Is Quantum Entanglement Evidence that the Universe is an Open System?

 

 

 The laws of thermodynamics basically state that in a closed system; 1) energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be converted to other forms, 2) entropy is always increasing, and 3) things tend towards equilibrium. These laws would require that the universe in the past had far more free energy and far less entropy and equilibrium than it has today. But how could it have gotten that way without violating those very laws?

   One explanation I’ve heard is that the laws are tied to space and time, and that space and time are tied to the universe itself, so the laws didn’t apply until the universe came into existence at the Big Bang. I think that’s true, but it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about where the initial energy came from. I think there is a simple solution, however.

   What if the universe is not all there is but is rather part of a larger system - essentially making it an open system? That would essentially negate the laws of thermodynamics since the universe would be able to receive input from another source. 

   I propose two coexisting parallel systems: the material universe tied to space/time, and an immaterial system not tied to space/time. It is from this immaterial system that the material universe initially received its energy with its low entropy. The immaterial system is not subject to material laws, not tied to space/time and therefore perpetual and permanent while the material system is subject to material laws and therefore is ‘winding down‘. 

   There is evidence of a possible tie between these two systems in quantum entanglement - where two quantum particles, separated by great distances, are inexplicably tied together and will change states at the same time. If they are tied together in the immaterial system—outside the constraints of space/time—then their ability to change states at the exact same time, even thousands of miles apart, is comprehensible.

   This differs from the multiverse, with its innumerable parallel material universes, which suffers from the obvious flaw that other material universes must be both observable and detectable.  It may even fit the math better. I don’t know, I am no physicist, and these are just the musings of a curious mind. I’m hoping that people more knowledgeable than myself will critique this and tell me what they think.

Self Organization - God or Magic?

You watch intently as the magician fans out the cards revealing it to be a normal 52 card deck. You keep a close eye on his hands as he gathers the cards back into a stack, turns the deck over and taps it with one finger.  As he fans out the cards again, you’re amazed to see that every card is now an Ace of Spades! How did he do it, you ask, what is the trick?

Any rational person knows that this is not done by “magic”. We know that there is a rational explanation, that it is an illusion, using slight of hand. We know this because we know that cards do not spontaneously rearrange themselves into other cards.  We can confidently conclude that the illusion was carefully crafted and carried out by the magician.

But what if we were able to film the trick in super slow motion and examine the card deck under the highest powered microscope and observe as the cards actually do reorganize their molecules into Aces of Spades?  Would we believe it was magic then?  Or, would we still hold that there was a trick to it and that the magician must have come up with an as-yet unknown invention to induce the cards into reconfiguring themselves?  I would certainly hope that it would be the latter!  To believe it to be magic, with no rational explanation, would be intellectually lazy and foolish.

So what of the universe and all of its observed self-organization?  What is the rational explanation for that?  Is it magic?  Or, is it carefully crafted using an as-yet unknown method?  I would certainly hope that it would be the latter, as to believe it to be magic, with no rational explanation, would be intellectually lazy and foolish.

Nature: God’s Artifact

The Fifth Way teaches us that the telos in nature does not come from matter but from mind.  Thus, the matter that makes up a human being does not have, on its own – of itself – the goal of sustaining a human body.  That telos, that goal is the product of the divine mind.  That is the lesson of the Fifth Way.  So, in this way, nature is no different from the artificer’s watch whose pieces do not, of themselves, have a propensity for timekeeping.  Just as the watch’s form or final cause is imposed upon it by a designer’s intellect, so too the form and final cause of nature’s wonders are imposed on them by the Designer’s intellect.

Now the argument (made by many Thomists - including Edward Feser) against this is that – although they ultimately come from God – these forms, natures, or essences are inherent in natural things and thus are not cobbled together artifacts like the watch.  But is that really the case?  Let me ask two questions:  Is the form of the watch a product of its parts?  Is the form of a worm the product of its parts?   I think we can safely answer “no” to both questions.  So the form of something – be it human artifact or natural – does not depend on its constituent parts but rather on an idea, a concept of mind. 

But, it is argued, the constituent parts of a worm do have it in their natures to sustain the overall well-being of the worm while the watches parts do not.  Yes and No.  Although the constituent parts of a worm have it in their nature to sustain the worm, they do not do this on their own.  Their natures are imposed on them by the form of the worm – which is ultimately the product of the divine mind as well.  The arrow (to use Aquinas’ example) does not move toward the target unless shot there by an agent.  Why does matter obey form?  It does so because it is “shot there”.  In this way, the constituent parts of the worm are no different than the constituent parts of the watch – both are “shot there” by an action of mind.

Now the term “artifact” carries with it the connotation “artificial” and man’s artifacts are artificial in that they are natural objects with unnatural forms imposed upon them.  So what of God’s artifacts?  What would be “artificial” to God?  Well, God is immaterial and exists supernaturally (that is, outside of nature) so for God, nature itself – the material world – is, in a sense, “artificial” and the natural world can, in this light, be called God’s artifact. 

Ultimately this discussion boils down to the differing capabilities of the supernatural mind vs. the natural mind.  A natural mind can only take that which is natural and develop it into some other form.  A supernatural mind can form nature itself however it sees fit.  A natural mind is limited – it can only work within nature.  To be sure, a natural mind can impose new forms on natural objects – as it does on the natural elements it shapes into a watch.  What it cannot do is impose new natures on objects – because the natural mind itself exists within the confines of nature.  The supernatural mind is unlimited – it can impose forms on nature from outside nature.  The supernatural mind can instill new natures into substances.  It is not limited by nature – in fact it sets the limits of nature.  Still, what’s behind all of it are ideas, concepts, planning, goals – mind. 

Nature is God’s idea (and life is just God showing off a bit!)

Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas, (arguably Christianity's foremost intellect since the apostle Paul), famously submitted five proofs of Gods existence.  (See Article 3. "Whether God exists?" here)  Of the "Five Ways", my favorite - and the one most relevant to ID - is the Fifth Way.

In Aquinas' own words:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

What Aquinas is saying here, put simply, is that:

A) We observe in nature, things with no mind or intelligence, acting as if they have intention, purpose or goals.

B) It is a truth that only a being with a mind can truly have intentions.

C) Therefore, an intelligent being must be responsible for the intentionality we observe in nature.

There, in just a few sentences, Aquinas submits a rational proof that all of nature is intelligently designed!  There is no need to argue, as most ID proponents do, that it is complexity and sophistication in nature that requires design.  No, to Aquinas; even the rocks cry out "Design"!  And this is true of nature everywhere we look!  Everything we see, everything made of matter, has bits and particles within it whose job seems to be simply to maintain and sustain that very thing that they are a part of.  There is absolutely no materialist explanation for this.

It's a beautiful thing.  What's more, if one understands the full implications of Aquinas' simple proof, the designer must itself be outside nature.  You can't cite nature to explain all of nature - so the explanation must be something separate from nature.  Hmm... an intelligent being outside nature... I wonder who that could be?

Which leads me to the other attractive aspect of Aquinas Fifth Way: the fact that it points explicitly to God - not some other being who "may or may not be" God (as ID theory is so fond of saying.) 

It's refreshing to be able to unequivocally say that all of nature (not just the complex stuff) is designed and that this designer must be God.

The further implications of this is that it reduces questions of evolution and abiogenesis strictly to scientific inquiry.  Whether or not nature can produce a lifeform from non-living material has no implications philosophically or theologically.  Either way, God was behind it.  The same goes for the evolution of new biological types.  It's all design, all the way down.