God Versus
Quantum Mechanics
A Quantum Circuit Model in
Axiomatic Metaphysics
Marek Perkowski and Rev. Tomasz Seweryn
Plan of this talk
Antropic
principle
Big
bang
It is Possible
that God
exist
Gödel proof by
modal logic
It is
Necessary
that God
exist
Quantum
Mechanics
is True
Plantinga
One axiom: God
exists and controls
quantum
measurements.
AXIOM 8
Copenhagen
Interpretation
of Quantum
Mechanics is
True
Six axioms of
QM
Everett or other
Interpretation of
Quantum
Mechanics is
True
God can
communicate in
experimentally
non-verifiable ways
with humans
God can act directly
in experimentally
non-verifiable ways in
non-animated matter
on a quantum level
Human
consciousness
is on the
quantum level
One axiom of PenroseHameroff Theory AXIOM 7
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.
God can control evolution processes on DNA level
It is impossible to verify in any experiment single interventions
in crossovers and mutations.
PLAN
Part 1 – Quantum Mechanics and
Quantum Robots (no philosophy and theology in this part)
Part 2 – The problem of miracles and
God’s action in Reality (one theistic axiom added – God
of Philosophers)
Part 3 – Examples of our model
(derived from 1 and 2 using Quantum Robotics formal methods)
PLAN
Part 1 – Quantum Mechanics and
Quantum Robots (no philosophy and theology in this part)
Part 2 – The problem
of miracles
andcan
Dear friend
atheist, you
protest (only
here
in Part
God’s action in Reality
one theistic
axiom
added)2
Part 3 – Examples of our model
(derived from 1 and 2 using Quantum Robotics formal methods)
Part 1
From Quantum
Mechanics to
Quantum 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
MECHANICS
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
Quantum Logic
Probabilistic Logic
Deterministic 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. Quantum Braitenberg Vehicles
1. Programmable Braitenberg Vehicles
2. Combinational and Quantum Circuits
3. Deterministic, Probabilistic, and
Entangled Behaviors
4. Examples of our Robots
Two
aspects
 Prepare especially
talented teens for
college research
 New research area
of Quantum Robotics
Quantum Braitenberg
Vehicles
Classic Braitenberg
Fear
Aggression
Programmable Braitenberg
A
B
H
P
A = Left
Light Sensor
Ultrasonic
Sensor
B = Right
Light Sensor
Circuit
Implemented
by Program
Q
P = Motor for
Left Wheel
Q = Motor for
Right Wheel
Robot Configuration – Additional Sensors
Sound Sensor
Left
Light Sensor
Right
Light Sensor
Ultrasonic
Sensor
Touch Sensor
Representing Gates via Matrices
A B
P
Q
Behavior
0
0
0
0
Robot stays stationary.
P
0
1
0
1
Robot moves right
1
0
1
1
Robot moves forward.
Q
1
1
1
0
Robot moves left
Feynman Gate
A
B
Input
00 01 10 11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
01
10
11
Output
1
0
0
0
00
Using Binary Gates
Feynman Gate
And-OR Gates
A
P
A
P
B
Q
B
Q
00 01 10 11
00 01 10 11
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
00
1
0
0
0
01
10
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
00
01
10
11
A B
P
Q
Behavior
A B
P
Q
Behavior
0
0
0
0
Robot stays stationary.
0
0
0
0
Robot stays stationary.
0
1
0
1
Robot moves right
0
1
0
1
Robot moves right
1
0
0
1
Robot moves right
1
0
1
1
Robot moves forward.
1
1
1
1
Robot moves forward.
1
1
1
0
Robot moves left.
This behavior is deterministic because it can be determined how the robot will
react to a given input.
Selected Circuits
Direct Connection
Feynman Gate
Swap Gate
A
P
A
P
A
P
B
Q
B
Q
B
Q
00 01 10 11
00 01 10 11
Identity
Matrix
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
00
1
0
0
0
01
10
11
Feynman+Swap
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
00 01 10 11
00
1
0
0
0
01
10
11
A
P
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
H
A
P
B
Q
B
Q
00 01 10 11
00 01 10 11
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
00
01
10
11
1
√2
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1 0
0 1
0 -1
-1 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
00
01
10
11
And-OR Gates
A
P
B
Q
00 01 10 11
00
01
10
11
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
00
01
10
11
Using Quantum Gates
Hadamard
Hadamard
A
H
1
2
P
1 1 
1 1


A
P
Behavior
0
½0
½1
Motor stops or moves.
1
½0
½1
Motor stops or moves.
1
2
Input A=0
1 1 
1 1


*
1 
0 
 
=
Output
1
2
1
1

Which in Dirac Notation is,
1
2
|0
1
2
|1 
Which after Measurement means,
½ probability of ‘0’ & ½ probability of ‘1’
Qubits inhabit the Bloch Sphere
z
| ψ >= α | 0 > +β | 1 >
z
|0>
|0>
1
 0
| 0 >=   , | 1 >=  
 0
1
*  
120°
180°
|1>
120°
y
180°
y
*  
120°
x
x
|2>
| ψ >=  ci | i > ,
i
|1>
• Quantum logic states are often represented in Dirac 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).
 |c | = 1
2
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
H
B
Our teens will never forget about the EinsteinPodolsky-Rosen robot and hence about the
entanglement……
…. because they build it…..
P
Q
Entanglement Example – Step 1
Hadamard
A
H
P
1
2
Hadamard in parallel with wire
A
H
P
1 1 
1 1


Q
B
00 01 10 11
A
P
Behavior
0
½0
½1
Motor stops or moves.
1
½0
½1
Motor stops or moves.
Wire
A
P
A
P
Behavior
0
0
Stopped
1
1
Moving
1 0
0 1 


1
2
1 1  1 0
1 1  0 1

 

=
1
√2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1 0
0 1
-1 0
0 -1
00
01
10
11
A B
P
Q
Behavior
0
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
Entanglement Example – Step 2
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
H
A
P
Feynman Gate
A
P
B
Q
00 01 10 11
00 01 10 11
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Q
B
00
01
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
00 01 10 11
00
01
10
*
11
1
√2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1 0
0 1
-1 0
0 -1
00 01 10 11
00
01
10
=
1
√2
11
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1 0
0 1
0 -1
-1 0
10
11
A B
P
Q
Behavior
0
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
A B
P
Q
Behavior
0
0
½0
½1
½0
½1
Stationary or moves
forward.
0
1
½0
½1
½1
½0
Turns right or turns
left.
1
0
½0
½1
½0
½1
Stationary or moves
forward.
1
1
½0
½1
½1
½0
Turns right or turns
left.
00
01
10
11
Putting it together
A
B
Vector ‘I’
A
B
False
False
False
True
True
False
True
True
00
01
10
11
0
1
0
0
Selected
Combination
00 01 10 11
Matrix ‘M’
H
1
P
√2
Q
Either the robot
will turn left or
turn right with
equal
probability.
Measurement
P
Q
False
False
False
True
1
True
False
√2
True
True
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1 0
0 1
0 -1
-1 0
00
01
10
11
Vector ‘O’
O=M*I
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 Robot
Calculations in
Hilbert Space
measurements
S1
H
S2
C
m1
M1
m1
M2
md
memory
Combinational
logic with
probabilistic
entangled
results
Mood
(a)
Combinational logic with
probabilistic entangled
results
Calculations in
Hilbert Space
H
S1
S2
C
measurements
m1
M1
m1
M2
md
Mood
memory
 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
FORMULATION:
Can God perform
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
a 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
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 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 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. 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
time than in Bohr’s times)
Comments to AXIOM 8.
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.
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. QM Model is true and Quantum measurements are
truly random (Copenhagen interpretation of QM).
 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.
Existing Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics versus our model
 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.
Existing Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics versus our model
 P3. QM Model is true and the mechanism of our Universe is that it has two
separate but intimately related components: the quantum mechanics
mathematics and a 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. 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
work: How God
may act in Reality
FIRST EXAMPLE.
GOD CONTROLS A QBV vehicle
A
B
H
P
Q
Example 5.1.
Let us now discuss QBV EPR as the simplest possible
model in our FAS system MMQM.
A
B
H
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 for QBV EPR according to
standard QM theory (from Section 4 of this paper)
assuming Copenhagen Interpretation?
P
Q
• FAS = Formal
Axiomatic
System
• MMQM =
metaphysical
model of
quantum
mechanics
Example continued: What God can and what God cannot do?
 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.
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
other 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 onequbit 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”).
More discussion on QBV 1 with other probabilities
 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.
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.
What about troubles of an atheist with our model?
 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.
THIRD EXAMPLE.
GOD PREVENTS DETONATION OF A
HYDROGEN BOMB BY AFFECTING JUST
ONE MEASUREMENT
A
B
H
P
Q
God affects detonation of Hydrogen
Bomb by affecting a single quantum
measurement




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.
Conclusions
1. 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.
Conclusions (cont)
 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.
2.
the language of mediaeval theology of St. Tomas on one hand,
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 practical.
Conclusions
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 (cont)
What kind of knowledge should be taught?
Scientific monographs
and texbooks on QM
Popular books (Davies, Polkinghorne,
Gotsami, Barr, Capra, Chopra,
quantum mysticism)
1. High Mathematical Level,
2. Precise,
3. Comprehensive
4. No philosophical
interpretation
The books that are
needed
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.
1. No Mathematics
2. Imprecise,
3. Comprehensive
4. Ambitious philosophical
interpretations
1. Simplified but fully
comprehensible Mathematics
2. Precise but illustrated with
examples
3. Focus on one aspect only
4. Limited but firm philosophical
interpretations
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
PRE
 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 CME
It is 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?
Professors who teach “science and pseudoscience classes”
or “science versus philosophy”
or “Darwinism versus Intelligent Design” classes
should understand some fundaments
of Quantum Mechanics
Otherwise there is a danger that they will be challenged
by students who know 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
faith was questioned in the
class and not her belief in
Intelligent Design Theory or
Creationism Theory.
Should We Challenge Student Beliefs?
July 19, 2011 - 3:00am
By
Peter Boghossian
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/07/192/boghossian#ixzz1jfzgdh7V
Inside Higher Ed