Roger,
I certainly know how fast you’re moving and it is certainly not fast. 
Best wishes for a Happy Holidays.
Nuno,
I read the IEEE Journal of Quantum Devices. QM is quite an extensive and mature subject. Your monitor you are looking at is a QM device. Electrons in atoms of GaAs are changing states emitting photons of light that hit your retina. Retina absorb photons to change state of electrons in nerve synapses to cause impulses to brain. Entire process is QM. QM is common place in science and technology today.
@Patrick - no one is questioning the validity of QM models. The question at hand is solely to understand what is meant by Heisenberg Uncertainty and to ascertain whether it has any impact on the existence of true randomness.
After looking around a bit more, indeed it seems like the Heisenberg uncertainty is not just related to measurement uncertainty - recent results in 2012 show that the uncertainty is larger than that of the measurement devices (e.g., see Quantum uncertainty not all in the measurement | Nature, primary references are in top physics journals: Phys. Rev. Lett. and Nature Phys.). Apparently this was a confusion originally induced by Heisenberg himself and still persists in Physics textbooks to date.
However, it still seems like the uncertainty inherent to the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics is more of a mathematical artifact of the underlying definitions - if the illustration in ChemWiki’s Figure 1 on Heisenberg Uncertainty is correct then the problem is more that a particle occupies a “range” of positions and thus cannot have a single number (or Cartesian coordinate) define its precise “position”. Trying to force a particle into a single point in space means it cannot have a phase (i.e., not a wave) and having a phase means it cannot occupy a single “position” in space (i.e., not a “traditional” particle) - this all seems fine to me as soon as one changes the definition of “position” to represent the moving wave packet.
Most importantly in the context of the original question, I do not see this as having any direct implications on randomness - even if position and phase cannot be properly represented in the mathematical framework, I did not see any implication that there is inherent randomness in the system. The QM experiments that are more directly related to addressing this question are known as Bell Test Experiments and, as far as I know, have not yet resulted in any definitive conclusions.
See recent results of Bell Test Experiments:
Also this year discovered that wave-particle duality and heisenberg uncertainty principle are actually the same thing.
@Patrick - these are great references that seem to me to further make the point that what used to be considered “randomness” may well be nonlocal entanglements. In fact, one of the articles you link to writes this:
Entanglement says that two particles, such as photons, can be married into a joint state. Once in such a state, either particle observed on its own appears to behave randomly. But if you measure both particles at once, you notice they are perfectly synchronized. Read more at: Experiment records extreme quantum weirdness
Digging deeper into this, the Hensen et al 10/21/2015 Nature paper bases its “randomness certification” on Pironio et at 2010 on “Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem”, which actually states on page 1022 that:
Some amount of randomness at the inputs is necessary to perform the statistical tests used to estimate the Bell inequality violation. Hence what we describe here is a randomness expansion scheme, where a small private random seed is expanded into a longer private random string.
Nice pointers to info but it doesn’t seem to me like these are actually supporting the point you were trying to make 
Thank you for helping me to understand particle physics better.
I certainly agree that the Uncertainty Principle does not indicate randomness in quantum physics. Your explanation is clear and appears to agree with the data.
It is clear that there is much in QM that we still do not understand and we should not make premature conclusions.
1 Like
Is randomness real? Discussions of this topic are often confusing because the word “randomness” does not enjoy a univocal definition – it denotes a number of concepts bearing a family resemblance. For mathematicians, randomness refers to uncertainty, for statisticians to a property of a selection process, for computer scientists to an absence of pattern in bit strings (I’m oversimplifying in saying that), for quantum physicists to absence of cause, for biologists to the independence of variations in offspring from their environment. Popular usages also include notions such as lack of purpose or meaning, absence of control, and gratuitous occurrence. However, even though the scientific definitions vary, there is nothing in them that suggests that randomness necessarily lacks purpose, meaning, or control or that it is gratuitous. (Absence of cause is unique in seeming to suggest these but it specialized to certain phenomena in quantum mechanics – I’m going to ignore this issue for this posting.) Here’s a typical confusion – someone points to a phenomenon in quantum mechanics or evolutionary biology and says that it exhibits randomness in the scientific sense. The speaker then shifts to a popular definition and asserts that the phenomenon is without purpose or meaning. Neither conclusion is warranted. So in talking about God and randomness, I’m going to stick to the scientific definitions.
From a mathematical point of view randomness clearly exists. The prime number theorem is well-established and shows that the distribution of primes among the natural numbers is random. Theoretical computer scientists have recently shown that if we think of numbers as infinite decimals, for almost all numbers, their digits are random in the sense mentioned above. From a theological perspective, there are only two possibilities – either numbers have existed in the mind of God from eternity or they were created by God prior to the creation of this universe. Either way, the conclusion is inescapable – randomness originates in God and has existed from eternity.
But that’s abstract mathematics. Does randomness exist in the physical world? Just to make the discussion concrete, I’d like to address a specific example of randomness – the arrival of cosmic rays at a detector. “Cosmic rays” are actually particles – protons or atomic nuclei that come from interstellar space and pass through our solar system. They can be easily detected on earth or on satellites with the right equipment. Such arrivals follow a Poisson process - a well understood form of randomness. The underlying mathematics of Poisson processes rests on two assumptions – that arrivals are equally likely to occur at any time in the interval and that arrivals are independent of each other. The arrival patterns predicted from these two assumptions fits the actual arrival of cosmic rays astonishingly well – they follow a Poisson distribution and in aggregate are quite predictable even though no individual arrival is predictable.
In the light of this example, let’s examine the question of whether or not randomness is real. If we use the mathematical definition of randomness as unpredictability, it certainly is real – it is impossible to know of the existence of a particle until it is detected. So for human beings the randomness can never go away – there is no way for humans ever to acquire the knowledge that would make the process predictable at the individual particle level. Note that the particles all move according to well-known deterministic laws of physics but as a system, their behavior is random. So saying that looking at particles closely, as some bloggers here have suggested, there is no randomness, neglects the fact the randomness is a property of systems not just a property of individual events.
But is this process random from God’s perspective? The answer depends on how one looks at it. Presumably God knows the location of every particle in the universe and can therefore predict the arrivals. So in that sense the process is not random to God. But the randomness in this situation rises from two properties of these particles – they’re part of a complex system containing enormous numbers of particles and each is independent of the others. This is why they arrive with equal likelihood at any time in a fixed interval and why they can be detected individually. So from God’s point of view the process is still a Poisson process and in that sense is still random. An occasionalist might object by saying that God is in direct control of every particle, so it’s not appropriate to apply the word random to such particles. Thomists would agree that God was the prime mover of the particles but see God as allowing each entity in creation to be a (secondary) causative agent in its own right. So God can know both what is happening and observe its random behavior. I lean toward Thomism so I have no trouble asserting that, for God, a process can be both predictable and random.
I would go so far as to suggest that most of the randomness that we commonly experience arises from these two factors – complexity and independence. Even the commonly used dice example – something that appears random but when looked at closely enough can be seen to be deterministic – is the result of a complex interaction of multiple independent factors. So its randomness need not be dismissed. Randomness is nothing strange or fearful – it’s a necessary part of living in a complex world in which there are many independent entities. Furthermore, as other writers here have pointed out, biological processes use randomness. Also mathematically, the most important theorem in statistics, the Central Limit Theorem, proves that even the most disorderly sets of numbers necessarily follow a highly ordered pattern when aggregated appropriately. Putting all this together, it seems that randomness originates in God and that God has built the world both to incorporate and to manage randomness.
Jim - welcome to the conversation. There is indeed an underlying working “definition” of randomness that has been used in several posts and is not immediately clear (initially it wasn’t clear to me either). In general, the mathematical definition of randomness (e.g., as in your nice Poisson example) is referred to here as a “stochastic” process or variable, in distinction from a “random” process or variable whose individual outcomes would be unpredictable not just to humans but also to God Himself. Using this terminology, stochastic processes are perfectly fine for our scientific purposes of modeling events such as cosmic rays particles or evolutionary transitions - humans don’t have enough information to predict the outcome of each observation (although God does) but we can still model aggregate observations according to probability distributions.
Overall, the conversations on whether randomness (to God) exists are motivated in questions of whether God fully determined everything that exists when He initially created the universe (usually referred to as “front-loading”) or whether He lets things develop according to some intrinsic randomness that even He does not control (and some people use to “explain” evil) and thus need to constantly intervene to “fix” things back to where they should be. My personal view is that God is timeless so this is a somewhat artificial distinction since there is no “randomness” in past events. He is omniscient about each and every possible outcome and omnipotent to change it (or use it) in whatever way best suits His plan. When or how He would choose to change it is a whole separate conversation but I don’t think God is “surprised” by random events outside of His control.
1 Like
I wish a had a better understanding of chemistry; however, I only studied enough of this at Old Dominion to have a teacher’s knowledge. My science is Linguistics and the development of speech. In any case, have a good day. Oh, do treat each other like scholars and don’t act like dinosaurs. I am addressing only one person and it is not Patrick. This person would not like the church hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy” because it says: God in Three Person, Blessed Trinity. I must leave for today because somehow I caught “Pink Eye,” and I had to go to Patient First to get medicine. I really have a headache! Please give me your best wishes.
2 Likes
Henry, Best wishes to you!
It seems you are asking for a response from the only self-declared UNITARIAN (to date) on this list. I’m not sure why you would be interested in my views on this topic. I tend to be very ALL INCLUSIVE on this kind of issue.
My view is that to God, there is nothing that is random. Randomness is a big issue for Atheistic scientists I suppose … because it’s the only fun thing left to dispute.
I suppose there are some Christian Evolutionists who think Evolution IS random. That’s fine with me if they think so. My view is that Evolution might LOOK random - - at some times, in some places. But God knows where everything is going and has directed ALL HIS CREATION, from the beginning, accordingly.
George
P.S. Hope you are feeling much better by the time you return to these continuously evolving Boards… 
(< I would have winked … but I don’t think that’s very appropriate when someone is suffering an eye problem… 
)
1 Like
Thank you for joining the conversation. This conversation has taken several twists and turns, but first let me point out that Evolution itself is a mixed process of random Variation and non-random selection. A problem we have with understanding it is that almost everyone is fixated on the random or indeterminate aspect of genetic Variation, and very few are concerned about how the non-random process of Natural Selection takes place. Thus a process which is clearly by nature determinate is seen to be random as the result of misunderstanding. BioLogos would make a major contribution if it would just clear this up. @Sy_Garte
Another issue is the relationship between QP and non-quantum physics. It is my understanding that quantum physics governs only quantum fields and particles. Others say that since all matter contains quantum particles, quantum physics, as opposed to non-quantum physics governs them too. Even Hans Halvorsen seems to hold this view, which is not accurate.
In my view God did not create math before the beginning. Mathematics are the expression of relationships found in nature. Math was created with time, space, matter, and energy in the Beginning. Math is relational, just as all of these are relational. So is God, since God is Trinity. So all of these things are rooted in God, but they are not God, nor are they coeternal with God.
I have nothing against randomness, but the world that we know is not random, but rationally structured. Even the basic math of randomness seems to indicate that the universe is interdependent, it is both one and many, unity and complexity, continuity and change.
If randomness as we know it “is the result of a complex interaction of multiple independent factors,” it is the reflection of order, not chaos, but maybe not the perfect mechanistic order of Newton, but rather the dynamic relational order of Einstein.
1 Like
Hi Eddie -
The debate between the absolute divine sovereignty school and the libertarian free will school is quite interesting and deep. Given resources far greater than this forum provides, we could not resolve the debate; in fact, I would go so far as to assert that we are dealing with mysteries here, so we could never reach a true resolution this side of the kingdom.
So I would never be able to claim with iron-clad certainty that your conclusion is wrong. However, I do think we should try to present the arguments on each side of the question as accurately and charitably as possible. I hope, therefore, you will reflect a little more on the arguments of those who believe that God has chosen to limit the scope of his sovereignty – i.e., that physical processes have inherent randomness and that humans make real choices (i.e., metaphysical libertarians).
The scientific question about inherent randomness revolves not around biology, but around physics. According to the dominant view of quantum mechanics,
[T]he properties of a particle are only fixed when measured, and prior to that they exist in a fuzzy cloud of probabilities.
This is in stark contrast to the deterministic world of Newtonian and relativistic physics. Einstein, you will recall, famously argued against Neils Bohr that “God doesn’t play dice.” However, a strong experimental result in quantum entanglement has recently demonstrated that, to the extent a physics experiment can show, quantum weirdness is the true state of the universe.
This experimental result does not truly conclusively refute strong determinism: one could always claim that the experiment itself was simply the working of God’s deterministic will. However, I find such a claim to be unsatisfying, because it avers that God has made the appearance of reality as determined by physics experiments (probabilistic, not deterministic) to be the exact opposite of its inherent reality (deterministic). John Polkinghorne, like many other theologians, hangs his hat on this point. I hope you do not think Polkinghorne is heretical.
Which brings me to the theological discussion. Almost to a man, the early church fathers did not accept strong determinism. God could do whatever He wanted, yes, and He accomplished many things that He had willed from before time. But the fathers believed He also accorded true free will–not compatibilist free will–to all human beings. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the only major theologian who dissented against this, and in favor of strong determinism, was Augustine.
So in the long view of church history, a libertarian view of free will is the traditional, orthodox theology, and Luther’s strong determinism is the non-traditional position. This does not imply that Luther (and Calvin, and much of the Protestant Reformation) should ipso facto be considered heretical. But it does imply that we should be careful not to label arguments in favor of libertarian free will and non-deterministic physics as non-orthodox or non-traditional.
As I close this comment, I want to wish you a merry Christmas, Eddie, and an abundant measure of His peace on earth toward men of good will.
-
Chris Falter
2 Likes
Casey wrote:
The debate between the absolute divine sovereignty school and the libertarian free will school is quite interesting and deep. Given resources far greater than this forum provides, we could not resolve the debate.
You are exactly right, because they cannot be resolved one way or the other. Let me give you an example. God is free to do whatever God wills to do, but on the other hand God is not free to go against God’s own will.
God cannot lie, not because God lacks the ability to lie, which goes against the first statement, but because God’s will is not to lie. Many people might feel better thinking that God is unable to lie, because they know how weak our human wills can be. However if we take seriously the view take Christians live by faith in God, rather than knowledge about God, I think that faith in God’s desire to do right and be right is better than God cannot do wrong.
While quantum physics is the reason why we no longer think that life is determined, quantum physics only governs subatomic particles and fields. Molecules are bound to each other by chemical bonds and do not display the uncertainty that quantum physics predicts. The location and velocity of our sun is not uncertain.
1 Like
Hi Eddie -
It is true that the summation of the quanta in, say, a baseball in flight will effectively have null effect and allow Newtonian physics to predominate. Unless it’s moving close to the speed of light, when relativity kicks on. I think about the difference between the two physics frameworks whenever I remember catching ol’ Smokey Harwood in youth baseball.
However, the mechanism for amino acid binding in DNA is at such a tiny scale that quantum effects are important. See here, here, and here for a small and basically random (yuk! yuk!) sample of scientific discussions about the relationship between quantum mechanics and DNA mutations. So-o-o-o-o I think you may have closed the door too early on any relationship between quantum indeterminancy and DNA mutations.
And once the involvement of quantum indeterminancy in DNA mutations is conceded, the door to indeterminancy in evolution has been opened.
Every Christian thinker I have ever read who favors indeterminancy, or true freedom in nature, also argues that God can and does use that indeterminancy. Just as a referee can use an effectively random mechanism, a coin flip, to decide which football team kicks off first, God applies selection criteria so that the eventual outcome is somehow, in the mystery of time, in accordance with His will.
1 Like
I think this notion that QM has shown random mutations is so overstated as to be a little laughable. The paper in BioSystems does not produce one single result from QM computations, and is in fact a great deal of speculation that seeks to use tunneling of protons as virtually a fact that has been modelled in extremely complicated biosystems this is a far cry from showing a legitimate mechanism in such systems. The paper clearly states that very simple models are used, and no data is given as a result of high level QM calculations on anything like DNA - the following quote shows this:
"The difficulty with trying to compute the decoherence time scale is that we need to define a suitable measure of the effectiveness of the process of decoherence. One of the most popular models is to take the quantum system to be a single particle moving in one dimension while the environment is a ‘heat bath’ modelled as a set of harmonic oscillators. In such a model, the effect of the environment is related to the number density of oscillators with a given frequency and to the strength of the coupling between these oscillators and the system. "
This treatment is a far cry from showing anything relevant to random mutations and presents extreme speculation (speculation is a legitimate activity in the sciences, but it must not be used as proof of anything). The resources needed for full QM computations is well beyond present capabilities.
For anyone interested in discussions of QM and biology, Davies provides a good review of current thinking, as he tries to separate trivial comments in this area, from interesting speculation, in “Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life?”, PCW Davies, BioSystems, 78 (2004) 69-79.
[quote=“Eddie, post:56, topic:3575”]
@Eddie wrote:
The referee is in effect bossed around by randomness. If God is like that in relation to evolution, then God is not in control, and evolution does not reflect his will. Many modern Christians, such as open theists and process theologians, seem willing to accept a God like that, but traditional Christians will not do so.
[/quote]
Eddie should know that evolution does not work the way he suggested. Evolution does not accept whatever random genetic Variations are produced. Evolution produces change through Natural Selection by only selecting the genetic Variations which are functional, thus guiding alleles through ecology along their proper path.
For those interested in following current developments in Quantum Biology, it would be pertinent to consider the recent review by Lambert et al 2013 in Nature Physics. While the publications covered in this review do not support quantum randomness as an influence on genomic mutations, they do cover a number of other aspects of quantum mechanics that appear to have measurable effects on protein biology.
Now while I naturally agree with @Eddie in the context above that protein changes (mistranslations, modifications, etc) are overwhelmingly not directly inheritable, it should also be noted that genome replication and epigenetics markers on sperm/egg/zygote genomes are initially performed/established by proteins acting on the genome. As such, protein-level alterations could still indirectly result in inheritable traits, even if those traits would not themselves be at the protein level and would be extremely unlikely to “reproduce” the same or similar progenitor protein-level alterations.