Einstein, Predestination, Quantum Mechanics and the Mystery of Faith

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:21:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

"God does not play dice." -Albert Einstein

In the most recent issue of Time, Walter Isaacson publishes an excerpt of his new book "Einstein and Faith" - a very interesting piece on Einstein's thinking on faith and science. One of the most interesting aspects of Einstein's faith was his belief in predestination and an uncaring God:

Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein sen[t Einstein] a very direct telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words." Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

This is a very controversial and unsatisfying view of God to most faithful persons. It is a view that, coupled with his belief in immutable laws of physics, that inexorably leads to a theory of predestination:

His belief in causal determinism was incompatible with the concept of human free will. Jewish as well as Christian theologians have generally believed that people are responsible for their actions. They are even free to choose, as happens in the Bible, to disobey God's commandments, despite the fact that this seems to conflict with a belief that God is all knowing and all powerful. Einstein, on the other hand, believed--as did Spinoza--that a person's actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. "Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions," Einstein declared in a statement to a Spinoza Society in 1932.

Einstein's theory of predestination is, as I wrote, very much a result of his belief in immutable laws of physics and in his rejection of quantum theory an Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Science today has accepted quantum theory and the uncertainty principle as strong and proven science, and string theory and the theories of multiverses and eleven dimensions has added to this. And yet, certain views expressed by Einstein still appeal, at least to me. For example, Einstein wrote:

Einstein [was] ask[ed] if he was, in fact, religious. "Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied calmly. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

Is this a belief in a higher being, or just a higher order? A higher law? Einstein calls this religion of a sort I suppose. AndI find myself agreeing with him in seeing a higher order. But where Einstein treaded and I can not is assuming this beauty is the creation of a higher order, or just a truth? I am agnostic on the point. I do not know how I can prove it. But then, a theoretical physicist often thinks in ways of unprovables does he not? It requires a faith of sort. Why not call it religion?

What I do feel certain about is Einstein's thinking on all subjects, not just science, remain fascinating. There can be few who could rival him as most desired dinner guest no?

< Misdemeanor Child Porn Defendant Brutally Killed in Jail | What Good Left-Right Discourse Can Look Like >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Einstein, Predestination, Quantum Mechanics and the Mystery of Faith | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Einstein's Red Heifer Theory (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:31:02 PM EST

as described by Stephen Hawking:

Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Eintein was a product of evolution (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Baal on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:47:10 PM EST

Physicists always have an interesting insight into the structure and future of the universe. However, biologists have interesting insights into people, and so can also inform this discussion. One of our insights is that brains were formed by natural selection and seem to be hard-wired for certain things. When you see behaviors conserved across every known human culture, and in the majority of individuals, there is a good chance it is hard-wired. Religious or 'spiritual' behaviors and sensations are universal, and many biologists argue our brains are hard-wired for it. In other words, we can't help seeing the universe in those terms, at least on occasion, even when our intellect tells us something different.

Even scientists like Einstein are susceptible to those sensations.

Matthew Alper's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:04:15 PM EST

The God Part Of The Brain?


Explain (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:56:07 PM EST

I do not understand your point.

Is "hardwired" a euphemism for predestination?


I'm not a Biologist (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:59:04 PM EST

but I think he's talking about the current state of human evolution.


what I meant by hardwired (none / 0) (#35)
by Baal on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 10:45:13 AM EST

By "hardwired" I simply mean that there is neuronal circuitry that causes a given sensation in response to certain stimuli, and that is present in pretty most people. By analogy, we are hardwired for language -- very young humans will acquire any language they are exposed to unless for some reason the circuitry did not form properly or is damaged. I think there is a part of our brain that causes religious sensations, as argued by Matthew Alpers and many others. I think that's why religious or spiritual language gets used when people contemplate the incomprehensible scales of very large and very small in the cosmos (or when people confront birth, death, etc.), even people like Einstein.

The more provocative viewpoint, but the one I believe, is that these sensations are mental constructs that have no basis in external reality, much as visual illusions fool our visual systems because of the way we are wired, not because of the underlying external reality.


: external reality? (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:12:08 PM EST

I wonder. I think there is no such thing, really.

So it was inevitable that I be here at Talkleft. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by cal11 voter on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:57:46 PM EST

Is that because I am here?

P.S.: Is your clock off by @10 mins.? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by cal11 voter on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:59:33 PM EST

: If it is only off by 10 minutes (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:01:09 PM EST

then we are having a good day.

Immutable Laws of Physics (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:01:46 PM EST

demanded it.


cal11 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:45:10 AM EST

So-called "what is to be will be" is the ultimate excuse.

Man has free will, although he may have certain things "hardwired." I would prefer "flash memory" instead of hardwired because I think that early childhood training/environment have the largest impact on what people will be later.


Bohr to Einstein. . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by LarryInNYC on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:01:54 PM EST

"Einstein, stop telling God what to do!"

Science today has accepted quantum theory and the uncertainty principle as strong and proven science, and string theory and the theories of multiverses and eleven dimensions has added to this.

Science has accepted quantum theory as strong and not-disproven science. String theory, not so much. There is a significant backlash against it and it may well go the way of the ether. Certainly it is not "proven" in any sense of that word.

Einstein calls this religion of a sort I suppose. AndI find myself agreeing with him in seeing a higher order.

No doubt Einstein would be relieved to hear that.

I wonder why Einstein is considered an authority on questions of religion? Is it possible that his opinions on predestination and man's responsibility for his own behavior not perhaps affected by his own less-than-blameless personal life?

Well now (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:07:25 PM EST

the phrase "strong and proven science' modifies quantum theory and the uncertainty principle. As I understand it, these are proven science. The computers we are working on, I understand, are part of the evidence.

String theory and multiverses are NOT modified by the phrase "strong and proven science." Rather they add to the arguments against Einstein's view of predestination as a result of immutable laws of science.

I stand by my statements.


: Schools of thought (none / 0) (#29)
by LarryE on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:45:39 AM EST

multiverses
I assume here the term is not being used in its cosmological sense but in its quantum mechanical sense, a sense in which it's popularly known as the "many worlds" contention.
Many worlds was intended to be an alternative to the Copenhagen school. I actually prefer the many worlds view because it does away with the intractable problem of the special status of the observer, but as cooler heads have noted, since both schools of thought make precisely the same predictions and give precisely the same answers, it's really kind of silly to argue which one is "correct."
However, that same fact also means that it adds no ammunition to the argument against determinism - it's just a different way of making the same point, one already more than adequately demonstrated.

How philosophical are we going to get? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by LarryE on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:20:12 AM EST

not-disproven science

In a way, all science is "non-disproven." If it's disproven, it's not science. And the self-correcting nature of science is such that in a strict philosophical view nothing is ever "proven" in the sense that it can never be overturned. It's just the best answer anyone has come up with.

But step away from such a very strict sense and quantum is as "proven" as any scientific notion is likely to be.

String theory, not so much. ... significant backlash

Not really a backlash, more a growing frustration at its slow advance. I said recently that string theory is on the verge of answering core questions about the nature of existence; the problem is, it's been on that same verge for over 20 years. The central difficulty is that while, contrary to some notions, it does make testable predictions, we have had no particle colliders powerful enough to check them. That may change next year.

(Which also means, incidentally, that it's not really correct to call it string theory since there's neither experimental nor observational confirmation. Still, that's how it's usually named.)


Your last graf (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:13 PM EST

is excellent. He read too much Nietzche is an alternative view.


Ummm (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Sailor on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:06:09 PM EST

Einstein said 'God does not play dice', but Mandelbrot proved the dice are loaded.

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:11:17 PM EST

I thought that was Marx.


Groucho? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:13:09 PM EST

: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:14:00 PM EST

There is no end to this (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Dadler on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:10:38 PM EST

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" is Einstein's best quote ever.

And explains how I'm able to wonder why, when you look at, say, Hubble Telescope images, do they appear striking similar to images of amoeabas and other microscopic organisms?

The bigger you get, the smaller you are. And vice versa.

What are sub-atomic particles made of? And what are those made of? And those? And those?

What even more unfathomably large organism is our universe, if it reflects smaller nature as it seems to, merely a tiny cog in?

They only day we ever really figure it all out is the day we die.

Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:15:13 PM EST

"They only day we ever really figure it all out is the day we die."

Murphy sez you are an optimist.


I agree, that line sucks (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Dadler on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:29:26 PM EST

It should read: "The only day we ever really figure it all out is the day AFTER we die."


: Heh (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:31:46 PM EST

I find god to be in the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by lilybart on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:26:09 AM EST

space between the sub-atomic particles---consciousness holds it all together.

Maybe God is dark matter?


It's very odd (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:12:30 PM EST

but just before I read this I was reading an essay by E.L. Doctorow called "Einstein: Seeing the Unseen". What are the odds? Or maybe it was predistination :)

Doctorow uses many of the same Einstein quotes that are in that Time article. And he also says that Einstein refers to God as "the Old One" because that was the only attribute of God that Einstein could be sure of: "old in nominal existence only."

Heisenberg (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:15:34 PM EST

I'm uncertain (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:27:42 PM EST

but I think the fact that everyone can see we both ended up here at the same place means no one can tell how much momentum we have going into this conversation.

Anyway, Doctorow ends with something I liked that somewhat reflects how I feel:

...even if in his Einsteinian pragmatism God could only be accurately described as the Old One, surely there was a faith in that image, an agnostic's faith, that made it presumptuous for any human being to come to any conclusion about the goodness or incomprehensible amorality of God's universe or the souls it contained until we at least learned the laws that governed it. For Albert Einstein a unified field theory needn't be the end. It can just as well be the beginning.

Why I love Doctorow (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:30:00 PM EST

"An agnostic's faith."

Who else could toss off that phrase without even a wink?


I'm not a big fan of his novels (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:44:19 PM EST

but have enjoyed these essays.

Despite the contradiction in the phrase it speaks to me. Unlike you, I believe God is.

But I have no idea of the nature of God nor would I ever presume that I could. Any of the theories of the nature of God could be right or wrong - who am I to say? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I really care what the nature of God is.


: That is very well stated. (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:52:36 AM EST

: Yeah, I'm not interested in his job (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:04:50 PM EST

right now, don't know if I'll ever be up to it so I often find myself in that same frame of mind ;)

Ever seen "Copenhagen" on Stage? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:29:29 PM EST

Heisenberg and Bohr feature prominently.

: No (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:31:03 PM EST

But I heard the guys who came up with the multiverse theory discuss how they came up with it on the train to Lonodon to see it.
I think they were smiling at the irony of it all.

Theoretical physics is not a religion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by lilybart on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:23:40 AM EST

because, while they do have a faith of sorts in their theory, they go on to 'prove" their theories by watching particles act in the ways they predicted. If you call a prediction based on a theory, "faith-based" science, I guess you could say that.

But a scientist can prove a theory, a religionist can't.

: Unless you're Buddhist (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:09:36 PM EST

Then theoretical physics is part of your religion.

I choose to believe in free will (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by roy on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 10:01:32 AM EST

If only because if I'm wrong, it's not my fault.

Seriously, Scott Adams (the guy who writes Dilbert) has written a lot of interesting stuff about the idea of free will. He's concluded that we're merely moist robots, and makes sport of shooting down attempts to "prove" that free will exists.

I have always felt that whatever (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:50:37 PM EST

holds the universes together is where my spirituality flows from. I have observed how intention affects every decision and the following action in small minute ways and how intention seems to have a different energy about it. It seems to be able to create or destroy when the same action is applied and different intent is fueling it. My son and I were discussing yesterday how easily human beings fall out of love with objects we think we really want once we get them. My son asked me, "What do people really want Mom?" I have come away with believing that we all want to belong, we all want to know that what we experience and how we feel is all in the acceptable human range of emotions and experience, we all want to be loved as fully as we can be. It also seems to me that when I am able to come from a position grounded in one of the many many forms of caring and love that there are my efforts are always somehow fruitful. When I am drained and my resources have been challenged, when I'm running low in the love and care department, the best thing that I can do is retire and recharge if and when I can. Not always that easy to do when it is 2:00 am and your infant hasn't slept in 24 hours but if I always seek it somehow it always finds me. I believe that when free will can apply a geniune caring and love to its actions it can change the predestined actions of human beings because all humans seek love, affection, approval. When it is tossed out there we are all distracted from our own trance of actions and attracted to it. We are drawn to it like a hummingbird to the fountain of the flower.

I f you have three hours to spare and (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:11:38 PM EST

a great deal of patience, see In Deep Silence, a movie filmed at the monastery at Chartreuse, France. Absolutely beautiful visually. The monks tkae a vow of silence as they enter. However, at the end of the film, an elderly, blind monk offers his view on pre-destination, including his belief that God blessed him by making him blind.

Disappearing God (none / 0) (#41)
by Al on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:50:29 PM EST

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Emmy Noether showed that the basic "laws" of physics, its conservation principles, are consequences of symmetries, like the universe looking the same in all directions. Einstein's "lawful harmony" is merely symmetry.

Scientific theories as a metaphors? (none / 0) (#42)
by robrecht on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:09:34 AM EST

"Einstein's theory of predestination is, as I wrote, very much a result of his belief in immutable laws of physics and in his rejection of quantum theory an Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Science today has accepted quantum theory and the uncertainty principle as strong and proven science, and string theory and the theories of multiverses and eleven dimensions has added to this."

Are you just using quantum theory and HUP metaphorically? Or do you actually believe that these relate to the discussion of free will vs predestination in the human and moral context?