The Objective Observer

 New RSS feed!

Proof of God

• The Collected Arguments for God
• Creationists vs. Atheists
• Beating a Not-So-Dead God...Err, Horse
• Confessing My Sins
• The Scientific Theory of God
• Revelations
• Skipping To The End
• Why Pi?
• The FINAL Proof of God
• The Greek Creation "Myth"
• The Zodiac
• The Science of God
• Ozymandias Strikes Yet Again

Recapping our scientific theory of God to date, we have currently stated the following hypothesis:

The existence of a macroscopic cycle that decreases in entropy proves the existence of God.

This hypothesis was derived from the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought problem. We then applied this thought problem and hypothesis to the macroscopic cycle of life. In order to meet the requirements specified in “Maxwell’s Demon” of an isolated thermodynamic system, we used the isolated thermodynamic system of the Universe. This analysis seems to indicate that, specifically, mass extinctions demonstrate a clear decrease in entropy thus violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and potentially proving the existence of Maxwell’s demon or “God”.

We are now left with attempting to mollify scientists and other critics and explain the conclusions reached thus far with currently accepted scientific theories. We have no desire to create yet another scientific paradox as scientists have way too many of these to deal with already and we see no reason to perpetuate such a culture of contradiction and illogicality.

Thus we naturally turn to an existing scientific principle known as the fluctuation theorem to explain the ability of a macroscopic system such as the lifecycle to decrease in entropy. If you remember, we briefly mentioned the fluctuation theorem in “The Scientific Theory of God”. The fluctuation theorem is an outgrowth of Loschmidt’s paradox, which is itself an outgrowth of the “T-symmetry” equations of motion for classical and quantum systems. Basically, what the fluctuation theorem and all that other stuff means is that the second law of thermodynamics can be “broken” by microscopic systems but that the probability of observing a decrease in entropy in a thermodynamic system decreases exponentially as the time or system size increases. This means that things like nanomachines or even mitochondria spend some time running in “reverse”. Think of “reverse” in terms of a car engine sucking in heat and exhaust fumes and spewing out gasoline. Scientists have actually experimentally proven the fluctuation theorem.

So, the second law of thermodynamics is not absolute, it depends upon the time and physical size of the thermodynamic system. Hmmm... But, time and size are relative terms, so time and size in relation to what? At what scale does the fluctuation theorem operate? Well, in order to explain this, we will need to make a short diversion into quantum theory. And I apologize for this, but I will try to make this as simple as possible and stick to the basics. Deep breath...

Central to quantum mechanics are the concepts of the observer and “entanglement”. These concepts are perhaps most famously embodied by the Schrödinger's cat thought problem, which was designed to demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum theory when transitioning between microscopic and macroscopic systems. Schrödinger's cat speculates about a cat in a box that may or may not be dead, but its state of life or death is not known until an observer opens the box and becomes “entangled” with the cat.

So basically, everything in quantum mechanics is a probability and thus quantum mechanics makes predictions about probability distributions rather than assigning definite values to “observables”. “Oobservables” are things like spin, momentum, position, energy, etc. of quantum particles like electrons, quarks, etc. Therefore, in order to “know” anything in quantum mechanics one must make an “observation” which essentially collapses the wavefunction, probability distribution, to a known state, referred to as an “eigenstate”. Jeez God scientists make this stuff unnecessarily complicated. And I am not even getting into the stuff where you have to abandon realism, locality and causality. That is an entirely different topic.

So anyway, this is all a fancy way of saying that nothing in this microscopic, quantum world where the second law of thermodynamics can be violated can be known unless there is an observer that measures something. And, yes, Mr. Hawking, we really wish you WOULD reach for your revolver. Anyhoo, while we can make measurements of microscopic systems where entropy decreases, as the time or system size expands in scale relative to the observer, it becomes exponentially impossible for a system to decrease in entropy.

So you see where this is going, don’t you? We were able to demonstrate macroscopic entropy reduction via mass extinctions by choosing the entire Universe as our isolated system. Thus, using the much vaunted Occam’s Razor, Ockham’s Razor, the simplest and most rational explanation is the existence of an observer whose relative size to us is of a similar ratio to ourselves as we ourselves are to microscopic, quantum particles.

Stop for a minute and let that sink in. Got it? OK, let me paraphrase. If we speculate about an observer that is as large or larger than the entire Universe, then it would not be odd at all for such an observer to observe a decrease in the lifecycle entropy on Earth, just as we ourselves are capable of observing entropy decreases in microscopic systems. Remember, time and size; along with just about everything else, are relative.

Thus, we can conclude that not only is there “something” out there that fits the classical definition of “God”, but that this God “thing” that is out there is some kind of being capable of making observations. Therefore, “God” is some kind of actual being, a being capable of making observations, and operates on a scale that is difficult; if not impossible, to comprehend.

Fun, huh?