A Quantum Circuit Model in Axiomatic Metaphysics

1
A Quantum Circuit Model in Axiomatic Metaphysics
God Versus Quantum Mechanics

• Marek Perkowski and Rev. Tomasz Seweryn

2
Plan of this talk
Antropic principle
Big bang
Quantum Mechanics is True
Six axioms of QM
It is Possible that God exist
Plantinga
Gödel proof by modal logic
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is
True
Everett or other Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics is True
One axiom God exists and controls quantum
measurements. AXIOM 8
It is Necessary that God exist
God can act directly in experimentally
non-verifiable ways in non-animated matter on a
quantum level
God can communicate in experimentally
non-verifiable ways with humans
Human consciousness is on the quantum level
One axiom of Penrose-Hameroff Theory AXIOM 7
3
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.
It is impossible to verify in any experiment
single interventions in crossovers and mutations.
4
PLAN

• Part 1 Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Robots (no
  philosophy and theology in this part)
• Part 2 The problem of miracles and Gods 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)

5
PLAN

• Part 1 Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Robots (no
  philosophy and theology in this part)
• Part 2 The problem of miracles and Gods action
  in Reality (one theistic axiom added)
• Part 3 Examples of our model
• (derived from 1 and 2 using Quantum Robotics
  formal methods)

Dear friend atheist, you can protest only here in
Part 2
6
Part 1

• From Quantum Mechanics to Quantum Robots

7
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.

8
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
9
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
10
Outline

1. Quantum Braitenberg Vehicles
2. Programmable Braitenberg Vehicles
3. Combinational and Quantum Circuits
4. Deterministic, Probabilistic, and Entangled
   Behaviors
5. Examples of our Robots

11
Two aspects

• Prepare especially talented teens for college
  research
• New research area of Quantum Robotics

12
Classic Braitenberg
Quantum Braitenberg Vehicles
Fear
Aggression
13
Programmable Braitenberg
Ultrasonic Sensor
A Left Light Sensor
B Right Light Sensor
Circuit Implemented by Program
Q Motor for Right Wheel
P Motor for Left Wheel
14
Robot Configuration Additional Sensors
Sound Sensor
Left Light Sensor
Ultrasonic Sensor
Right Light Sensor
Touch Sensor
15
Representing Gates via Matrices
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
Input
Output
16
Using Binary Gates
Feynman Gate
And-OR Gates
A
A
P
P
Q
Q
B
B
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 0 0 Robot stays stationary.
0 1 0 1 Robot moves right
1 0 0 1 Robot moves right
1 1 1 1 Robot moves forward.
This behavior is deterministic because it can be
determined how the robot will react to a given
input.
17
Selected Circuits
Feynman Gate
Direct Connection
Swap Gate
A
A
A
P
P
P
Q
Q
Q
B
B
B
Identity Matrix
FeynmanSwap
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
And-OR Gates
A
A
P
P
Q
Q
B
B
18
Using Quantum Gates
Hadamard
Hadamard
Input A0
Output
A

P
H

Which in Dirac Notation is,
Which after Measurement means,
A P Behavior
0 ½ 0 ½ 1 Motor stops or moves.
1 ½ 0 ½ 1 Motor stops or moves.
½ probability of 0 ½ probability of 1
19
Qubits inhabit the Bloch Sphere
?? ? ????
?? ? ????

• Quantum logic states are often represented in
  Dirac Notation
• i.e., a0gt b1gt c2gt
• where quantum states 0gt, 1gt and 2gt are
  representative of superpositional states as
  weighted by a, b and c, such that a2, b2 and
  c2 are the probabilities of measurement of
  basic quantum state 0gt, 1gt or 2gt (and a2
  b2 c2 1).

20
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.

21
Entanglement Example
H
P
A
Q
B
Our teens will never forget about the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen robot and hence about the
entanglement
. because they build it..
22
Entanglement Example Step 1
Hadamard in parallel with wire
Hadamard
A
P
H
A
P
H
Q
B
A P Behavior
0 ½ 0 ½ 1 Motor stops or moves.
1 ½ 0 ½ 1 Motor stops or moves.

?
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
Wire
A
P
A P Behavior
0 0 Stopped
1 1 Moving
23
Entanglement Example Step 2
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
Feynman Gate
A
P
H
A
Q
P
B
Q
B


A B P Q Behavior
0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 Stationary or moves forward.
0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 Turns right or turns left.
1 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 Stationary or moves forward.
1 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 Turns right or turns left.
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
24
Putting it together
Vector I
A B
False False
False True
True False
True True
0 1 0 0
Selected Combination
A
B
H
Matrix M
P
Q
Measurement
P Q
False False
False True
True False
True True
Vector O
0 1 1 0
Either the robot will turn left or turn right
with equal probability.
O M I
25
Conclusion for philosophers

• The mathematics that I have shown demonstrates
  that
• The fundament of existence (Reality) is random
• A simple model can be built which clearly
  separates the deterministic, probabilistic and
  entanglement (quantum) behaviors
• Operation of the robot (human) can be modeled on
  a computer assuming standard QM with random
  number generator.
• Operation of the robot can be modeled with
  simulated God that controls single measurements
• These operations can be compared.

26
Quantum Automaton Robot
27

• 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.

28
Part 2

• PROBLEM FORMULATION
• Can God perform Miracles?

29
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
30

• 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.
• 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.

31
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.
32
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.

33
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.

34
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 Gods 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 Gods
   existence.
5. It would invalidate only Gods way of operation
   in the Universe as suggested by this paper.
6. 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 Newtons time than in
   Bohrs times)

35
Comments to AXIOM 8.

• 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.
• 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.
• When writing His we do not imply God has
  gender, we are just consistent with the spirit of
  natural language.

36
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.

37
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.

38
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.

39
Part 3

• Results of this work How God may act in Reality

40
FIRST EXAMPLE. GOD CONTROLS A QBV vehicle
41

• Example 5.1.
• Let us now discuss QBV EPR as the simplest
  possible model in our FAS system MMQM.
• 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 Gods potential for QBV EPR according
  to standard QM theory (from Section 4 of this
  paper) assuming Copenhagen Interpretation?

• FAS Formal Axiomatic System
• MMQM metaphysical model of quantum mechanics

42
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 Gods Omnipotence.

43
Gods 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 22 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 224.
• In our Universe, God cannot violate the fact
  224 even once! God can create another standard
  arithmetic for another Universe but not in this
  one.

44
Can God do everything?

• The idea that God can do everything is a false
  understanding of Omnipotence, a problem discussed
  for instance by many theologians.
• God cannot do anything immoral and God cannot
  cease to exist.
• Most theistic philosophies do not claim that God,
  being Omnipotent, can do anything.
• 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.
• 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).
• The problem if God can act against logic? was
  discussed by St. Thomas Aquinas Thomas.
• 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.
• There exists a classical problem in theology can
  God create a stone that is so heavy that God
  cannot raise it?
• 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.
45
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.

46
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.
• Humans 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 persons 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 one-qubit 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).

47
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.

48

• A robot with God influencing both perception
  (observation also requires quantum measurement)
  and decisions to take actions.

49
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 (robots 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.

50
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.

51
THIRD EXAMPLE. GOD PREVENTS DETONATION OF A
HYDROGEN BOMB BY AFFECTING JUST ONE MEASUREMENT
52
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 Gods
  influence on measurement).
• Even with Gods influence, if the room is dark
  the robot cannot detonate the bomb.
• The arrow shows the initial orientation of the
  robot.

53
Conclusions

•  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.
  
• 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.
• 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.

54
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
• 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.
• In contrast to theology for philosophers or
  theology for masses, in future, most people
  will belong to this category.
• So our attempt is practical.

55
Conclusions

• 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.
• QM is not taught in high schools in physics
  classes.
• 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.
• It would be perhaps best to introduce a rigorous
  although simplified Quantum Mechanics with
  philosophical aspects course in high schools.

56
What kind of knowledge should be taught?
Conclusions (cont)
Popular books (Davies, Polkinghorne, Gotsami,
Barr, Capra, Chopra, quantum mysticism)
Scientific monographs and texbooks on QM

1. No Mathematics
2. Imprecise,
3. Comprehensive
4. Ambitious philosophical interpretations

1. High Mathematical Level,
2. Precise,
3. Comprehensive
4. No philosophical interpretation

The books that are needed

1. Simplified but fully comprehensible Mathematics
2. Precise but illustrated with examples
3. Focus on one aspect only
4. Limited but firm philosophical interpretations

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.

57
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, natures 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 Heisenbergs Uncertainty
Principle.
One has to distinguish actual Intelligent Design
Theory of Behe with the concept that God can
somehow be involved in Evolution.
58
Should we challenge Professors 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.
59
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 Gods
  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 students 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 - 300am By Peter Boghossian Read more
http//www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/07/192/bo
ghossianixzz1jfzgdh7V Inside Higher Ed