of the arguments of this paper remain true because of the existence of Axiom 8: the interpretation remains the same, only the mechanisms may be more complex and less straightforward to prove by computer simulation.

Comments to AXIOM 8.

1. We reiterate that the concept of God can be replaced by “spiritual forces”, “immaterial influence”, etc.

2. This is the only axiom of this paper that is not based on the hard science only axiom of this paper that is not based on the hard science and cannot be confirmed or denied by the hard science other than by proving that QM is wrong.

3. The concept of God’s existence is consistent with any belief other than atheism and materialism. Especially, it is consistent with all Abrahamic Faith (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and Buddhism (Buddhism denies existence of God-creator but recognizes non-material spiritual forces operating in the Universe).

4. Proving QM wrong would invalidate all or most of this paper, but would not invalidate God’s existence.

1. It would invalidate only God’s way of operation in the Universe as suggested by this paper.

2.2. The place of theistic philosophy would return then to the state that this philosophy The place of theistic philosophy would return then to the state that this philosophy exercised before invention of QM. (it was tougher for an intellectual to believe in Newton’s exercised before invention of QM. (it was tougher for an intellectual to believe in Newton’s time than in Bohr’s times)time than in Bohr’s times)

5. Observe that the concept of God in our model is more consistent with any ancient and modern faith systems than with the model of a (deistic) “God of Philosophers” who created the Universe but did not take an active part in it since then. • The God of this axiom tirelessly influences, tunes, and

adjusts all mechanisms of Nature, biology and human life.

6. Our model considers not a God of Gaps, the model just reflects the nature of how God interacts with His Creation. Previous scientific models of physics and Universe (Newton Era paradigms) were just not imaginative enough.

7. When writing “His” we do not imply God has gender, we are just consistent with the spirit of natural language.

Comments to AXIOM 8.

Existing Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics versus our model

Observe that according to the paradigms of modern scientific thinking only one of the listed below possibilities P1 - P4 related to QM can be true:

P1. P1. QM Model is true and Quantum measurements are truly random (Copenhagen interpretation of QM).

P2. P2. QM Model is not true. There exists certain yet unknown mechanism that stands behind quantum world and in the future a deterministic model of this mechanism will be created to explain the perceived randomness of quantum measurement. This would mean abolishment of quantum mechanics postulates and this contradicts

all the mathematics of QM.


P2. cont

It is well-known that quantum mechanics is the most solid physics theory and the fundament of QM remains in the newer, more general physics theories such as string theory.

QM cannot be in agreement with the theory of relativity, so thinking literally, accepting only one of these theories is possible.

It is thus quite likely that quantum mechanics will be modified or abolished, but in this paper we are discussing the current scientific view point and not a hypothetical future scientific viewpoint.

At this point one cannot predict what would be the next scientific paradigm that would replace QM.

It is more likely that relativity theory is wrong than the QM is wrong.


P3P3. QM Model is true and the mechanism of our Universe is that it has two separate but intimately related components: the quantum mechanics quantum mechanics mathematics mathematics and a separate intelligent external and independent agent separate intelligent external and independent agent that affects all measurements, which we call God.

Actually what we call God here can be some unspecified mechanism from another Universe which operates according to the laws that can be never determined within our system of measurements and observations.

This “external non-material mechanism” is more similar to the traditional comprehension of God than to any possible concepts of physics, so we keep to call this mechanism God.

Observe that this mechanism cannot be material, as quantum mechanics is the theory of matter with matter defined as “all that can be measured and observed”.

Another definition of matter as “all that exists” is not scientific. It is circular, so this definition is useless in both philosophical and scientific discussions. This circular error is common among materialists.

P4. P4. Copenhagen interpretation of QM is not true but QM axiomatic/math are still true. We do not discuss other interpretations of quantum mechanics in this paper.

Part 3

Results of this Results of this work: work: How God How God

may act in Realitymay act in Reality

FIRST EXAMPLE. GOD CONTROLS A QBV vehicle

H

A B

P Q

Example 5.1.

Let us now discuss QBV EPR as the simplest possible model in our FAS system MMQM.

Suppose that we have a QBV EPR vehicle that because of an entanglement in its controller creates the quantum state

It means that with probability ½ the robot stops and with probability ½ the robot drives some distance forward (say 2 cm).

Let us assume that this vehicle is physically realized as a robot and AXIOM 8 is now allowed to operate.

Question.

What is the God’s potential God’s potential for QBV EPR according to standard QM theory (from Section 4 of this paper) assuming Copenhagen Interpretation?

H

A B

P Q

• FASFAS = Formal Axiomatic System

• MMQMMMQM = metaphysical model of quantum mechanics

Answer. For QBV EPR God can only select between measuring |00 and |11.

God cannot cause measurements |01 or |10.

Selecting however subsequently many times between |00 and |11 God can select the speed of motion, regularity of motion and in extreme cases God can stop the robot entirely, or make it move forward with the highest speed.

But God cannot make this vehicle turn right or turn left. This is a consequence of our axiomatic assumption – God following

the rules of the created by Him system (God cannot violate its own rules).

This example leads us to the problem of correct understanding what is God’s Omnipotence.

Example continued: What God can and what God cannot do?

God’s Omnipotence in the MMQM model We used above the words that “God in our model “cannot do” certain changes to

the physical world”.

God is from definition Omnipotent, thus “God can do everything”, but God cannot contradict logic .

Obviously, as we distinguish a formal system within our model, violating any of its axioms would “imply contradiction”.

Making square circles, making 2+2 = 5, or violating axioms of Boolean algebra or quantum postulates is inconsistent with the creation of these laws by God.

God just cannot violate quantum postulates if QM is correct, the same way as God cannot violate the arithmetic fact that 2+2=4.

In our Universe, God cannot violate the fact 2+2=4 even once! God can create another standard arithmetic for another Universe but not in this one.

Can God do everything?1. The idea that “God can do everything” is a false understanding of Omnipotence, a problem discussed

for instance by many theologians.

2. God cannot do anything immoral and God cannot cease to exist.

3. Most theistic philosophies do not claim that God, being Omnipotent, can “do anything”.

4. For instance, in Christian theology God cannot violate His own rules. In the specific “mini-Universe” of this paper, the rules are the formal rules of QM, also the formal rules of classical kinematics and control.

5. In general, the rules of matter are part of rules of God (only some of these rules of matter have been already recognized by humans – these constitute rules of science).

6. The problem “if God can act against logic?” was discussed by St. Thomas Aquinas [Thomas].

7. Thomas, in response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles), writes that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God”.

8. There exists a classical problem in theology “can God create a stone that is so heavy that God cannot raise it?”

9. St. Thomas answer was that this problem formulation is based on a contradiction, the same as in the case of asking “Can God create a square circle?”

Most Christian philosophers agree that God is somehow limited by His own creation and “Cannot do everything”.

Are Miracles Possible?1. Note, that if a physicist would build the above QBV EPR robot as a real robot and

would see that the robot permanently stops, he would think that some error was done in the assembly of the robot.

2. If the robot would move full speed the physicist would also think that an error was done in calculations or construction.

3. Both these robot behaviors are of extremely low probability using QM measurement axiom statistically.

4. These “low probability behaviors” can occur as “miracles” that God can perform in the maximally simplified “quantum universes” described by the Braitenberg Vehicles above and their environments.

5. These miracles are consistent with QM formalism and explainable only in our QM interpretation model.

6. God can perform such miracles in every system that includes quantum particles, which means practically for every matter of the Universe.

7. God can perform these miracles very rarely, still being able to control physical processes such as evolution of species.

More discussion on QBV 1 with More discussion on QBV 1 with other probabilitiesother probabilities

Note that in the above QBV EPR example the probabilities are ½. Instead of ½, the measurement probabilities can be arbitrarily close to zero or

arbitrarily close to 1. Let us assume now that we replace the robot with a human. Human’s brain and body are a kind of quantum computer MMQM model. As an

answer to certain moral dilemma, a smart and moral human faced with this dilemma creates in his quantum automaton brain the output states that are deterministic 1 or 0, yes and no, which are his firm answers to this dilemma.

Thus this human gives no freedom to God to influence the randomness of measurement.

But if the person’s quantum evolved decision (just before the measurement) is any other than firm yes or no (any quantum state other than |0 or |1), God has much more freedom to operate than the QM mechanics axiom would allow to a random measurement.

For instance, an undecided person may be caught in a Cat State (a superposed one-qubit state), to decide to commit abortion or not, but God may decide to measure 1 (abort – to give her a lesson), or to measure 0 – she will not abort and “God helped her”).

But if the person will be in the basic (deterministic) state |0 just before the measurement, God cannot change it to a measured 1. In the QM model if the person would be in a quantum state close to 1, the probability of measuring 1 would be high, but the MMQM model allows every particular measurement to have value 0, as this measurement is God-influenced.

Observe that these are internal measurements of single particles inside the brain, facts unobservable so far to any technology, even by nuclear imaging of brain.

More discussion on QBV 1 with other probabilities

A robot with God influencing both perception (observation also requires quantum

measurement) and decisions to take actions.

What about troubles of a theist with our model?

If a theist-reader still has troubles with God that cannot perform some specific actions in this model, let us remind that our QBV EPR example model is an extremely simplified cybernetic model in which there is a clear separation of the quantum physics MMQM (robot’s brain – quantum circuit) and the classical physics FAS (all the rest of the robot, base, wheels, electronics). In a real physical system there are many more places for God to operate

using quantum measurements, because every particle of every component is quantum and is potentially subject to quantum measurement.

The neural, immunological and every other subsystem of a human body reasons, calculates and performs quantum measurements, giving God an opportunity to change probabilities.

We are not introducing the concept of individual soul and our theory is not holistic, it is reductionist. We want to make things simple.

If an atheist-reader has trouble with this model, he should note that this model reintroduces reason to the way how the Universe operates.

It was a crown argument of Marxism originating from the Newton and Laplace paradigms that the Universe works rationally and deterministically.

Introduction of QM in XXth Century made a death blow against Marxism by introducing randomness as a base of physics.

If a word God in our MMQM cannot be swallowed by an atheist, he can replace in our model this notion of God with some Absolute – a higher dimension of reality which is based on consciousness, but not on matter [Lloyd06, Deutsch98]. This can be also a higher civilization of Extraterrestials that operate using

entanglement. This can be Universe programming itself.

What about troubles of an atheist with our model?

THIRD EXAMPLE. THIRD EXAMPLE. GOD PREVENTS DETONATION OF A

HYDROGEN BOMB BY AFFECTING JUST ONE MEASUREMENT

H

A B

P Q

God affects detonation of Hydrogen God affects detonation of Hydrogen Bomb by affecting a single quantum Bomb by affecting a single quantum measurementmeasurement

EPR QBV in a dark room, denoted by R, that cannot detonate the atomic bomb using detonator D in a completely dark or completely lighted room.

It can detonate the hydrogen bomb in a partially lighted room (all these assuming no God’s influence on measurement).

Even with God’s influence, if the room is dark the robot cannot detonate the bomb. The arrow shows the initial orientation of the robot.

Conclusions1. Many examples of thought experiments similar to those presented above can be

created and verified on computer models, but our few examples explain well enough the basic ideas of our model.

2. Some philosophers argue that QM has to do only with micro-world so it has no relation to humans. This reasoning is just wrong.

As we see from the hydrogen-bomb example in section 5, a single quantum measurement may hypothetically affect lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

3. The practical and intuitive concepts derived from Hilbert Space formalisms, such as the quantum circuits, quantum games, quantum automata and quantum computers are easy to explain; they allow to be better visualized to modern common humans.

These formal concepts are useful especially to engineers who are familiar with circuits, schemata and feedback.

The quantum circuits can be simulated on a normal computer and their behaviors can be visualized and analyzed statistically.

The quantum circuits are what the truly quantum computer does.

As people with engineering minds are familiar with digital circuit schematics, flowcharts and programming, these languages are easier to communicate theological ideas than

1. the language of mediaeval theology of St. Tomas on one hand,

2. and modern systems of mathematical logic on the other hand.

We believe that these are models and languages that can be used to better and more precisely communicate philosophical and theological ideas so far these languages are neglected by philosophers and theologians alike.

By doing this, we try to create “a theology for engineers and programmers”.

1. In contrast to “theology for philosophers” or “theology for masses”, in future, most people will belong to this category.

2. So our attempt is practicalour attempt is practical.

Conclusions (cont)

1. We believe that one of applications of our model is early education. By teaching early in life Quantum Mechanics and interpretations of QM educators can

help young people to develop a deeper understanding of reality.

1. QM is not taught in high schools in physics classes.

2. It should be taught in some simplified way, as in this paper, so we hope at least the philosophy and religion teachers will teach philosophical aspects of QM to illustrate that the reality is not what it may seem to us.

3. It would be perhaps best to introduce a rigorous although simplified “Quantum Mechanics with philosophical aspects” course in high schools.

Conclusions

What kind of knowledge should be taught?

1. High Mathematical Level, 2. Precise, 3. Comprehensive4. No philosophical

interpretation

Scientific monographs Scientific monographs and texbooks on QMand texbooks on QM

Popular books (Davies, Polkinghorne, Popular books (Davies, Polkinghorne, Gotsami, Barr, Capra, Chopra, Gotsami, Barr, Capra, Chopra,

quantum mysticism)quantum mysticism)

1. No Mathematics 2. Imprecise, 3. Comprehensive4. Ambitious philosophical

interpretations

The books that are The books that are neededneeded 1. Simplified but fully

comprehensible Mathematics 2. Precise but illustrated with

examples3. Focus on one aspect only4. Limited but firm philosophical

interpretations

1.This idea exists in many valuable books by Chopra, Barr, Goswami, Capra, Talbot, etc but these books use non-scientific terms and try to explain quantum mechanics in lay and poetic terms.

2.In our observation, in case of people who did not learn formal QM, these books may lead their readers either to total refusal of “QM versus God” concepts or to some kind of “fuzzy mysticism”.

3.It would be perhaps better just to teach a subset of quantum mechanics that has philosophical connotations.

Conclusions (cont)

Final Conclusion related to Intelligent Design

1. Let us call the model of “random” Evolution as advocated by materialists (Dawkins) the “purely-random evolution” or PREPRE

2. Let us call the model of “Evolution with controlled Quantum measurements” (controlled by God, gods, nature’s mind or superintelligent alients) the “controlled-measurement evolution or CMECME

It is not possible and it will be never possible not possible and it will be never possible to distinguish by scientific methods whether PRE model or CME model is true.

This can be treated as a consequence of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

One has to distinguish actual Intelligent Design Theory of Behe with the concept that God can somehow be involved in Evolution.

Should we challenge Professor’s Beliefs?

Otherwise there is a danger that they will be challengedOtherwise there is a danger that they will be challengedby students who know Quantum Mechanics. by students who know Quantum Mechanics.

Professors who teach “science and pseudoscience classes” Professors who teach “science and pseudoscience classes” or “science versus philosophy” or “science versus philosophy”

or “Darwinism versus Intelligent Design” classesor “Darwinism versus Intelligent Design” classesshould understand some fundaments should understand some fundaments

of Quantum Mechanicsof Quantum Mechanics

Even if this theory is not true…

….. We showed that one can discuss in a reasonable scientific level the questions of God Omnipotence, so people who believe in God’s Omnipotence should be not ridiculed in classes, nor given hard time by professors.

The conversation became more heated when I read to the group what the student had written on her final exam: "I wrote what I had to ‘agree’ with what was said in class, but in truth I believe ABSOLUTELY that there is an amazing, savior GOD, who created the universe, lives among us, and loves us more than anything. That is my ABSOLUTE, and no amount of ‘philosophy’ will change that."

This student’s statement shows that her basic theistic her basic theistic faith faith was questioned in the class and not her belief in not her belief in Intelligent Design Theory or Intelligent Design Theory or Creationism TheoryCreationism Theory.

Should We Challenge Student Beliefs?July 19, 2011 - 3:00am ByPeter Boghossian Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/07/192/boghossian#ixzz1jfzgdh7V Inside Higher Ed

Documents

A Quantum Circuit Model in Axiomatic Metaphysics Marek Perkowski and Rev. Tomasz Seweryn God Versus Quantum Mechanics