Wikipedia has an excellent overall analysis of this problem, but it is perhaps a little complicated for the average reader, because it makes use of too much mathematical language which requires training. I minimize this inconvenience with another entry where I bring it down do common sense, at “God does not play dice with the Universe“.
I had a column in the local newspaper and wrote articles about the question of religion and science and obviously the time notion is basic to both, i.e., religion and science, although they are basically irreconcilable, or very difficult to talk to each other.
Here I will discuss the same matter under the scrutiny of literature and play writing.
My idea when I put myself together to create this site blog was to bring together ideas about time and its implications, especially in our notions about reality. But under the premises J B Priestley explained in this video and from which I stress his phrasing:
What should a writer do? Well, I believe it is a writer’s job now is to try and understand the whole wide social scene, to understand what people are thinking, feeling, fearing, and hoping and then to express as vividly and dramatically as possible that understanding and those feelings. A writer now should speak for the people. I believe that after the war the young writers have a great opportunity.
With that in mind, the article I wrote and where I expose what to expect from Quantum physics is the following:
Schoerodinger’s Cat
I was not understood by readers, who despite PhDs have difficulty reading and understanding text, about my elaboration of why purely scientific reasoning does not satisfy metaphysical cogitations, especially those that religion seeks to solve.
I used as an example the mathematical reasoning for the pile of oranges and Einstein’s conception, which suggests the possibility of time travel. Taking into account that today Physics is struggling between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to explain reality, I will elaborate on what I consider inconvenient for Quantum Physics to understand the reality around us and how it is also inadequate. Unfortunately there is no text collegiate level, like Einstein’s, for Quantum Physics, and I ask readers for patience with my perhaps incompetent attempt to overcome the problem. The incompatibility of Quantum Physics as a possible interpreter of reality is summarized in Einstein’s phrase, “God does not play dice with the Universe“. But what did Einstein mean in his review after all? I use the Internet. As a premise, Quantum Mechanics is not reconciled with the language of everyday life and with our observation. It acts intuitively against our perception, including scientists and even its inventor, Max Planck, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 and Lutheran pastor from 1920 until his death in 1947. Whereas Relativity is concerned with big things, like the Universe , Quantum Physics is concerned with very, very small things, at the atomic level or less. I advocate that at its level things look like science fiction and do not belong to the real world as we see it, although there are experiments proving its effectiveness. Perhaps the substantiation of my criticism is that for Quantum Physics, there are states that can be different parallel universes, with different effects from the universe as we know it. For example, there may be a universe where dinosaurs are still around, or Kennedy has not yet been murdered. Or there may be universes where you exist but you are a different person (sic). The number of possibilities are infinite. Sounds absurd? but it is what named and respected physicists believe. There is even a so-called “correct” way of thinking quantumly among them, which is called the Copenhagen Interpretation. Basically it dispenses with the notion of cause and effect and denies causality legitimacy. The most common example to understand this reasoning is in a mental experiment called Schroedinger’s Cat. I quote it ipsis litteris to Wikipedia: Imagine a cat encased in a box, so that it is not only alive or just dead, but “living dead”. To stay alive, he is tied to a random event, for example a hammer that releases radiation harmful to the cat’s physical state. If the hammer falls, the cat dies, otherwise he lives. This intertwining (which is the phenomenon described), of which he may be “alive-dead”, is that, however, he is neither distinctly alive nor distinctly dead, is what the Copenhagen Interpretation seeks to elucidate. The experiment also thinks that all this happens with the box closed, because if it opens, the observation changes what is being observed. Let there be a clean diaper …. I apologize for the incursion, but whoever wants to use these ideas to discuss whether the Universe has some deterministic plan or everything is there and everything is left to chance, help yourself and it is the reason why I privileged Einsteins views.
What Einstein meant?
He wrote in a letter addressed to Max Born (one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics) in 1926:
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it“
It is wrong, them, to interpret this quote assuming that Einstein was religious, believed in destiny, or rejected a core theory in physics.
In February 1954, just 14 months before he died, he wrote in a letter to the American physicist David Bohm: ‘If God created the world, his primary concern was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us.’
A more detailed explanation and its implications more at level of the theory behind it can be seen at “God does not play dice with the Universe“.
Man & Time J B Priestley 