For Ficino. Don Page, Physicist And Evangelical Christian

[bornagainathiest]

I reckon this will be of interest to you, Ficino.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Page_(physicist)

 

Here is a link to a paper he wrote, with the title, 'A Theological Argument for an Everett Multiverse'

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5608(You can click and download a PDF version.)

 

Science looks for the simplest hypotheses to explain observations. Starting with the simple assumption that {\em the actual world is the best possible world}, I sketch an {\it Optimal Argument for the Existence of God}, that the sufferings in our universe would not be consistent with its being alone the best possible world, but the total world could be the best possible if it includes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who experiences great value in creating and knowing a universe with great mathematical elegance, even though such a universe has suffering. 
God seems loathe to violate elegant laws of physics that He has chosen to use in His creation, such as Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism or Einstein's equations of general relativity for gravity within their classical domains of applicability, even if their violation could greatly reduce human suffering (e.g., from falls). If indeed God is similarly loathe to violate quantum unitarity (though such violations by judicious collapses of the wavefunction could greatly reduce human suffering by always choosing only favorable outcomes), the resulting unitary evolution would lead to an Everett multiverse of `many worlds', meaning many different quasiclassical histories beyond the quasiclassical history that each of us can observe over his or her lifetime. This is a theological argument for one reason why God might prefer to create a multiverse much broader than what one normally thinks of for a history of the universe.

 

Explanation of some terms:

 

Quantum unitarity = A quantum-level restriction on an event, changing a range of possible outcomes into just one, desired outcome.

Collapse of the wavefunction = When that range of possible outcomes turns into just one event.

Quasiclassical = A hybrid mix of quantum (Heisenberg, Planck, Bohr, etc.) and classical (Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, etc.) physics.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi BAA, thanks for thinking of me.

From the excerpt you provided, I get the impression that Page argues that the actual world is the best possible because it contains the greatest possible aggregate of pleasure, or something like that. In other words, God's pleasure in this world so overwhelms the suffering of bazillions of creatures that the outcome renders this world the best possible.

God's pleasure seems to be added to creatures' pleasures and pains to yield a sum total of pleasure in the world.

This sounds screwy, but it seems entailed by this of Page:

"the total world could be the best possible if it includes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who experiences great value in creating and knowing a universe with great mathematical elegance, even though such a universe has suffering."

 

The part I bolded makes Page a heretic under any construal of classical theism, by which God is transcendent, the ground for the world's existence and not part of it, present only by his power and effects. God classically is not a constituent of the world; He is in no genus. Page, if I understand him, denies the doctrine of God's aseity.

 

Maybe some form of Process Theology can accommodate Page's view - God as part of the universe, gaining things as it develops. ???

 

But perhaps Page is only imprecise. After all, he also talks about God's creating and knowing a universe, as though maybe God is not part of it. But then, he should not have spoken of the total world as "including" God.

 

This is as far as I'm going to go with Page at the moment. But I'll be interested in any thoughts you may care to voice.

 

Cheers, f

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Adding: 1. looks like another evangelical trying to square the multiverse hypothesis with Christianity, as you predicted they would.

 

2. I'm thinking that Page's conclusion seems trivially true. Doesn't it boil down to saying that God will to actualize this world out of a myriad of possible worlds because God deemed it best? But as God is defined by classical theism, there is no discursive reasoning in God, all God's attributes are identical with each other, and what God wills and what God makes good are the same thing. or something like that.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm glad this is interesting to you, F.  I figgered it would be.  

 

Yeah, why is it that my prediction of what Christians will irrationalize next came true, by my prediction of who will be the next POTUS didn't?  There must be a great truth hidden in this mystery... if I could but understand it. 

 

Any thoughts I may care to voice?

 

Well, Page contends that God is loathe to violate the natural, working elegance of His creation.  Yet the miracles in the Bible do not qualify as inelegant violations of nature by God?  Hmmm.... consistent standard. 

 

Anyway, here's a link to the theoretical physicist Sean Carroll's blog, where Page made a Guest Post.  http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/03/20/guest-post-don-page-on-god-and-cosmology/

When commenting on WLC's KCA, Page claims to believe that God is a transcendent cause of the universe.  (Not 'the' transcendent cause?)  So perhaps, as you say, he was being imprecise in his paper.  

 

Fyi, this passage grabbed my attention.

 

 I have a similar hunch that God created us with the illusion of libertarian free will as a picture of the true freedom that He has, though it might be that if God does only what is best and if there is a unique best, one could object that even God does not have libertarian free will, but in any case I would believe that it would be better for God to do what is best than to have any putative libertarian free will, for which I see little value.

 

Page thinks we have the illusion of libertarian free will and he sees little value in God having putative libertarian free will?

 

 

Your thoughts, my friend.

 

BAA 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Oh, just found this, F.

 

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/superdeterminism.html

 

Maybe Page is suggesting that even though God has true freedom, His multiversal creation is what a physicist would call 'superdeterministic'.

 

Everything preordained a la Calvin.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

I have that book (The Ghost In The Atom) that the Bell quote is taken from, btw.

 

So further investigation is possible.  Just ask.