

GOD AND  
QUANTUM MECHANICS

Is the Material World Truly Real?  
Is the Entire Universe Just a "Simulation" in a Supercomputer?

An Eastern Orthodox Christian Interpretation

by Bogdan-John Vasiliu

__

February, 2018

Bogdan.John.Vasiliu@outlook.com

Constructive feedback is welcomed and appreciated.

Most Scripture quotations are taken from the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint™. Copyright (C) 2008 by St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. Used by permission. All rights reserved. (Also known as The Orthodox Study Bible).

Some Scripture quotations are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright (C) 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

# Table of Contents

  1. God and Quantum Mechanics
    1. Short Story
    2. 1. General Things
    3. 2. Quantum World
      1. 2.1. Introduction
      2. 2.2. First Surprises
      3. 2.3. Quantum Entanglement
      4. 2.4. The Double-Slit Experiment
      5. 2.5. What Is an "Observation"?
      6. 2.6. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
    4. 3. The Simulation Hypothesis
      1. 3.1. Real and Unreal
      2. 3.2. Who is the Creator?
    5. 4. Conclusion
  2. Endnotes

# God and Quantum Mechanics

## Short Story

During the past hundred years, the study of elementary particles (protons, electrons, photons, etc.) has led to the discovery of some phenomena that are incompatible with classical physics and with our way of seeing the material world. In order to explain these phenomena, science's options are totally unusual, and they seem outright supernatural:

**Retrocausality:** the idea that a present event can modify the past;

**Superposition of macroscopic objects:** the idea that Schrodinger's famous cat can indeed be in a non-determined state, that is, neither alive nor dead, or both alive and dead, till somebody looks at her;

**The many worlds hypothesis:** the idea that Schrodinger's cat is indeed both alive and dead, but in two separate universes;

**The simulation hypothesis:** the idea that our universe is just a simulation in a super-alien's supercomputer.

But none of these options are necessary anymore if we agree to accept the fact that science is not all-powerful, and that it has reached some limits imposed by the Creator of the universe. Maybe a part of the laws of physics established by God, though impersonal, has been endowed with a certain level of pseudo-intelligence, and they were placed outside time and space, thus giving the impression that they can modify the past or that they can predict the future.

For this electronic edition footnotes had to be transformed into endnotes. Most of them are not essential for a correct understanding of the text, but a few are, however, important, and they should be read when they are encountered. In order for the reader to be able to tell them apart, links to important notes are displayed in a somewhat larger font and in bold. For example: Important note123; not so important note123.

## 1. General Things

"In Darwin's time," Michael1 said, "nothing was known about the complexity and the interdependence of the molecular mechanism inside living cells. Only during the past several decades did the researchers discover these things, and the theory of atheist evolution has proven to be clearly impossible: complex mechanisms cannot be formed by themselves, and also, they cannot evolve from simpler life forms.2 But this is not all. Not only has living matter been proven to be extremely complex and hard to understand, but dead matter has, too. I'm talking about elementary particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and even about the very space and time we're living in."

"Space and time are complex, too?" Daniel asked, incredulous.

"Very complex, at least for our level of understanding. At first sight, the matter in front of us seems simple: the water is just water, the air is just air, a stone is just a stone and nothing more. And time goes on as it has always done, and it never turns back. What can be complex here?"

"Yes, really, what is so complicated?"

"Well, till the end of the 19th century, things were indeed simple looking. But now, after more than a hundred years of research in the fields of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, scientists are way more astonished and even disturbed by the simple dead matter. New expressions, never heard of before in history, have made their way into physicists' way of speaking. New and never-before-encountered ideas have been taken into consideration. Here are just some examples of such hypotheses:"

> Time passes at different speeds for moving persons. `[Special Theory of Relativity.]`

> Gravity curbs space and time. `[General Theory of Relativity.]`

> An electron, or any other elementary particle, can pass through two distinct slits at the same time. `[Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.]`

> Particles behave like waves when nobody is looking at them, and like classical particles when they are observed. `[Classical interpretations of quantum mechanics.]`

> A particle can go back in time and it can change its "decision" to pass like a wave through two slits at the same time, and pass like a classical particle through a single slit. `[Retrocausal interpretations of quantum mechanics.]`

> A particle can be in several distinct and incompatible states at the same time, till it is observed or measured, and then its wave function collapses, and the particle will be in only one observable state. `[Superposition principle of quantum mechanics.]`

> The factor that causes the collapse of a particle's wave function is the human conscience. `[Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics.]`

"It already sounds very weird," Daniel noted.

"Yes, and the ideas above are not the aberrant statements of mentally ill people. No, they belong to famous scientists like Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, or John von Neumann."

"And what does this have to do with the existence of God? Is dead matter so complex that it requires a Creator?"

## 2. Quantum World

### 2.1. Introduction

"Quantum mechanics deals with the study of quanta, that is, of individual elementary particles: electrons, protons, photons, and so on. And this study has led to unimaginable discoveries, the complexity of which surprised even the greatest researchers in the field. For example, here's a statement by Niels Bohr, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics:"

> If you are not confused by quantum physics then you haven't really understood it.

"Or Richard Feynman, one of its greatest practitioners:"

> I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

"And this is no wonder," Michael went on. "Quantum mechanics uncovered new laws of physics, totally inexplicable from the point of view of classical physics. These new laws of physics seem to be endowed with intelligence, and more exactly, they seem to have the ability to differentiate the absence of information from the presence of it; even more, according to some researchers, these new laws seem to have the ability to detect the presence of a human observer. And even more still, these new laws of physics seem to be located outside time, more exactly, they seem to have the ability to go back in time and modify the past, or, most likely, to see into the future and preemptively change the behavior of matter."

"You've made me curious," Daniel said. "I'm listening."

### 2.2. First Surprises

"Everything started at the end of the 19th century, when physicists started to note that matter exhibited certain behaviors that seemed weird to them. An example would be the light emitted by electric discharges in certain gases. That light, passed through a prism, reveals that it contains only a few discrete frequencies, and nothing more. Then followed the photoelectric effect, which is the basis for photoelectric cells, which transforms light into electricity. Physicists observed that the apparition of this effect depends on the quality, more exactly on the frequency of light, not on the quantity of it. For example, the photoelectric effect did not occur regardless of how much infrared light was shed on the photoelectric cell. Instead, it was occurring even in the presence of a very small amount of ultraviolet light. For a comparison from the real world, think about a sailboat in the middle of the ocean. The temperature is 25° C `[77° F.]`, the wind is strong, but the boat does not move. Then the wind strength decreases, but the temperature increases to 30° C `[86° F.]`, and the boat starts moving."

"I think I have heard of this, too; it takes a single high-energy photon, from ultraviolet light, in order to free an electron and to produce electricity. Low-energy photons, like those in the infrared light, cannot do this even if there's many of them."

"Then other surprises followed. For example, around the year 1913, Niels Bohr discovered that in an atom, the electrons cannot occupy just any orbit they want around the nucleus. No, the electrons are located only on certain discrete orbits, corresponding to their energy levels. An electron can move, not to just any location, but only to a superior or inferior pre-defined orbit, and only through the absorption or the emission of an energy quantum, that is, a photon. This seems absurd from the point of view of the macroscopic reality that we know. For example, we can stay at any distance we want from that building in front of us. At 15 meters, at 15.1 meters, at 15.234 meters, and so on. But electrons can't. For electrons, it's like they were forced to stay either at a 10 meter distance, or at a 20 meter distance, or at a 50 meter distance, and nowhere in between these discrete positions."

"I understand," Daniel said, "it's a little bit weird, indeed. However, it resembles the rows of seats in a bus or a plane. You can sit in row 1, in row 2, 3, etc., but you cannot sit in row 1.5."

"That is an acceptable example, but it needs an observation: The division of the bus into rows implies an intelligent person, a designer, who calculated the available space, the maximum number of passengers, the order of the seats, and so on. And since you mentioned the seats in a bus, which are identical and arranged in a certain order, maybe we should also think about another thing. Why are all electrons, protons and neutrons in the universe identical?"

"Are they all identical?"

"It's obvious that there's no way for us to know this with certainty, since we can't even analyze all the neutrons in our body to see whether they are absolutely identical. However, science says that it has never found two different ones, although it hasn't even tested a millionth of a millionth of the total 1080 atoms that exist in the universe. But let us suppose that it is so. How is it then, that all of them are _identical_? The atheist Big Bang theory claims that everything started with a huge explosion, with no need for a Creator. But if you blow up something, a rock for example, you won't get even two identical pieces of rock. Look through the microscope at several hundred or thousand grains of sand. Will you ever find two identical ones? I doubt it. Therefore, how is it that all elementary particles in the entire universe are identical?"

"Yes, interesting..."

"Moving on, the next amazing discovery would be the Stern-Gerlach experiment3, carried out in 1922. In this experiment, particles are used that are electrically neutral, like silver atoms. These particles are beamed through a magnetic field, which can deviate their trajectory, depending on their angular momentum4, a characteristic similar to the angular momentum of a macroscopic object that rotates around its axis. And the result is surprising: A particle's angular momentum, measured on the axis of the magnetic field, has only two possible values, regardless of how that magnetic field is oriented. In simple words, regardless of the orientation of that magnetic field, when someone measures the magnetic orientation of a particle compared to it, the resulting value is either +90 degrees, or -90 degrees, but nowhere between these two values. From the point of view of macroscopic reality, this result makes no sense. It is like if I chose random points from our world, building corners, planes in the sky, etc., and every time I chose such a random point and I look at you, I find you oriented either perfectly facing it, or perfectly facing the opposite direction, but never in an intermediary position."

"Yes, this is weird enough," Daniel admitted.

"The next amazing discovery is the tunnel effect5. In this case, a particle can pass through a thin wall, and appear on the other side, without creating a hole in the wall. This is about very thin walls, with thickness around 1 - 3 nanometer, that is, about several dozen atoms thick. However, as I was saying, the particle appears on the other side _without_ puncturing the wall, without leaving a hole behind."

"This makes no sense from the point of view of macroscopic reality, either," Daniel noted. "If I throw a tennis ball at a window, then the ball is either reflected back, or it breaks the window and passes through, but it doesn't appear on the other side without creating a hole in the window."

"And one of the most bizarre discoveries, from science's perspective, is the quantum entanglement phenomenon."

### 2.3. Quantum Entanglement

Michael waited a few seconds, then he went on:

"This is what this is about. In certain conditions, two particles get to be tied to one another by an invisible and inexplicable bond. Even more, they can communicate with one another through that bond, at an enormous speed, much greater than the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously. And that bond persists even if the particles are thousands of kilometers apart from each other. Here's an example: We need a beta barium borate6 crystal and a laser with ultraviolet light. We point the beam of the laser to the crystal, and some of the ultraviolet photons will be split in two, each one being split into two infrared photons. Well, each pair of photons resulted from the splitting of an ultraviolet photon exhibits the famous behavior named quantum entanglement."

"And how is this behavior manifested?" Daniel asked.

"In multiple ways. For example, photons have a property named polarity, which, for simplicity, let's say it can only have two values, 0 or 1. In a pair of entangled photons, at the moment of measurement, it is observed that every time one has the polarity 0 and the other one has the polarity 1, or the other way around. I mean they are complementary values, it never happens that both of them have polarity 0, or both of them polarity 1. But this is not all, only now comes the really surprising part. The polarity of the entangled photons is in an undefined state till the moment of measurement. I mean it is both 0 and 1 at the same time, a phenomenon that in quantum mechanics is called superposition. And in the moment a measurement is taken of any one of them, its polarity immediately takes a clear value, either 0 or 1, and the polarity of the other one immediately takes the complementary value, that is either 1 or 0."

"This sounds rather weird," Daniel objected. "Isn't it possible that these polarities are determined in advance, from the moment of the formation of the photons by the splitting in two of the source photon? I mean, isn't it possible that the two entangled photons are actually like a pair of gloves, and when you look at one of them and see that it is for the right hand, then you immediately know that the other one is for the left hand, even if it is thousands of kilometers away?"

"This hypothesis is called the hidden variables hypothesis. This phenomenon, this action at a distance, looked unbelievable to many researchers, so they proposed an explanation similar to the gloves example given by you. And one of those skeptics was Albert Einstein himself. This phrase from him, 'spooky action at a distance,'7 by which he manifested his mistrust in this unusual phenomenon, became famous. But look, this time at least, it seems that Einstein was wrong. At that time, in 1947, technology was not sufficiently advanced to be able to verify who was right. But a few years later, in 1964, John Bell8 designed, though only theoretically at that time, a mechanism9 by which one could verify whether this property of photons is set at the moment of their formation in the BBO crystal, or if it is a 'decision' made at the moment of measurement. And after another few years, in 1972, 17 years after the death of Einstein, a young PhD candidate named John Clauser10 managed to put those tests into practice and, to his surprise, demonstrated that quantum mechanics was right and that Einstein was wrong."

"So even experts get it wrong sometimes..."

"Yes, and this shouldn't surprise you. Think about Isaac Newton, for example. Although the law of universal gravity he formulated is still valid, generally speaking, and is used by engineers and astronauts all over the world, many of his other theories proved completely wrong. For example, Newton's ideas about alchemy and about the substances in comets' tails which, he used to say, maintain life on earth, are not correct at all. And since we're talking about mistakes, Newton is also famous for losing a big part of his fortune investing in the South Sea Company, a firm that was dealing in, among other things, the slave trade with South America. Asked how he was explaining the huge increase of the market value of this company, Newton replied: 'I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of people.' "

"Yes, this is interesting to know. Let's get back to our photons. What are the implications of this discovery?"

"The implications are huge. This discovery is the first clue that the microscopic world, better called nanoscopic or even picoscopic11, does not resemble the macroscopic world at all. Think a little about these two aspects. First, the photon is in two states at the same time, it is both polarized 0, and polarized 1, though the two states are mutually exclusive. And this situation can also be encountered in the case of electrons and other larger particles. Some physicians might object and say that the particle is in a non-determined state, not in two states at the same time. But the two possible states must also exist, separated from one another, otherwise the observation of the particle could not take place. If the two states were combined, like two waves, their separation would not be possible anymore. I hope you understand what I mean; if you have the number 1,234, resulting from the addition of two other numbers, there is no way for you to know what the two original numbers were. So, the two states of the particle must somehow exist in an intact form. And the second aspect: The photon 'realizes' that it is observed, it realizes that its polarity is being measured, and it makes a 'decision,' 0 or 1, and it instantaneously communicates this decision to its pair, which can be even thousands of kilometers away. To use technical terms, this 'decision' of the photon, this 'resolution' to be either 0 or 1, is called the wave function collapse."

"So, is it possible for even larger systems to be in multiple incompatible states at the same time? What is the maximum size for which this can happen?"

"Physicist Erwin Schrodinger gave us a theoretical example, an example which now is known by all physicists as 'Schrodinger's cat.'12 In a few words, the integrity of a vial with toxic gas is tied to the undetermined state of a radioactive atom, all these being locked together with a living cat in an airtight box with dark walls. When the unstable atom decays, the vial is broken and the cat dies. In his theoretical example, Schrodinger suggests that because the radioactive atom can be in both states at the same time, both intact and decayed, till somebody measures its state, this uncertain state, called superposition, can propagate in time to the macroscopic systems, and thus the cat gets to be both alive and dead at the same time, till someone opens the box and looks inside. Then the cat is forced to become either alive or dead. I hope you understand the idea. An atom both decayed and not decayed at the same time immediately makes the vial with toxic gas become both broken and intact at the same time, which immediately makes the cat become both dead and alive at the same time."

"This sounds outright absurd," Daniel objected.

"I agree. Schrodinger himself did not believe such a thing; he came up with this example during his discussions with Albert Einstein, with the purpose of criticizing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was not setting a clear limit up to which the combination of quantum states, that is, superposition, was possible. Einstein himself had suggested, ironically, that a keg of gunpowder can thus become both exploded and unexploded at the same time. But, though Schrodinger's thought experiment was at its time more of an irony, in our time, various physicists proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics in which there is the real possibility that the famous cat is truly both dead and alive at the same time.13"

"How is it possible that serious physicists, with PhDs, claim such aberrant things?"

"We'll talk about this more when we get to analyze the process of 'observation' in quantum mechanics and the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In a few words, now I'm only telling you that scientists get to such conclusions because quantum phenomena seem to be unexplainable through rational methods, which don't involve anything supernatural."

> Graphical representation of Schrodinger's hypothetical cat, in which it can be seen the switch both not-triggered and triggered at the same time, the poison bottle both intact and broken at the same time, and the cat both alive and dead at the same time.  
>  (Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/> )

"Let's get back to our entangled photons," Daniel said. "How fast do they communicate with each other?"

"The exact speed could not be calculated, but experiments have proven that it is at least 10,000 times greater than the speed of light.14 It is even possible that the phenomenon is instantaneous, but at this moment we don't have the technology necessary to measure this."

"Is there a maximum distance for this phenomenon?" Daniel asked.

"A maximum distance could not be determined, so theoretically it's possible that it works even if the two photons are at the extremities of the universe. The greatest distance was tried in 2017, when the Chinese satellite Micius sent two entangled laser beams toward two ground stations located 1,200 km15 from each other.16"

"And how does this communication between photons take place? If I want to communicate with someone 1,200 km away I need a very expensive radio transmitter, which also consumes a lot of energy, because it has to be very powerful. So how do two simple photons communicate with each other? And how is it that they communicate instantly, or at speeds far greater than the speed of light?"

"There is no answer to this question. However, I'm also telling you that though elementary particles can communicate with each other so fast, we cannot. The mechanism of quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate from point A to point B by us humans."

### 2.4. The Double-Slit Experiment

"Now," Michael went on, "we get to the most famous experiment of them all, namely the double-slit experiment. Imagine a large and solid plate, in which someone has cut two slits large enough to allow the passing of a tennis ball, without touching the plate at all. Behind it there is a large and solid screen, with no holes at all. Now, if we launch tennis balls toward the afore-mentioned plate, we notice that the balls hit the back screen in two distinct places, corresponding to the two slits."

> Launching of tennis balls through two large enough slits. The balls hit the back wall only in two distinct areas, exactly behind the two slits.

"Next," Michael went on, "if the plate were placed in water, or in any other liquid, we would notice that a wave propagates differently. More exactly, the wave seems to be passing through both slits, and then it interferes with itself on the other side. In other words, it is like two new sources of oscillation are formed at the two slits, which produce two new perfectly synchronized waves."

> Propagation of waves through two large enough slits. Each of the two slits becomes a new source of waves, which then interfere with each other. When it hits the back wall, the level of the liquid will be variable.

Michael went on:

"Now let's see what happens if the plate is much smaller, and the two slits are also smaller and closer to each other, having dimensions comparable to the wavelength of elementary particles. A beam of light or a jet of elementary particles, electrons, atoms or even small molecules, is sent toward these two slits. On the other side, at a certain distance, there is a solid screen with no openings. If the experiment is carried out as it is described above, without adding anything, on this screen we don't get two distinct spots, as in the case of the tennis balls, but interference fringes, as in the case of waves. The explanation is very surprising: Elementary particles, photons, electrons, protons, and even some molecules17 travel through the air as a wave, and thus they produce (on the screen) effects similar to wave interference."

> Interference fringes for light (the two above), and electrons (the two below).

"But maybe some particles hit the edges of the slits, and deviate a little to the left or to the right, and maybe this is how the vertical lines pattern is formed..."

"If things were the way you say they were, then the vertical lines behind the plate would look more random and scattered. Anyway, physicists thought of this, too, and they covered one of the slits with a small object. If the result on the back screen was produced by the bumping and deviation of the particles, then by covering a single slit, the vertical lines should only decrease in intensity. But in reality, something else happens: When we cover a single slit, the vertical lines disappear completely, and only one remains instead, corresponding to the slit left open."

"Isn't it possible that the particles interact with each other? I mean, isn't it possible that they bump into each other, and thus they produce those apparent interference fringes?"

"Physicists thought of this, too, and they performed experiments in which they launched only one particle at a time. The result was the same, after a while, the interference fringes became visible."

"Ok, ok," Daniel said, "I'm trying to understand... So, elementary particles are actually waves? Waves of what? Waves of ether? I thought the ether theory was abandoned about a hundred years ago... Waves need a medium in which to propagate, right? Actually, waves are not even real objects; waves are just deformations of the medium in which they propagate, or contractions and dilations of it. In the real, macroscopic world, waves have no physical existence of their own; they are not standalone objects, the same way as the words uttered by me and you are not real physical objects."

"Physicist Max Born, in 1926, answered your question thus: When they are not observed, particles behave like waves of probabilities.18 I mean the particle is not a small microscopic sphere invisible to the naked eye, but actually a wave of probabilities, of a much larger size. This means that a particle can be all over that wave, like it was in many places at once. But when you try to locate it, when you try to observe it, to look at it, you will find it at only one exact location, and it will look like a minuscule fragment of matter, having a diameter of 8.768 x 10-16 meters in the case of protons, and maximum 10-18 meters in the case of electrons."

"Something is not right here... If every time I decide to look at an electron I see it only as a minuscule sphere, how do physicists know that the rest of the time it is actually a wave, large and confuse?"

"That's easy, because it behaves as a wave, and it leaves behind persistent, visible effects proper to waves. In the double-slit experiment described before, as long as you don't look carefully at the particles, they behave like waves and produce interference fringes. But when you add a particle detector and you try to see exactly where they pass through, particles don't behave as waves anymore, but as real physical objects: The interference fringes stop being formed, and in their place, appear only the two distinct spots, corresponding to the two slits."

"What exactly do those fringes mean? If every particle hits the back screen in only one place, according to the probability wave, then it means that that wave is of a very weird shape... It is not even a sphere or a cloud, it probably looks like a string of sausages."

> Graphical representation of the probabilistic wave.

"I have warned you, the quantum world seems to make no sense from the point of view of the macroscopic reality. But let's move on. As I just told you, if you add a particle detector, the waves disappear and are immediately replaced by classical particles. This happens even if the particle reaches the detector _after_ it has passed through the two slits. But this is not all. Have you ever heard the phrase 'quantum eraser'?"

"Never," Daniel said.

"Physicists carried out the following experiment: They passed the ray of a laser through a BBO crystal, and thus they got two entangled rays, let's call them R1 and R2. The first of them, R1, was then passed through the two slits mentioned before and, obviously, it produced interference fringes. Then they added behind one slit a device that polarizes photons in a certain way, and behind the other slit a device that polarizes them in the opposite way. Now, the photons were marked, so one could clearly tell which way they passed, through which slit, because they were polarized differently. In dedicated scientific terminology, it is said that the photons had 'which-path information,' that is, information about the path they traveled. Obviously, after this polarization, the interference fringes disappeared, being replaced by only two vertical lines, corresponding to the two slits: photons stopped behaving like waves that were passing through both slits at the same time and started to behave like classical particles that were passing either through one slit or through the other. But here comes the surprise. Using the second ray, R2, whose photons were entangled with the photons in the first one, physicists changed the polarity. Because the photons were entangled, the forcing of a certain polarity on those in R2 caused the opposite polarity to be applied to the photons in R1. Thus, all photons in R1 got the same polarity, and the which-path information disappeared. And what do you think happened? The erasing of the which-path information caused the re-emergence of the interference fringes. But this is not all. The erasing of the which-path information can take place even _after_ the photons in R1 passed through both of the slits and through the polarity changing devices and which, theoretically, were forcing them to re-become classical particles."

"Do you mean that the erasing of the which-path information can modify the result of events that already happened?"

"I know this sounds absurd, but this is exactly what seems to be happening; I'll explain it to you in detail when we talk about observations and about the retrocausality hypothesis. I used the word 'seems' because retrocausality is only a hypothesis, a supposition that was arrived at because of our limitations, I mean because we cannot know exactly what happens there. This kind of experiment is called 'Quantum eraser'19."

### 2.5. What Is an "Observation"?

"Ok," Daniel said, "I understand that in quantum mechanics the observation has a special role, and it changes the behavior of particles. But what exactly is an observation?"

"You're going to be surprised, but despite decades of talks and debates, physicists still have not managed to clarify either what exactly constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics, or why this changes the behavior of particles. Here's two quotes from a known physicist:"

> The role of measurement in quantum mechanics is so critical and so bizarre that you may well be wondering what precisely constitutes a measurement. Does it have to do with the interaction between a microscopic (quantum) system and a macroscopic (classical) measuring apparatus (as Bohr insisted), or is it characterized by the leaving of a permanent 'record' (as Heisenberg claimed), or does it involve the intervention of a conscious 'observer' (as Wigner proposed)?20

> This view (the so-called Copenhagen interpretation) is associated with Bohr and his followers. Among physicists it has always been the most widely accepted position. Note, however, that if it is correct there is something very peculiar about the act of measurement–something that over half a century of debate has done precious little to illuminate.21

Michael went on:

"I'd like to emphasize the last words: more than half a century of debates among scientists did almost nothing to elucidate the problem of observation, of measurement, in quantum mechanics."

"I still don't realize why it's so complicated. I understand that in order to observe, in order to measure a property of an electron, I have to detect the electromagnetic field produced by it, or I have to hit it with at least one photon. Then I have to intercept that photon and analyze it, to see what it tells me about the electron it just collided with. And maybe this interaction of the photon with the electron causes the latter to be transformed from a wave into a particle. Where am I wrong?"

"It's not that simple. First, why would the detection change the behavior of the particle? Why doesn't it just change its direction, and that's it? Second, these experiments are also carried out in the presence of the atmosphere. Yet still, the interactions of the particles with the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air don't cause the changing of their behavior from wave to classical particle. Third, the double-slit experiment can also be carried out with mirrors. Yet still, the reflection of the photon by the mirror does not change its behavior from wave to classical particle. Fourth, in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the light that has already passed through the two slits was then passed through a BBO crystal, and was split into two rays of entangled photons. But this didn't change their behavior either; the photons continued to produce interference fringes. Therefore, not even an act so traumatizing as the 'breaking in two' of the photon, is an observation."

"So then what is an observation?"

"As I was telling you, the greatest scientists in the field have not succeeded in agreeing and providing a universally accepted explanation. However, most arguments lead in one direction: In quantum mechanics, an observation, that is, the factor that cancels out a particle's wave-like behavior, is any process that produces _information_. For example, in the double-slit experiment, adding the which-path information, or more exactly, the marking of the photons with different polarities depending on the slit behind which they are detected, cancels out the interference fringes and causes the photons to behave like classical particles. And then the deletion of this information causes the re-emergence of the wave-like behavior."

"Does dead matter know what _information_ is?" Daniel asked.

"As I was telling you, these new laws of physics seem to be endowed with intelligence. What is, actually, information? In the example I just mentioned, information is something that tells us which path a photon went through. In this case, it is polarity, but it could also be something else. If we intercept a photon and observe its polarity, we'll know immediately whether it was set immediately behind slit 1 or immediately behind slit 2. This makes the wave-like effect disappear. But if we erase the afore-mentioned information, the wave-like behavior re-emerges."

"Ok, ok, and how does dead matter know whether photons carry information or not?"

"This is a good question. We, humans endowed with intelligence, can tell the presence of information from the absence of it. But animals can't. A photon with polarity 0, a photon with polarity 1, and a photon with no polarity at all, have exactly the same effect on the 'intellect' of a fish or a bird. How then can dead matter, or the laws of physics, which scientists presume are blind and devoid of reason, detect the presence of information and change the behavior of a particle?"

"That's right, how?"

"We'll address this topic when we talk about the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Now let's focus our attention on another aspect, one equally important. These new laws of physics seem to be located outside of time, and thus they seem to be able to foresee events that are going to be happening in a few fractions of a second. Again, I use the word 'seem' because this is just a hypothesis, not a certainty. We have a clear example in the quantum eraser and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. It seems that _something_ foresees that the information will be erased, and thus restores in advance the wave-like behavior of the particle."

"This really is _totally_ unusual," Daniel said.

"That's right, indeed. You're not the only one who's astonished by these phenomena. These conclusions, however, are neither the interpretations of amateurs, nor the opinions of simple believers who don't understand scientific research. Let's see what scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of these topics have to say. The only difference is that they explain these things the other way around, that is, by retrocausality, by the changing of the past, not by the prediction of the future. In the secular article dedicated to the quantum eraser on the Wikipedia website we read:"

> A key result is that it does not matter whether the eraser procedure is done before or after the photons arrive at the detection screen.22, 23, 24

"So even if the erasing of the information takes place _after_ the photons reach the back screen, the effect is the same. Further on:"

> In delayed-choice experiments quantum effects can mimic an influence of future actions on past events.25, 26

> While delayed choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics.27

"Here's another researcher who's an advocate of retrocausality, Dr. Matthew S. Leifer, from Chapman University:"

> The reason I think that retrocausality is worth investigating is that we now have a slew of no-go results about realist interpretations of quantum theory, including Bell's theorem.28

"Let's pay attention to the words," Michael said. "Realistic interpretations lead to a slew of no-go results, therefore scientists began to consider absurd, unreal options, like retrocausality. Further on, other opinions of other scientists:"

> A future event causes the photon to decide its past.29

"Someone else, Dr. Kater Murch, from Washington University:"

> In the quantum world, the future affects the past: Hindsight and foresight together more accurately "predict" a quantum system's state.30

> But in the quantum guessing experiment, time symmetry has returned. The improved odds imply the measured quantum state somehow incorporates information from the future as well as the past.31

"Here's another researcher, Asher Peres, from Israel Institute of Technology, a pioneer in quantum information theory:"

> If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.32

"Next," Michael went on, "Andrew Truscott, professor of physics at Australian National University:"

> It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it `[...]`

> If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past.33

"Is retrocausality the only possible explanation?" Daniel asked.

"There are other explanations, too. Let's pay attention to Professor Truscott's words I just quoted: ' _If_ one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths...' The alternative would be to believe that the atom did not take any path, in a clear and definitive way; more exactly, the alternative would mean for us to believe that the atom, actually the entire system of which that atom is a part, is in a superposition of multiple possible states at the same time: State 1: the atom passed like a classical particle only through slit 1; state 2: the atom passed like a classical particle only through slit 2; and state 3: the atom passed like a wave through both slits. So, the alternative would be for us to believe that the atom and the system that contains it is in all these three possible states at the same time, and an observation (a measurement) causes the definitive 'selection' of a single state of the three just enumerated, and this gives the impression of retrocausality, because it is like the atom is waiting for the completion of the experiment in order to 'decide' which of the three possible ways to select."

"Honestly, this alternative seems to me like even more science fiction than retrocausality," Daniel said.

"I'm not going to contradict you. Some physicists might tell you that actually the mathematical equations describe exactly this thing—the superposition of the entire macroscopic system. But I say that things are not that simple. First, an equation is just a mathematical model, it does not describe reality completely; for example, a second-degree equation can correctly describe your trajectory when you jump over an obstacle, but it offers no explanation for the energy needed for that jump, or for the way your muscles use that energy in order to perform that jump, or for the origin of your organism (creation or evolution). So, let's be careful, mathematical models are extremely limited. Second, the equation of such a macroscopic system should contain about 1028 terms; if it were written on A434 paper, 500 terms on a page, then the sheets would form a stack a billion billion kilometers35 high, and would weigh almost 50 billion billion metric tons, that is, about two-thirds of the weight of the moon; the memories of all the computers in the world taken together would only be able to store a hundredth of a millionth of all those terms. So, it is obvious that nobody has ever written such an equation, and maybe nobody ever will; it exists only in theory, in the imagination of physicists."

"Indeed, a rather large equation," Daniel said. "On the other hand, retrocausality seems unbelievable, too..."

"That's true, I can't really believe in retrocausality, either. I presented all these details just so you can see that these phenomena can't be explained in a 'realistic,' classical way. Look, for example, theoretically, in the case of the delayed choice quantum eraser, the time interval can be increased from eight nanoseconds to several full seconds. It is not easy at all, but it can be done, and in this case the human observer has enough time to see the initial result, about which it is supposed that it is changed through retrocausality. Well, I wonder, does anyone really believe that after those several seconds the image on the detection screens will 'magically' change? I doubt it. I wonder, is it possible now, in the year 2018, that someone can do something that changes the outcome of the last world war, which ended in 1945? I doubt it. Therefore, I'd be more inclined to believe that science reached some limits imposed by the Creator of the universe, and that we're probably dealing with laws of physics endowed with a certain intelligence (impersonal if the laws themselves are impersonal), located outside of time, which can thus see into the future and can act preemptively. Anyway, even this opinion of mine is just a supposition and nothing more."

"If there is indeed the possibility to change the past, then maybe in that case what the human observer saw at that moment will also change, so for him there will be nothing that will seem 'magic.' To the human observer it will seem that actually this was the initial result of the experiment. By changing the event in the past, all subsequent events caused by it will be changed, too; therefore, the human observer's memory will be changed, too."

"I don't know..." Michael said, skeptical. "This starts looking like the old philosophical question: 'If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around, neither humans, nor microphones, does it still make a sound?' "

"Yes," Daniel approved, "the type of question for which it's impossible to give a scientific answer. Let's get back now; are there any other problems with this alternative to retrocausality?"

"Yes, pretty big problems. As I said, in order to avoid retrocausality, many physicists claim that in the case of the delayed choice quantum eraser, the entire ensemble, which includes the laser, the plate with the two slits, the mirrors and the crystals, must be treated as a single quantum system, which is in an undefined state, more exactly, in a superposition of multiple valid states, till the moment an observation is performed. But this supposed superposition of macroscopic objects opens the door to a bunch of other problems. If this possibility does exist, what happens then to Schrodinger's cat? Can she truly be both alive and dead at the same time? What about Einstein's keg of gunpowder? Can it truly be both exploded and unexploded at the same time? The main problem is obvious: Where does superposition stop? Does it stop at the human observer, when he or she looks at the cat or at the gunpowder keg? If so, why exactly? Atheist science considers that the human being is just a bunch of atoms and molecules, without a soul, so what's so special about a man that makes quantum superposition stop at him? And if superposition does not stop at the human observer, then he or she, too, gets into a superposition of two valid states: In the first state, he's looking at a living cat; in the second state, he's looking at a dead cat. Can you imagine yourself in this state, more exactly, in these two states _at the same time_?"

"This is absurd," Daniel said. "I can't be in two places at once, there's just one Daniel, not two or three."

"Exactly. And from here on, physicists who went this way have but a single escape: the many worlds hypothesis, which we'll talk about in a few moments."

Michael stopped for a few moments, then went on:

"You see now that scientists have encountered very serious obstacles in the study of elementary particles; not finding any classical solution for those problems, some of them appealed to retrocausality, others to the superposition of macroscopic objects, and others to multiple universes, as we'll see immediately. But such absurd interpretations are not necessary at all. If we accepted the fact that God established certain limits up to which scientific research can advance, and that these limits might include laws of physics endowed with a certain impersonal intelligence, placed outside of time, then all these phenomena would be easy to explain. Such laws of physics, being endowed with intelligence and located outside of time, as God too is outside of time, would have the ability to detect in time future events and act accordingly. But, obviously, the existence of such laws, though impersonal, imply the existence of a personal Creator, more exactly, the existence of God, Who created them and made them take care of the material world. And the existence of God is something that is very hard for many scientists to accept. Let's move on now, and talk about the interpretations of quantum mechanics."

### 2.6. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

"So there's several interpretations?" Daniel asked.

"Of course; quantum phenomena are so surprising, so unusual, so supernatural I'd dare to say, that scientists did not manage to agree on their significance. For comparison, there are no interpretations for the width of the building in front of us, there are no interpretations for the speed of sound, there are no interpretations for the depth of a lake or an ocean, there are no interpretations for the distance from the Earth to the Moon, and so on. These are clear things, easy to measure and analyze. For quantum mechanics, we have multiple interpretations because, although elementary particles are always in front of us and we can analyze them at any time, the results of the experiments seem to make no sense from the point of view of the macroscopic reality that we live in. As I was saying above, scientists encountered several roadblocks in this field, roadblocks that can only be solved by appealing either to the supernatural (more exactly, to limits established by the Creator, including probably laws of physics endowed with a certain intelligence), either to exotic and absurd theories, like retrocausality, or multiple universes, that is, the duplication of our entire universe. And this is how the interpretations of quantum mechanics emerged."

"So things are not clear?"

"Not at all. The mere fact that there are multiple interpretations is very good proof of the fact that there is no clear proof for any of them. All these interpretations are just opinions of the scientists, opinions that cannot be _proven_ in any way; they can only be _believed_ and nothing more. _Something_ inside of us is attracted toward one or toward the other, but it is impossible to scientifically prove any of them, so that all the others will be proven clearly and definitively wrong."

"Ok, but there are arguments for each of them, right? There are functional mathematical equations for each of them, right?"

"Mathematical equations are just theoretical models; the fact that they're functional doesn't prove anything. There are mathematical equations for each of these interpretations, yet it can't be clearly proven if any one of them is true or not. Simple logic tells us that two contradictory statements cannot be both true at the same time: They can be both false, or one false and the other one true, but they can't be both true, because they contradict each other. Many of these interpretations contradict each other, so even simple logic tells us that they are wrong, despite the fact that all of them have functional mathematical models and equations. So, the fact that a mathematical model is functional does not mean that it truly describes reality. For example, you can mathematically approximate a man with a cylinder made from a certain material, with a certain density. You can thus calculate with great accuracy the speed at which the man would fall from a height of one meter, the percentage of him that would be submerged in water and the percentage that would remain above the water, and so on. But if you try to pass the cylinder through a round hole, you'll notice that the mathematical model, though very good in some cases, does not reflect reality anymore, and that the real man does not fit. In the same way, when calculating the orbit of an object, astronomers consider satellites, asteroids, and sometimes even planets as being of negligible size, that is, just points. And this mathematical model works very well in those cases, but it is obvious that it does not reflect reality at all: A satellite is not a point of zero size. Even more, if you use this model to calculate the probability for a satellite (considered to be a point) to be hit by cosmic dust or meteorites, you'll get a fundamentally wrong result, despite the fact that the mathematical model works very well in other cases. So, even if a mathematical model can correctly predict certain phenomena, it can still be extremely far away from reality. If a man runs and jumps over an obstacle, Newtonian mathematical equations will predict very well the maximum height he is going to reach, and the distance after which he'll touch the ground again; but those equations won't tell you anything about the inner structure of the man, about how complicated even a single cell of his is. Those equations won't explain in any way the man's existence, they won't tell you whether he was created by God or whether he evolved from primitive life forms. So, although they can predict almost exactly certain events, mathematical models are extremely limited."

"Yes, I agree," Daniel approved.

"I, too, could express my height in complex numbers, I could imagine some extra dimensions, and the result of my equation would say that in those dimensions I can reach the moon with my hand.36 A real aberration, isn't it?"

"Yes, indeed."

"Next, most of these interpretations of quantum mechanics treat matter, elementary particles and even macroscopic systems as if they were just waves of probabilities, or just equations. But an equation is not a real, tangible object, but only a representation, an abstract notion. It's the mathematical equation that tries to describe, to imitate, in a partial and limited way, the real world, and not the other way around. The real world does not care about our equations, and it does not try to imitate them in any way; if sometimes it gives this impression, it is only because physicists have managed to describe, by that equation, a small part of reality, but that's it. The difference between a mathematical model and the reality it models is like the difference between a photograph of an object and the object itself, or like the difference between a character in a computer game and a real man. Yes, I agree, the photograph is real, too, it is made of real atoms and molecules, but still, there is an enormous difference between it and the real photographed object. Quantum mechanics suggests thus that the material world is not truly real, that it is only an equation."

"Ok, let's get back. Which are those interpretations of quantum mechanics?"

"First conflicts among researchers began to arise at the beginning of the 20th century. By then, it was becoming clear the idea that quantum mechanics was non-deterministic, more exactly that, as long as it is not measured, a particle behaves like a probability wave, and that there is no way to calculate where exactly that particle will be found when its detection will be attempted. Unlike classical physics, in which trajectories of planets, for example, can be calculated with precision, in classical mechanics such a thing is impossible. A particle behaves like a wave of probabilities, and a point on that wave seems to represent only the likelihood of finding the particle in that place, and nothing more. Einstein was a great skeptic regarding this interpretation. However, he did not claim that quantum theory was completely wrong, only that it was incomplete. Einstein especially didn't like the idea that particles behave in a non-deterministic way. This statement of his became famous: 'I don't believe that God plays dice with the universe.' And so did the reply he got back from Niels Bohr: 'Einstein, stop telling God what to do.'"

> Niels Bohr (left) and Albert Einstein (right), debating the problems of quantum mechanics in December 1925.  
>  (Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/> )

Michael went on:

"So, the most widespread interpretation is named the 'Copenhagen Interpretation,' and it was developed (mainly) between 1925 and 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. According to this interpretation, particles behave in a non-deterministic way, like waves of probabilities, till the moment they are observed. But the Copenhagen interpretation is not a complete interpretation, it does not give a clear definition for the observation process, so various researchers, without deviating too much from the essence of this interpretation, offered their own interpretations for what exactly 'to observe' means. Therefore, we have two types of interpretations: interpretations that start from zero, ignoring the Copenhagen interpretation, and interpretations that only try to make the Copenhagen interpretation complete, trying to explain what exactly an observation is."

"For example?"

"I already gave you an example, namely the emergence of information in the analyzed system. This interpretation partially explains the behavior of particles, but it does not explain at all who or what exactly, and especially how exactly, detects the presence of information. Other researchers came up with a revolutionary idea: The human conscience, more exactly, the presence of a human observer, causes the change of the particle from a wave into a classical particle. This interpretation suggests that man is something special. However, this interpretation does not explain at all who or what exactly, and especially how exactly, detects the presence of a human observer."

"And did the scientists take this idea seriously, I mean the presence of the human observer?" Daniel asked. "I'm asking because it seems a little bit supernatural, at least for an atheist scientist, who believes that man is just a bunch of atoms and molecules."

"The idea according to which the human conscience causes the wave-function collapse was advocated by a very well-known scientist named John von Neumann37, and also by the physicist Eugene Wigner.38 The latter added one more element to the cat thought experiment: A human observer, named 'Wigner's friend,' who opens the box and gets to look at a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time, and who thus gets, theoretically, to be both happy (because the cat is alive) and unhappy (because the cat is dead) at the same time. Wigner was thus trying to suggest that that state of superposition must end before or when it gets to the conscious human observer. The other advocate of this idea, von Neumann, was considered to be the greatest mathematician of his time, and one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Although he lived for only 53 years, he published more than 150 scientific papers, in fields such as mathematics, physics and informatics. But their idea was treated with skepticism by many scientists, because it suggests that only the non-material mind is a true observer in quantum mechanics. You get the idea: the problem was that this interpretation seemed to advocate the existence of a 'non-material mind,' which probably could have also been called a soul, although it is said that von Neumann was not necessarily a religious person, being considered more of an agnostic than a faithful. But you do understand the religious implications of his idea, don't you? Anyway, the fact that someone of von Neumann's caliber appealed to such a supernatural explanation shows that quantum mechanics phenomena can't really be explained through classical, natural means."

"Yes, I understand, an atheist researcher probably wouldn't like to consider this hypothesis."

"However, regarding the non-deterministic behavior of particles, in my opinion, this behavior only exists from our perspective, only at our level. I mean it is only us humans who are unable to anticipate exactly where an electron will be found when its wave-function collapses, for reasons we'll discuss immediately. But for God, I think there's nothing non-deterministic in a particle's behavior. I believe God can calculate exactly where an electron will be found, although to us it appears to be just a wave of probabilities."

"What about the interpretations that start from zero, ignoring the Copenhagen interpretation?"

"Here things become really bizarre. Though the Copenhagen interpretation is still the most widespread one, a 1997 poll found that only 42% of scientists still believed in it.39 The rest had adopted other interpretations. For example, an interpretation whose acceptance is growing rapidly these days is the many worlds interpretation."

"You mean the idea that there are multiple parallel universes?" Daniel asked, thinking about sci-fi movies.

"Yes, this theory claims that there are billions, probably an infinity of parallel worlds; even more, the theory claims that every second there emerge out of the blue millions of new universes. But let's take it step by step. Generally speaking, this is the interpretation: In the case of Schrodinger's cat, there comes a moment when the radioactive atom has to 'make a decision,' that is to decay or not. At this moment, the advocates of the multiple worlds theory claim, there's no superposition state involved, like in classical quantum mechanics, which claims that the atom is both intact and decayed till the moment someone looks at the quantum system. At this moment, those advocates claim, the universe is duplicated, partially or even totally. Yes, you heard that right, somehow, out of the blue, there appears a new almost-identical copy of the universe. Between the two copies there is only one small difference: In one universe the atom is intact, in the other universe the atom has decayed radioactively. From now on, they say, each universe goes its own way. In the first universe the cat stays alive, for now. In the second universe the cat dies, very quickly. In the first universe, the one in which the atom remained intact, the cat is alive only momentarily: In a few seconds, or microseconds, the atom may 'decide' again to decay, causing a new fork and a new universe. And so on, every atom has the potential to duplicate the universe, thousands, or even millions of times per second. There are several variants of this interpretation, and some of them claim that the duplication of the universe happens only when there is an observation, a measurement."

> Graphical representation of the many worlds interpretation. The interpretation claims that at the moment the radioactive atom "decides" whether to decay or not (the down pointing arrow), an entire identical universe appears out of the blue. In one of the two universes, the atom is intact and the cat is alive; in the other universe, the atom has decayed and the cat will soon die. (Adapted after <https://en.wikipedia.org/> )

Michael pondered for a few seconds, then he went on:

"The explanation gets a little bit complicated in the case of the double-slit experiment. According to David Deutsch, who is said to be the most notable proponent of the many worlds theory in modern physics, the process goes on like this: When the photon, or another particle, gets in front of the two slits, the universe duplicates: in one universe, the particle goes through one slit; in the other universe, it goes through the other slit. Notice that the particle stops going through both slits, like a wave. But the two universes are not completely separated yet. If there's no measurement, no observation of the particle in any of them, then the two universes recombine, and they become one again, and this is how the interference fringes are generated. But, in both cases, the implications are the same: duplication of the universe also means the duplication of us. So, according to this theory, billions of Daniels and Michaels already exist, each almost identical to us. Although there are several variants of this theory and some advocates will claim that actually only the wave-function gets duplicated, the implications are the same: the duplication, millions of times per second, of the world we live in and of us."

"An entire brand-new universe, just like that, out of the blue?" Daniel asked, incredulous.

"There are several variants of the interpretation. Some of them claim that for the moment, the duplication is only partial, local, that is, the duplication affects only what needs to get duplicated, I mean only what is different between the two universes. But even this way, in time, the duplicated part grows. Imagine a parallel universe in which the September 11 attacks were thwarted. It is obvious that in a maximum of a few hours our entire planet would have found out about this and had to be duplicated entirely: a copy in which the terrorists had succeeded and all seven billion people on earth knew that, and a copy in which the terrorists had failed and all seven billion people on earth knew that."

"Is this a serious theory? I mean, is it taken seriously by the scientists?"

"Yes, it has a lot of supporters, but also a lot of critics. One of the supporters was the famous Stephen Hawking himself. The advocates claim that the theory is simple and that it avoids most of the problems of classical interpretations, like the need for an observer, retrocausality, or superposition at a macroscopic level, like in the example with Schrodinger's cat, in which the exact same cat, non-duplicated, can be both alive and dead at the same time. And critics have their arguments, too: The theory cannot be verified scientifically, because we don't have access to the other alleged universes. It is more of a philosophy than a scientific theory. Then, _what_ exactly clones the universe in a fraction of a second? Where does the needed energy come from? How does a particle 'know' that the universe has to be duplicated? Does the photon 'see' that a few centimeters in front of it there is a double-slit device, and it communicates 'somewhere' that the universe has to be duplicated? Next, how do the two universes know that they can be reunited? The theory says that they get reunited shortly if there was no measurement or observation, but how do the two universes know that? To me it seems that the role of the observation is still an important one, and there is still need for 'something' to somehow detect the presence or absence of information, or even the presence or absence of a human observer."

"Indeed, these are serious question marks," Daniel approved.

"But the greatest question mark, for a believer, is related to the existence of the soul. It is obvious that this theory was proposed by people who do not believe in the existence of the soul. In their opinion, man is just an ordered bunch of atoms and molecules. Or, in other variants, man is just matter, and that matter, they say, is not even real, but just a wave, a wave-function, which can be duplicated and re-combined in any way. But if we have an immortal soul, too, then this theory is dead from the beginning."

"The many worlds theory seems totally absurd to me, too. Why would a serious scientist come up with such an aberration?"

"Because it is obvious that you can't really explain the quantum phenomena without appealing to the supernatural. The laws of quantum physics seem to be able to detect the presence of information, and they also seem to be able to alter events that already happened, or at least this is what a large number of researchers say. These things can't really be explained in a classical, natural way. A supporter of the many worlds says:"

> The standard interpretation works incredibly well as long as you do not consider the philosophical consequences.40

"So you see the 'problem,' don't you?" Michael asked. "The philosophical implications. And a critic of the many worlds theory says:"

> It is not that no alternatives exist—it is just that we have not found them yet in terms of theories, axioms, and mathematics.41

"So you see, the problem is that science has not managed to find the realistic alternatives..."

"Are there any other interpretations?" Daniel asked.

"Yes, during the past couple decades another interpretation has emerged, which also has a few advocates. It is called the simulation hypothesis, and we'll talk about it immediately."

## 3. The Simulation Hypothesis

Michael thought for a few moments, then he restarted the discussion:

"During the past few decades there has emerged, in movies and in the works of some scientists, the idea that maybe the universe and humankind did not arise just like that, out of the blue, through natural causes, as an atheist might suppose. Too bad though, movie producers and scientists did not take into consideration our Christian God, but instead they suggested other kind of 'creators,' hypothetical ones. Thus, the hypothesis that maybe indeed we have 'artificial' origins was formulated, that maybe indeed we've been created, either in the real world or in the memory of a supercomputer, and that maybe we are under the careful watch of beings that are far superior to us."

"Aliens?" Daniel asked.

"Yes, but something more than the humanoid aliens that are seen in sci-fi movies. This is about the alleged super-aliens, who can create planets or even entire galaxies, or even aliens that live outside our space and time, and who can create, or simulate in their computers, our entire planet, or even the entire universe, including stars, planets, galaxies, etc...."

"Yes, I've certainly heard this idea before. In the movie _The Matrix_ , people are living in a simulated world, which does not exist in reality. Then in the movie _The Truman Show_ , the character played by Jim Carrey lives in a fake world, but in this case, it is not a simulation in a computer, but actors who deceive him."

"Yes, Hollywood has produced many such movies. You can encounter this idea in the Star Trek TV series, too, in several variants. In the episode _Ship in a Bottle_ (1993) the simulated character Moriarty realizes that he is in a simulated reality and wants to get out, into the real world.42 And this is not the only example, the Star Trek series has come up with many similar messages, which are obviously targeted against religion. For example, in the episode _Who Watches the Watchers_ (1989), several members of the crew of the spaceship Enterprise are tempted to play the role of almighty gods for the under-developed population of a planet. Captain Jean Luc Picard refuses, and gives a long speech against religion and against the belief in supernatural beings. At the end of the episode, character Troi proclaims: 'Are you sure you know what he wants? That's the problem with believing in a supernatural being. Trying to determine what he wants.'"

"I think I've seen that episode..."

"Attacks on all religions seem to be an older pursuit of Star Trek producers. Here, in the older episode _The Squire of Gothos_ (1967) we encounter a seemingly all-powerful alien, named Trelane, who manipulates matter and humans as he likes, giving the impression that he is a god. When he crosses the line, we learn that actually Trelane is just a spoiled child. His mother says to him, referring to the humans: 'If you cannot take proper care of your pets, you cannot have them at all.' And his father adds: 'Stop that nonsense at once, or you'll not be permitted to make any more planets.'"

"This is rather disturbing," Daniel noted. "A subtle suggestion that God could actually be an infantile super-alien who is playing with us."

"And one last example, also from Star Trek. In the episode _Who Mourns for Adonais?_ (1967), the crew of the spaceship Enterprise encounters in space the Greek god Apollo himself, who actually turns out to be a super-alien with a very long lifespan, who took advantage of the credulity of ancient Greeks. And so on."

"What is the purpose of these movies and TV shows?"

"These are attacks clearly targeted against religion. They try to forcibly replace an eternal Creator God, immortal and good, with a presumed alien civilization, insensitive or even malevolent, which carries out experiments on us. A treacherous attack on Christianity and on all monotheistic religions. In addition, they try to suggest that we don't know what God wants from us. But Christians know very well what God wants: He wants what is good for us, more exactly, He wants all of us to be happy in the eternal life that will follow after this fleeting life. Anyway, as I was telling you before, such 'scientific' theories (about the identity of the Creator) can be neither proven, nor disproven in any way, only through logical and rational methods. _Something_ inside of you will be attracted toward one direction or toward another, and you will believe one version or another.43 But you will never be able to argue rationally, scientifically, for or against an alternative."

### 3.1. Real and Unreal

"Ok," Daniel said, "let's get back to quantum mechanics and talk about interpretations. You said there's also an interpretation called the simulation hypothesis? I mean an interpretation that says that our world could actually be a simulation in a supercomputer? Well, I'm not surprised at all. Behavior of matter at the microscopic level seems to be truly unreal, and indeed it seems to resemble the behavior of elements in a computer program. Particles that exist in several places at the same time? Particles that pass through walls without making a hole? Particles that 'communicate' with each other instantaneously, over thousands of kilometers? Particles that can 'foresee' the future? Particles that 'detect' the presence of information, or maybe even the presence of a human observer? Intelligent laws of physics? It doesn't resemble at all the real world we live in, but it would not be surprising at all if these particles were actually just numbers in a super-alien's supercomputer. That computer would only need to be able to address huge amounts of memory, in order to simulate all the 1080 atoms in the universe, or at least the 1057 atoms in our solar system. Regarding the rest of the universe, it could only pretend to simulate, I mean it could just simulate some kind of spherical screen around our solar system, and on that screen it could project the image of stars, galaxies, etc.... And it wouldn't even have to be a powerful computer; if it were located in another dimension, outside our time, even the microprocessor in my computer could do this, although it would have to spend billions of billions of years of its time to simulate a single millisecond of our time. But we would not be aware of this, for us time would seem to go by naturally. However, the part that would have to detect the presence of information, or the presence of a human observer, would be rather complicated. An intelligent component would indeed be needed for that."

Daniel stopped for a few seconds, then he added:

"Please remember Professor Truscott's words that you yourself quoted a few moments ago: 'At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.' This is typical to 3D computer games; those games calculate the 2D projections, colors and shadows only for the objects that are in front of the player. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised that some researchers came up with the theory that actually our world is not real, and that it only exists in a supercomputer."

"Let's take it step by step and carefully analyze the words we use. Let's see what the word 'computer,' the word 'real' and the word 'simulation' mean; let's see what reality is, what is _real_ and what is _illusory_. These four words can be very vague, and they can have very many meanings. You'll be surprised, but different persons may understand different things by the word 'real,' as well as by the other words."

"Ok, I'm listening," Daniel said.

"First, let's see what a computer is. Don't think only about the device on your desk that you use for navigating the internet. As its name says, a computer is _something_ , or even _someone_ who computes, who performs computations. The mobile phone is a computer, too, but somewhat smaller. The electronic watch on the wrist is a miniature computer, too. Even an 18th century mathematician who computes and writes in tables the values of some trigonometric functions, can be considered a human computer, because he computes, he performs computations."

"Yes, I understand. Probably the computer of an alien from outside our space and time would look totally different. And the meaning of the word 'real'?"

"In order to analyze the meaning of reality, let's think about some real examples of simulations. Let's think about several computers: first, a minuscule device based on the old 4-bit Intel 4004 microprocessor, released in 1971. Then a ZX Spectrum computer, based on the 8-bit Zilog Z80 microprocessor, released in 1976, which can address only 64 kilobytes of memory, that is 64 x 1024 = 65,536 bytes. Then let's also consider a modern computer, with an Intel Core i7 microprocessor let's say, endowed with 16 gigabytes of memory, that is about 16 billion44 bytes."

"Ok, now we have three computers," Daniel approved.

"Good. Let's say that on the least powerful of them runs a trivial game of tic-tac-toe. The Intel 4004 is not a powerful microprocessor at all, but still, it can handle a tic-tac-toe game. Next, the Z80 is somewhat faster, and it has more memory, and it can do something more. More exactly, it can run a program that simulates a less powerful microprocessor, like the Intel 4004. I mean you can write a program for the Z80, which loads a smaller program, written for the Intel 4004, and takes, one by one, every instruction in that second program, interprets and executes it, exactly like it were a real Intel 4004. The program written for the Intel 4004 does not have the slightest idea that it is actually being executed by a simulator program, which is running on a somewhat more powerful microprocessor, and that actually the Intel 4004 microprocessor it thinks it is running on doesn't even exist in reality. Further on, the Intel Core i7 is much, much more powerful than a Z80. Therefore, it can run a program that simulates a Z80 microprocessor. If you search the internet, you will find several Z80 simulators that run on modern, much more powerful computers. So, on a modern computer, you can run a Z80 simulation, and that simulation can in turn run an Intel 4004 simulation."

"I understand, so actually you can have a simulation that runs in another simulation, and none of them is capable of realizing that the microprocessor it thinks it runs on doesn't actually exist."

"Yes, exactly. Let's move on now and see what the word 'real' means. Do you remember the old game Chuckie Egg, which was running on computers with a Z80 microprocessor?"

"Yes, certainly. Even now I can play it anytime; as you were saying, on the internet there are programs for modern computers that simulate the old Z80 microprocessor."

> A variant of the Chuckie Egg game.

"Well, let's think about this now, is the character Chuckie real? What about the ducks in that game, are they real?"

"It's just a game, they're not real," Daniel said.

"What about the game itself, is it real?"

"I don't understand..."

"Is the game real, or is it an illusion? When you play Chuckie Egg are you awake, or are you having hallucinations?"

"Now I understand... Yes, the game is real, obviously. It was written by real humans, like me and you; and even more, the game really exists in our material world, as a computer tape or disk."

"Well, in the game's reality, the characters are real, too. They are represented by real memory locations, where the real coordinates of the characters are stored. In the game's reality, there also are laws of physics, corresponding to that reality. When Chuckie is falling, he stops if he encounters an obstacle. When Chuckie touches a duck, he dies; he really dies, according to the laws of physics from the reality he exists in. Therefore, I'm asking you one more time: What do you say, are the Chuckie Egg characters real or not?"

"It's complicated, indeed," Daniel said. "They're truly real in their world, in their reality, but they are not real in our world."

"Are you sure? So Chuckie and the ducks are illusory in our world? When you look at Chuckie on a computer's screen, what do you see? An illusion? A hallucination?"

"Hmmm... Yes, maybe he's real in our world, too, in a way..."

"He's truly real, but he has a different representation for us; I mean, we see shapes and colors on the screen, but the program 'sees' numbers in a memory. And not only his image on the screen is real, but also inside the computer he is represented by real numerical values, which are stored in real memory locations, which in turn are made of real atoms and molecules. When Chuckie dies in his world, his death is not an illusion; he truly dies, according to the laws of physics of the reality he exists in; the numerical values in the memory locations that represent him change in order to reflect this; the atoms and molecules which make up the memory circuits in our world change, too, in order to reflect the fact that Chuckie has died; also, the real photons that travel between the computer screen and our eyes change their frequency in order to reflect the fact that Chuckie has died. Therefore, Chuckie is as real as it gets in our world, too."

"Ok, I agree, he seems to be somewhat real... But Chuckie is not a real human, and neither are those ducks real birds, with flesh, bones, and feathers."

"Obviously, nobody said they were real birds, God forbid. Both Chuckie and the ducks are just elements in a game, cartoon characters and nothing more. Nobody claimed that they were real ducks, flesh and bones, so there's no deception here. But still, those elements are very real, I mean they have a real physical existence in our world, too. They're real in their world, and they're real in our world, too. They're visible on a real screen, we see them by means of real rays of light, by means of real photons, and the memory of the computer, where all the action takes place, is made up of truly real atoms and molecules, which have a real existence in our world. So those video game characters are real, the same way as the paper photograph of a man is a real object, even though it has no flesh and no bones."

"Hmmm... Yes, indeed, they're real," Daniel admitted.

"Let's get back to the tic-tac-toe game example. I purposely chose as a starting point the Intel 4004 microprocessor, in which a byte has only four bits, not eight as in a modern microprocessor. Thus, each byte in its memory is not represented by a similar byte in a Z80's memory, but by some other type of byte. Also, each register45 in the Intel 4004 is represented by a byte in the Z80's memory, not by a similar register. So there's not an exact correlation. However, the tic-tac-toe game has a real representation in the memory of the Intel 4004 microprocessor, which in turn has a real representation in the memory of the Z80 microprocessor, which in turn has a real representation in the memory of the Intel Core i7 microprocessor, which in turn is made up of real atoms and molecules."

"Yes, I understand now," Daniel said, "all of them are real, even though they have different representations."

"Exactly! Even though we're talking about a tic-tac-toe game that is running in a simulation, which in turn is running in another simulation, the game is very real on all these levels of reality. Even more, inferior realities are a part of the superior reality. But indeed, the game has a different representation on each level. The program only 'sees' numbers in a computer's memory, and we see shapes and colors on that computer's screen."

"Yes, now I understand very well. Even if we were to suppose that our universe, too, is a simulation in a computer, it still has to be real in the reality in which that computer existed. And, indeed, as you're saying, the universe would really have to be a part of that reality, it would have to be a part of that world."

"Let's now see what the word 'simulation' means. A simulation involves, inevitably, the idea that _something_ or _someone_ pretends; I mean _something_ or _someone_ pretends to be what it or he is not, or that it or he does something that it or he doesn't. We often encounter situations like this. Pilots train in flight simulators; the army simulates wars; meteorologists simulate atmospheric systems in order to predict the weather; and so on. The idea of simulation also implies the fact that somewhere in reality the real simulated object or process exists. For example, there are real planes, there are real wars, and obviously there also are real atmospheric systems. But the idea of simulation does not necessarily involve the idea of deception. The pilots know very well they're in a simulator, and not in a real plane; the soldiers know that they're only simulating a war."

### 3.2. Who is the Creator?

"Ok," Daniel said. "Let's get back now to the simulation hypothesis. Isn't there any way to find out for sure whether it is so or not? Can this hypothesis be tested in any way?"

"As you remember from our previous discussion, such things cannot be investigated through scientific means. It is impossible to argue for or against them using scientific, logical or rational methods. _Something_ inside of you is attracted by one explanation or by another, and you end up believing the explanation you're attracted to, but there's absolutely no way to prove a certain explanation in a scientific way. Momentarily we cannot go outside of our space and time to see what exactly is out there, therefore, there is no way for us to _know_ such a thing, we can only _believe_. Here's an analogy: Can a computer program look at the person in front of the computer?"

"If the computer has a video camera..."

"Exactly, if that person, I mean the one who uses the computer, allows the program to use a video camera... But what if the user turns the camera in another direction, toward another person?"

"Obviously, the program has no way of knowing that the person it sees is someone else. It has to trust, to _believe_ in that user."

"Here's another scenario now. The program is unhappy with the rights it gets from the user, so it 'steals' access to various peripheral devices connected to the computer, among which there's a video camera. But that video camera is not oriented toward the user, but instead in a different direction, maybe toward a TV on which runs violent movies. What 'conclusion' is the program going to draw?"

"A wrong conclusion, obviously," Daniel admitted.

"So you see, similar to how there's no way for a computer program to 'see' outside unless it is allowed to, in the same way we cannot see outside our space and time unless we are allowed to. And if we grant ourselves rights that we don't have, we risk 'seeing' untruths and even lies out there."

"Yes, I understand. So if we're living in a simulation, there's no way for us to know that unless the one controlling the simulation allows us to. But what if the simulator program has bugs46, that is, programming errors?"

"Be very careful what you call a 'bug.' According to Christian teaching, we're living in a fallen world, corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve. Our world is very different from the original creation, in which there was no suffering and no death, in which neither humans nor animals killed and ate other animals. But in this fallen world of ours, it is very likely you will encounter many unpleasant things, which you might be tempted to interpret as bugs. But God never makes mistakes. This world was allowed to be the way it is on purpose, for a while, for the salvation of our souls."

"You mean that no matter what test one might carry out, there's still no way to know for sure whether we're living in a simulation or not?"

"Exactly. Yes, there are some tests that could argue that this world is 'artificial,' I mean, that it was created, and that it is not the result of random natural events. But those tests will never tell you anything about the identity of the Creator, nor about the ultimate inner nature of the laws of physics. Who created us? Was it the Christians' God, Who is good and Who loves us, and Who wants to see all of us in heaven?47 Or is it a super-alien who performs social experiments on us? Scientific tests will never reveal to you the answer to this question. But _something_ inside of you will be attracted toward one of the variants, _something_ inside of you will want one of the variants to be true, and in the end, you will believe that variant. God helps you find and believe the truth, but He never forces you, although maybe He could if He wanted to. In the same way, the devil 'helps' you find and believe a lie, but he cannot force you, even though maybe he'd want to."

"Do you have an example of such a test?" Daniel asked.

"There were suggestions for such tests in 201248 and in 201749, as well as various debates50, but for the moment the results are inconclusive. Researchers are looking for clues that space, and maybe time, too, is quantized. More exactly, in their opinion, space might be made up of extremely small cubes, the same way a computer's screen is made up of pixels, that is very, very small squares. But even if the results were positive, those tests can only argue for the existence of a Creator. None of those tests, regardless of the results, will ever be able to reveal to us the identity of the Creator; none of those tests will ever be able to tell us whether the Creator is the Christian God, or someone else. The only thing these tests can do is to argue scientifically for the _existence_ of the Creator, not for His _identity_."

"What implications does this hypothetical quantization have from a religious point of view? You, for example, who say that you're a believer, how did you feel when you read those articles?"

"If we're only talking about the quantization of space, and maybe even of time, then I see no incompatibility with any monotheistic religion. The all-powerful Christian God could have created the universe any way He wanted to, quantized or not quantized; and in the fallen state the world is now in, it looks much worse than it did when it was created initially. Elementary particles are quantized; the orbits of electrons are quantized; so, if space, or even time, were quantized, too, in my opinion, it would have absolutely no relevance from a religious point of view. It would actually be an argument for the existence of a Creator, but a limited argument, which would tell us nothing about the identity of that Creator. Here's another example, the Earth: it could have been a sphere, a cylinder, a cube, or even flat; in my opinion, the shape of the earth has no religious relevance."

"So you don't see anything wrong with the results of those tests for the identification of a hypothetical simulation?"

"Absolutely nothing, because such tests are extremely limited. They can only argue that the universe seems to be 'artificial,' that is, that it was created, and nothing more. But if scientists start using their imagination in the wrong way, and they start to produce aberrant theories about the identity of the Creator, or about the inner nature of the laws of physics, (for example, if they start saying that the universe is just a simulation in a super-alien's supercomputer), then this would be a serious problem. We have to realize that such tests, regardless of the results, say absolutely nothing about the identity of the Creator, so any such 'scientific' theory is pure phantasmagoria, and nothing more. These tests don't see outside space and time in order to tell us how things are out there; they will never be able to tell us what the inner nature of the laws of physics is, therefore the 'conclusion' that we exist in a supercomputer and that the laws of physics are just a computer program, is just blind faith, and nothing more. So, the result itself of such a test, as long as it is not wrongly interpreted, poses absolutely no problem for believers. To make myself clear: the quantization of space and time has not been proven so far in any way, but even if it is one day proven, it will pose no problem to any monotheistic religion. Remember what we said about material life and about DNA.51 In our living bodies, almost everything is quantized, too. The DNA looks like a giant database, proteins are real molecular robots, and a ribosome looks like a program interpreter, because this is exactly what it does—it interprets the information coded in DNA (transcribed in RNA) to make a new protein, a new molecular robot out of it. If you look carefully, you could say that living cells and their mechanisms were created by a programmer, more exactly, by the greatest Programmer ever, God Himself. Besides this, the most important thing for a man is his soul, not the body and obviously not the material world that surrounds him."

"In conclusion, how is this simulation hypothesis seen from the point of view of a believer?"

"Let's take it step by step. The Orthodox Church's approach has always been different from the scientific approach. Let's start with the knowledge of God. In Orthodox Christian theology, there are two different ways of talking about God: cataphatic theology and apophatic theology. Cataphatic theology, from the Greek kataphasis (κατάφασης, affirmative), also known as positive theology, involves direct, positive but limited statements about God: God exists. God is everywhere. God is good and loving. God created the world in six days, out of nothing."

"And the apophatic approach?"

"Apophatic theology, from the Greek apofasis (ἀπόφασις, ἀπόφημι, to deny), also known as negative theology, involves indirect, negative statements about God. Here are a few examples from the Holy Scripture:"

> «No one has seen God at any time.» `[John 1:18.]`

> «Who `[...]` [dwells] in unapproachable light, Whom no man has seen or can see, `[...]`» `[1 Timothy 6:16.]`

> «Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! "For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?" "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.» `[Romans 11:33-36.]`

> «"Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than heaven–what can you do? Deeper than Sheol–what can you know? `[..."]`» `[Job 11:7-8 (NKJV).]`

"And here are two examples from the saints of the Orthodox Church:"

> The true knowledge and vision of God consists in this—in seeing that He is invisible, because what we seek lies beyond all knowledge, being wholly separated by the darkness of incomprehensibility.52

> God is infinite and incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is just the fact that He is infinite and incomprehensible.53

Michael waited a few seconds, then he went on:

"The Orthodox Church, though she never rejected the cataphatic approach, has always considered the apophatic approach to be clearly superior, especially because of our limitations in comparison to God. The _essence_ of God is totally inaccessible, even to the highest of angels. Therefore, cataphatic theology is very limited. The statement 'God exists' is incomplete, and we have to add that the existence of God is totally superior to any kind of existence we could imagine. Unlike us, who are creatures, beings that were created, God is uncreated, He has always existed. God is the only One Who truly exists, the only One Who has His existence in Himself, but we have no way to express this clearly in words. If we say (about ourselves) that we exist, then God is beyond existence. We might be tempted to say that He super-exists, but this statement probably wouldn't be enough. If we are beings, then God is beyond being. Again, we might be tempted to say that He is a super-being, but this statement probably wouldn't be enough. God is not matter, He is spirit, but we cannot explain in words what this means."

"So, another kind of existence..."

"Yes. Similarly, the statement 'God is everywhere' is incomplete, and we have to add that God is also outside time and creation, and that we don't know all the other 'places' (outside time and space) where God is. Next, God the Son is born of the Father, without a mother, from eternity, and God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, also from eternity, but we cannot explain what exactly that means:"

> Recognizing the fact that He has been begotten, do not seek to know further how He was begotten, `[...]`54

> You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of eternity `[Wisdom of Sirach 1:2.]`, much less enter into the depths of God `[I Corinthians 2:10.]` and supply an account of that nature that is so unspeakable and transcending all words?55

"Would madness be a punishment for prying into the mysteries of God?" Daniel asked.

"When He punishes us, in this fleeting life, God does this only in order to do good to us, in order to save our souls or, if we're too sinful to be saved, then at least we sink as little as possible in hell. But in this case, we have two possibilities: one, madness could be such a punishment, sent for our own good. Or two, madness could be a consequence of our foolish actions, the same way that drunkenness is a consequence of uncontrolled consumption of alcohol."

"I think I'm starting to understand a part of the conflict between religion and science," Daniel said. "Unlike religion, science tries to study everything, even the soul, the angels and even God, if that were possible. However, I thought that religion, too, tries to offer people a correct description of God."

"That's true, but we have to be very careful with the details. A modern theologian named Clark Carlton, whose books I recommended to you last time, gives us a pretty good explanation on this topic:"

> `[...]` `[Having a right conception about God]` does _not_ mean that we ever _understand_ God, Who is beyond all of our created conceptions. Rather, it means that we do not have _false_ conceptions about Him that can lead us astray. The Church's doctrinal definitions are not an attempt to describe God, but rather to rule out false ideas and false paths that lead to destruction, rather than salvation.56

"So you see," Michael went on, "the Church has a totally different approach. Another example: one might ask why did the Orthodox Church need more than 700 years to formulate her dogmas?57 Because the Orthodox Church tried to formulate dogmas, and doctrinary definitions, only in response to the heresies that attacked the right faith over time. And when she formulated them, usually she did so in an apophatic way, not a cataphatic one."

"But why didn't the Church define these dogmas from the beginning?" Daniel asked.

"If these dogmas were necessary from the beginning, then Jesus Christ Himself would have written them and would have left for us a book with clear definitions. But Christ wrote no books, and the New Testament was finalized a few decades after His Ascension to heaven. The purpose of life is the salvation of the soul, not the investigation of the mysteries of God, mysteries that are only partially accessible to us anyway. The Church had a similar approach in regard to the creation of the world and the laws of nature, too."

"Do you mean an apophatic approach?" Daniel asked.

"Exactly. The Church never tried to find 'the true' scientific interpretation of quantum mechanics, because this thing is not necessary for the salvation of the soul, and it is probably not even possible for our capabilities; any kind of interpretation one would produce would be just as speculative and impossible to prove scientifically as the other existing interpretations. In a cataphatic way, we can say very few things about the material world, things that are general and not very clear. For example, God is the Creator of the entire universe. But in an apophatic way, multiple things can be said: God did not create the world out of a pre-existent something, but out of nothing. God is not a part of the creation, He is beyond creation. God is not subjected to the passing of time, He is beyond time, outside of time. God decided that the material world is to obey the laws of nature, or the laws of physics, as modern science calls them, but what exactly these laws are is a mystery of God. We cannot know their true nature."

"I understand, so you're saying that it is dangerous, that it is detrimental for one's soul to try to uncover the mysteries of God."

"Yes, that's correct. However, science refuses the apophatic approach, and instead it strives to research and to analyze everything. And in the end, science fails, because in its path there are several limits:

"1. First of all, structural limits: We cannot go outside space and time in order to see what the alleged space-time continuum looks like from the outside. We can only produce theories, but we can't go out there and verify them with our own eyes.

"2. Second, intellectual limits: The math of these problems might be so complicated that our minds simply may be unable to comprehend it. Just think about the supposed intrinsic curvature of the four-dimensional space-time continuum. How many people do you think can visualize this in their minds? Certainly not all of us. And there could certainly be things out there that none of us are able to comprehend. But pride prevents us from accepting this.

"3. And third, maybe the Creator also set some limits we cannot overcome. Maybe Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is one of them. Maybe the changing of the behavior of particles when they are observed is another limit established by the Creator. I'm saying just 'maybe,' because there's no way for me to know for sure. Look, Romanian scientist George Manu, who died in a communist prison in 1961, considered that uncertainty's principle is an argument for the existence of God:"

> My colleague Heisenberg's discovery makes possible for the first time ever the scientific proving of the existence of God. The Church, however, did not get involved enough in the research of this theory in order to use in her interest all the consequences arising from it.58

"So, it seems we're pretty limited in this regard," Daniel noted.

"Yes. Science fails to find the right answers, but nevertheless, instead of admitting that it is unable to answer some questions with certainty, it keeps trying, with very bad results. Like a bare-handed man who stubbornly keeps trying to climb a vertical rock and injures himself or dies. Some say they do it because they want to know the answer to questions like 'Where do we come from, and what are our origins?'; but God has already answered these sorts of questions for us, and they don't want to accept the answer. In the tradition of the Orthodox Church we are told:"

> Whoever continues to look for something else after having found the truth, is looking for a lie.59

Michael went on:

"And the greatest risk from these inquiries is not that science cannot find the right answers, but that science finds and accepts wrong answers, which it later tries to force upon the rest of us. The theories of the Big Bang and evolution are just two very good examples of such wrong answers, which now are forcibly taught to our children in schools."

"So how are these quantum phenomena seen from a religious believer's perspective?"

"Let's take it step by step. We _know_ that we exist. I mean I _know_ that I myself exist, you _know_ that you yourself exist, and so on. This seems to me like one of the most serious arguments for the existence of the soul. Matter does not reason, elementary particles are not aware of their own existence, and no chemical combination of theirs will ever be aware of its own existence. Computers only seem to be aware because they have been programmed by intelligent beings to mimic self-awareness and intelligence; but they still are mere machines, mere electronic circuits, devoid of life and feelings. So, self-awareness seems to me clear proof that we have an immaterial soul, and that it is this soul that thinks, that reasons, that has feelings and feels emotions, and not the material body."

"Cogito ergo sum60," Daniel thought aloud, repeating an old philosophical thinking.

"Next, we all know that the material world that surrounds us exists, we see it and we touch it every day, but we cannot express in words what exactly this existence means, we cannot say what the inner nature of matter is. We all see that matter obeys some laws, apples fall from trees, electricity passes through wires, and so on, but we cannot say what the real nature of these laws is. When we look at the constituent elements, at the elementary particles and their laws, we see that microscopic matter behaves in a totally different manner than the macroscopic world. Particles exist, too, for certain, but we cannot understand what exactly the essence of this existence is. Regarding this topic, the Orthodox Church has always had an apophatic approach, with extremely few clear details: God created the world out of nothing, and established some laws for it, named the laws of nature: apples fall from trees, rivers flow downstream, seas and oceans stay in their dedicated places. Here's how the Holy Scripture describes these laws:"

> «When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth, `[...]`» `[Proverbs of Solomon 8:29 (NKJV).]`

> «"I shut up the sea with doors When it burst forth and issued from the womb. I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in mist. I fixed My limit for it and set bars and doors. I said, 'This far you may come, but no further, And here your waves must stop.' `[..."]`» `[Job 38:8-11.]`

> «I Who placed the sand as the bound of the sea, a perpetual decree, so it shall not pass beyond? Though it be in a constant uproar, yet it shall not prevail; and though its waves toss, yet they shall not pass over it.» `[Jeremiah 5:22.]`

> «The day is Yours, and the night is Yours; You created the light and the sun. You made all the boundaries of the earth; Summer and winter, You formed these things.» `[Psalms 73:16-18.]`

Michael went on:

"Science now calls these laws the laws of physics, and it has been analyzing them for a couple hundred years, hoping to decipher their mysteries. But God did not give us too many details about them. We only know that this temporary world is fallen and corrupted. God did not tell us what electrons are made of or why they seem to behave like probability waves. God did not tell us why exactly apples fall from trees, or what exactly cancels out the wave-like behavior of elementary particles. In religious words, all these are 'laws of nature,' laws of the material world, and they should have almost no importance for us. In this fleeting, short, and insecure life, our goal should be only the salvation of our souls, that is the earning of eternal peace and happiness."

> «For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?» `[Mark 8:36.]`

> Eat as much bread as you find, and leave the wide earth to pursue its way; go to the brink of the river, and drink as much as you need, and pass on, and seek not to know whence it comes, or how it flows. Do your best to have your foot cured, or the disease of your eye, that you may see the light of the sun, but do not inquire how much light the sun has, or in what sign it rises. Take that which is given for your use. Why do you go off to the hills and try to discover how many wild asses and other beasts dwell there? The babe, when it comes to its mother's breast, takes the milk and thrives; it does not search for the root and wellspring from which it flows so. It sucks the milk, and empties the whole measure; and another hour passes—the breasts fill up. The babe knows nothing of it, nor the mother either, although the supply proceeds from all her members.61

Michael continued the conversation:

"It is obvious for anyone, even for an atheist, that this life is ephemeral, fleeting `[Colossians 2:17.]`, and the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church remind us clearly that all our attention and efforts should be focused on the future eternal life, which is the real goal of this life. About the life beyond the grave we know that it is eternal. And from the writings of Fr. Seraphim Rose we learn that after death, the soul is in a state of increased awareness, like this life was just a sleep from which he just woke up, and the future life is actually the real life:"

> It is also "natural" for the soul apart from the body to have a heightened awareness of reality and to exercise what is now called "extra-sensorial perception" (ESP).62

"So why does an apple fall from the tree?" Michael went on. "What is the exact nature of that law that makes it go downward, and not upward? Does God take it down at the moment its stem dries up? God is unbounded and all-powerful, and certainly He can keep track of and control each atom in the universe individually. But is God really doing this? The Holy Scripture seems to say that He doesn't, that God has only established 'laws of nature' that are doing this, in the same way He sends His angels to do various things. Then why does the apple fall? Does an angel take it down at the moment its stem dries up? It is not impossible, but we don't find anywhere in the writings of the Church the idea that the 'laws of nature' are actually angels, so it's probably not an angel that takes the apple down. Then why does the apple fall? What is that law that takes it down? What is that law that detects the presence of information at the quantum level and changes the behavior of particles? What is that law that 'sees' in the future the erasing of information, and prevents the cancelling of the particles' wave-like behavior? God gave us no exact answer to this question."

"Why?" Daniel asked. "Why weren't we told these things?"

"Probably because they don't help us in any way in the salvation of the soul, which is the true goal of this fleeting life. Or maybe because we couldn't even understand the answer completely. Or maybe because the complete answer requires intellectual abilities that we don't have. Here's an example from real life, which shows us that it is not good to pry into the mysteries of God: A believer had asked St. Porphyrios Bairaktaris (1906 - 1991) to heal his knee, which had been hurting for a long time because of liquid build-up. St. Porphyrios agreed and made the sign of the Cross on the sick leg. The believer, certain that he would be healed, watched his knee very carefully for a few days, curious to see how God was going to work and how the liquid molecules were going to disappear. But nothing happened. Then, when he stopped watching the knee, one morning he woke up completely healed.63 So we have here a clear clue that it is not good to pry into the mysteries of God."

"I have to interrupt you for just a moment; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity says that gravity is not actually a real force. He says that planets, and massive body, cause an intrinsic64 curvature of space and time, and thus the apple falls from the tree just by following a natural trajectory in space-time, a trajectory which is called a geodesic."

"Even if Einstein is right, this doesn't change the problem at all, instead it makes it even more complicated. First, _what_ exactly does the planet curve? Empty space? Certainly, a planet cannot curve nothingness, so this means that empty space has a real physical existence, too. And second, _why_ do massive bodies curb space and time? Science has no answer for this question. Why does a planet attract space and time? To me it seems that actually, in the Theory of General Relativity, the classical gravitational force that says that matter attracts matter, was replaced with a far more mysterious gravitational force, that says that matter attracts space and time."

"A question: I understand now that the material world we live in is real, regardless of whether it is a simulation or not. But do you think it's possible for this material world to have another representation in God's reality, in the same way the game Chuckie Egg is real, but it has a different representation in our world (in the computer there's only numbers, but we see shapes and colors on the screen)?"

"First, I _don't know_ , I absolutely don't have the slightest idea. Second, I _can't_ know, because we humans can know absolutely nothing about how the world looks from God's perspective. Third, I _don't even want_ to know. It is totally detrimental to a man's soul to pry into the mysteries of God, I mean to pry into things that God decided not to reveal to us. Fourth, it seems to me totally irrelevant from a religious point of view. The purpose of my life is the salvation of the soul, and prying into the mysteries of God doesn't help me absolutely at all, but on the contrary, I'm sure it is bad for me. We know, however, that for God, our time looks differently. God is outside of time, and He sees both our past and our future, the same way we can look at a movie on a DVD frame by frame, we can skip forward, go back, etc. There's a difference, though; we cannot make changes to the movie, but God can intervene in any moment and in any detail of our existence."

"Let's get back to our problem," Daniel said. "Do you think it's possible that the laws of physics, or the laws of nature, as the Orthodox Church calls them, are actually computers that watch and control every atom in the universe?"

"Be careful with the word 'computer,' it can be very vague, it can mean anything or even any person that performs computations. Certainly, God can calculate, too, much better than any computer of ours, yet we don't abuse the language and we don't say that God is a computer."

"Ok, let me rephrase it. Do you think it is possible that, outside our space and time, the laws of physics are actually _something_ impersonal, but endowed with a great computational power, _something_ probably created by an intelligent being, I mean _something_ that could be similar to the computers we have on our desks? After all, I'm sure your all-powerful God, if He exists, could have built and use a computer, the same way He uses the angels for various jobs."

"First, I _don't know_ , I absolutely don't have the slightest idea. Second, I _can't_ know, because there's no way for me to go outside time and space and see whether something like that exists or not. Third, I _don't even want_ to know. It could be very detrimental to man's soul, for eternity, to pry into the mysteries of God, I mean to pry into things that God decided that is better not to reveal to us. Fourth, it seems to me totally irrelevant from a religious point of view. Honestly, I can't say that the laws of physics are actually 'computers' built by God, but even if it were so, I don't see why this thing would bear any importance. The important thing is the identity of the Creator and our relationship with Him, not the inner nature of the laws of physics made by Him. The purpose of my life is the salvation of my soul, and the investigation of the exact nature of the laws of physics doesn't help me at all, but on the contrary, it could even be detrimental to me. Therefore, I strongly believe that we have to resist the temptation to say that the laws of physics are God's 'computers.' "

"I understand," Daniel said, "this seems to be an apophatic approach. One more question. In 3D computer games, three-dimensional objects are approximated by triangles; hundreds, thousands, sometimes maybe even millions of triangles are used for a single object, or for a single room. Thus, for an object there could be a detailed approximation consisting of 10,000 triangles, used when the player is close to the object, and a coarser approximation, with only 100 triangles, used when the player is further away from the object, and he or she can't see all the details anyway. The same technique is used for images, too65, in order to reduce the number of necessary calculations, and to increase the number of frames displayed per second. Then the program calculates the projections of those triangles on a plane, which represents the monitor's screen; but there is no need to project all of them, but only those in front of the player, I mean only those that are visible. This reminds me, again, of Professor Truscott's words quoted by you: 'At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.' What are you going to say if, sometime in the future, science finds clear proof that the quantum laws of the material world are similar to these techniques used by computer programmers?"

"Those programming techniques you're talking about did not arise out of the blue; they were developed by intelligent beings, by humans very skilled in three-dimensional geometry; so, first of all, such a discovery would be a clear argument that the universe and living beings were created, that they are not the result of an explosion and random evolution. Second, you should not be disturbed if such a discovery is ever made; it is we who are copying the Creator, not the other way around; in the same way, the builders of planes are the ones who are trying to copy birds, God's creation, and not the other way around. And third, such a discovery would say absolutely nothing about the identity of the Creator, only about His existence; _something_ inside you will have to choose between the good, loving, eternal and all-powerful God, Who offered us His revelation, and the hypothetical super-alien, who can be found in the demonic revelation that the devil is offering to the apostate ones."

"You're right, the scientific approach could only tell you, theoretically, that most likely the world was created, but not _Who_ the Creator is."

"Let's try an analogy," Michael said. "Do you have a picture of your mother in your phone?"

"Of course I do, please wait a few seconds."

Daniel pulled the phone out of his pocket, and in a few seconds, he showed Michael a picture of his mother.

"Who's in this photo?" Michael asked. "How do you describe her?"

"This is my mother, who carried me in her womb for nine months and who gave birth to me. She loves me a lot, and even after I grew up, she helped me with money many times. I, too, love her very much and I'm glad every time I have an occasion to see her."

"Well, how about we describe her this way:"

> This is a female of the Homo Sapiens species. A cell in her body was joined to a cell of a male of the same species, and then developed, in her body, into a new specimen. After nine months, this new specimen was expelled, and his presence continuously caused the formation of electric currents and the secretion of certain chemical substances in this female's brain.66 When the specimen reached maturity, the female performed several financial transactions for him. Every time he gets into the proximity of this female, in the specimen's brain are formed electric currents and certain chemical substances are secreted.

"How does that sound?" Michael concluded.

"That is terrible, I haven't heard anything nastier in my life. The beautiful image of my mom that I keep in my heart seems to seriously deteriorate only when I hear such words."

"You see? This principle also applies to our relationship with God, with the all-powerful, good and loving God, Who created us out of nothing and Who was crucified for us, and Who wants all of us to be happy in heaven for eternity. How could we imagine that God is a four-dimensional super-alien, who lives in a five-dimensional space-time super-continuum, and who sits in front of a supercomputer? Even though, assuming against all reason, this were true, the image of God in our souls would be seriously affected, and this would have a negative effect on us, on our souls, for eternity. So, think how much our souls will be negatively affected if we imagine and accept such descriptions and they are false."

"Indeed," Daniel admitted, "it doesn't sound too good. One last question: Do you think that God's reality is the final reality? I mean, isn't it possible that He also was created by a super-god?"

"Forgive me, but this is an absurd question. God assured us in the Holy Scripture that He is the only God:"

> «"You are My witnesses," says the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He67. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, And there was no foreign god among you; Therefore you are My witnesses," Says the Lord, "that I am God. Indeed before the day was, I am He; And there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it?"» `[Isaiah 43:10-13.]`

Michael went on:

"There's no way for us Christians to _know_ such a thing through rational and scientific means, exactly the same way that there's no way for us to _know_ anything with certainty through rational and scientific means. But _something_ inside us accepts through faith the words of God, and the Holy Spirit confirms this faith in our souls, I mean He offers us the certainty that this is the truth. And, in my opinion, it is pure madness for anyone to claim the contrary, based on rational and scientific 'arguments.' No one, absolutely no one, can argue scientifically for or against such an idea. How could someone _know_ something like this, namely that our God was created by a super-god? It is obvious that there's no way to know that, but when one rejects the divine revelation, inevitably he accepts, seemingly involuntary, the demonic 'revelations.' This is how all these new aberrant theories have emerged, theories that can in absolutely no way be proven scientifically, but are only believed on the basis of a blind faith, resulted from the rejection of the true God and the acceptance of the devil's lie."

"Some people would say that maybe God doesn't know that He was created, the same way that we also don't know with absolute certainty, through rational and scientific means, that we were created."

"Listen carefully to what you just said. Let's suppose, against all imaginable reason, that it were so. If _He_ , God, doesn't know, then how could _we_ know? Isn't it clear that this is an idea from the devil? Isn't this a clear example of human madness? How do those who suggest such blasphemies _know_ that it is so?"

"Obviously, they can't know," Daniel admitted.

"And one more thing. Even though, assuming again against all imaginable reason, our God, the Christian God, was in turn created by a super-god, that was also in turn created by another super-super-god, and so on, isn't it obvious that at the end of this chain of imaginary creations there must be a god that was not created by anyone, that existed from eternity? A god for whom the very question 'who created him' makes no sense? Here's an analogy from Earth: Everything sits on something; the driver sits on the seat in the car; the seat sits on the car's floor; the car sits on the asphalt; the asphalt sits on the ground; but what does the ground sit on? The ground, the earth, does not sit on anything; the earth does not need to sit on something; the question 'what does the earth sit on' makes no sense; even more, the Earth, our planet, is the cause that makes everything need to sit on something, but it itself does not need to sit on anything. Do you understand the analogy? Our Christian God was not created by anybody; He has always existed, He is the only One Who has His existence in Himself. And even more, though our limited minds cannot understand this, maybe the question 'who created God' doesn't even make sense; maybe, I say _maybe_ , He is the very cause that makes everything and all of us need to have been created by someone, the same way our planet makes everything need to sit on something, though it itself does not need to sit on anything."

"It's hard for me to imagine this... How is it possible for God to know that He was not created by anyone else?"

"I can't answer this question, but I suggest an analogy: How is it possible for you to know that the Earth does not sit on anything? Everything needs to sit on something, but the Earth doesn't. How come you know that? Does it seem to you that it is difficult to know such a thing? Do you ever have doubts about that? Do you ever think that maybe the Earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise? Maybe in a similar way, God also knows that He was not created by anyone else."

"One more thing," Daniel said, "you say that the simulation hypothesis is a diabolical idea. Yet still, it is a hypothesis that suggests the need for a creator of the universe. Why would the devil support something like that?"

"Atheism has been, is and probably will always remain a minority religion, with very few true 'believers.' The existence of a Creator is much too obvious for the vast majority of people. In addition, the human soul needs to believe in something. Therefore, the devil knows that he won't succeed to completely remove God from our souls, so he tries to replace Him with a fake god, with a fake religion, and with a fake purpose of life. I would not be surprised if the Antichrist68, when he comes, will say that he is the representative of a super-alien who 'created' us, or who simulates our universe is a supercomputer."

"Don't you think that there's also a problem with terminology here? We call Him God, but Arabs call Him Allah, and Masons call Him the Great Architect."

"This is not just about the name, because each language uses a different word for God: Dumnezeu, God, Gott, Theos (Θεός), Bog (Бог), Dio, Dios, Deus, Dieu, Jehovah, Allah, and so on. This has absolutely no importance. The important thing is what we mean, what we understand by that word. Do we understand a super-alien, cold and insensitive, sitting in front of a supercomputer and carrying out experiments with our lives and our society? Or do we understand a good, eternal and immortal God, Who created us for eternity, too, Who loves us so much, Who was crucified and raised from the dead for us, and Who wants so much to save us and see all of us, too, in the eternal heaven?"

## 4. Conclusion

Daniel waited for a few seconds, then he said:

"Our modern society teaches us that science has to be separated from philosophy and religion. Because of that, I have a problem with all explanations that involve something supernatural."

"This separation is a totally wrong approach. Why would they be separated? The Holy Fathers did not consider that philosophy had to be separated from religion. Philosophy means, literally, 'love of wisdom,' from the Greek _philosophia_ (φιλοσοφία). And there is no greater wisdom than the knowledge of God and the preoccupation for the salvation of the soul. Therefore, religion is the highest philosophy."

"What about science?"

"Why should science be separated from religion?"

"Science doesn't deal with philosophical and religious issues," Daniel said.

"This statement is in great need of a clarification. It is somewhat true, but atheists state this as if science were somehow superior to religion, and this is not true. Science does not deal with religious statements because it is incapable to, not because those statements were wrong or inferior to scientific theories. Science cannot argue in any way for or against religious statements, and it can't even calculate scientifically the probability that those statements are true or false. Science can't even calculate how likely, or unlikely, is the hypothesis proposed ironically by atheist Bertrand Russell, who said jokingly that maybe the world was created last Thursday, including our lifetime memories.69"

"Yes, I remember."

"At the base of Christianity are events of two thousand years ago. Remember what we discussed last time about the investigation of the past. Statements about the future can be proven to be right or wrong, we just have to wait for the predicted number of years in order to see whether the predicted events take place. But statements about the past can never be proven right or wrong through scientific methods; all we can do is to _believe_ that those statements are either true, or false."

"So, you're saying that science should be tied to religion?"

"Science means the knowledge of the material world created by God, and its immixture with religion is inevitable. It is modern science that attacked religion and tried to take its place. It is modern science that tried to replace religion with the absurd theories of the Big Bang and evolution. It is modern science that claimed, without any proof, obviously, that the supernatural does not exist. It is modern science that claimed, without any proof, obviously, that there are non-supernatural explanations for anything. It is modern science that committed itself to finding these non-supernatural explanations for all phenomena in our material world, both from the past and from the present."

"And hasn't it succeeded?"

"About the origin of the world and life, it only succeeded in offering false explanations. Remember what we discussed last time, even if an explanation seems realistic, this doesn't mean that it is also true.70 But science's explanations about the origin of the universe and of life are not even realistic. What does the word 'supernatural' actually mean? Why do we say that the angels, for example, are supernatural beings? Because we can't study them the same way we study matter. But they only seem to be supernatural, the same way that a firearm seemed, at first sight, supernatural to the American Indians. In the afterlife though, the angels will seem to us as natural as the other people seem to us right now. Only the essence of God will remain forever supernatural, inaccessible to any angel and to any human."

"Well," Daniel said, "in the field of quantum mechanics, even the scientific explanations seem a little bit supernatural to me."

"That's right. Science got itself into this situation because it tried to explain everything without God. And this is not the only example. Look, quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity don't get along at all regarding the first period of time after the alleged Big Bang. Search the Internet for 'conflicts between quantum mechanics and general relativity' and you'll find many scientific articles that explain why the two theories are at odds in certain respects. And this is only so because science tries to explain the existence of the universe without a Creator."

"Yes, I remember you told me about this before."

"Another example: One of the greatest 'problems' of modern physics is this one: Why is there in the observable universe much more matter than antimatter?71 But this is a false problem. Science supposes, wrongly, that matter was formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang, through quantum processes, in which for every elementary particle formed (proton, electron) an anti-particle (antiproton, positron) was also formed. For a creationist, this is not a problem at all. God could have created as much matter and antimatter as He wanted to, not necessarily in equal amounts. If a rational, conscious person writes the number 12 on a sheet of paper, is there a law, either civil or spiritual, to constrain him to also write the number -12 on the other side of the sheet? Obviously not."

"Indeed, this is a problem only if you try to explain the existence of the universe without a Creator..."

"Next, a great enigma for the researchers of quantum mechanics is this one: how is it that the macroscopic world seems real and coherent if it is based on a quantum world that looks unreal? But maybe the quantum world only seems to us to be unreal because of the limitations imposed by the Creator. I'm sure that to God the quantum world looks very real and coherent."

Daniel thought for a few seconds, then he said:

"In conclusion, I see that here, too, there's absolutely no scientific way to solve these problems clearly and definitively."

"Exactly, as I've told you so many times, and as you can see for yourself, science is extremely limited, and everything, or almost everything, is subjective, more or less. Absolute objectivity is impossible. As you probably remember, we can't even _know_ with certainty whether yesterday existed, we can only _believe_ , that's all...72 It is said that Albert Einstein once asked his colleague and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he really believed that 'the moon does not exist if no one is looking at it.' To this question Bohr answered that no matter how hard he, Einstein, tried, he still would not be able to prove that the moon exists even when no one is looking at it."

Was this book helpful? If so, please consider:

**Recommending** or **lending** it to a friend who might find it helpful, too.

**Writing** a short review on the website you downloaded it from:

<https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/827878>

**Reading** the first part of the dialogue between Michael and Daniel, too.

Or **reading** a free excerpt from the first part of the dialogue, available in several formats and locations on the internet:

<https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/698914>

**Following** the author's Facebook page, where you can find out about updates, new editions, new releases, or other information related to the topics addressed in this book:

<https://www.facebook.com/Bogdan.John.Vasiliu>

**Sending** constructive feedback directly to the author:

Bogdan.John.Vasiliu@outlook.com

Thank you!

# Endnotes

[1] Details about the two characters can be found in the first part of their conversation: Bogdan-John Vasiliu, _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , available in electronic and paper formats. In short, Michael is an ordinary believer, and Daniel is an atheist who starts asking himself questions about the existence of God. ⇧

[2] Ibid, chapter 5.1 ( _Complexity of Life_ ). ⇧

[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment> ⇧

[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum> ⇧

[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling> ⇧

[6] The chemical formula of the substance is BaB2O4 or Ba(BO2)2. In specialty literature, it is also abbreviated as BBO. ⇧

[7] _Spukhafte Fernwirkung_ was the expression used by Albert Einstein in 1947. ⇧

[8] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell> ⇧

[9] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem> ⇧

[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clauser> ⇧

[11] Nano: prefix that designates a thousandth of a millionth (a billionth part of something).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano->

Pico: prefix that designates a millionth of a millionth (a thousandth of a billionth part of something).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico-> ⇧

12] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat ⇧

[13] J. C. Polkinghorne, _The Quantum World_ , Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 67.

Philip Tetlow, _Understanding Information and Computation: From Einstein to Web Science_ , Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2012, p. 321. ⇧

[14] <https://newatlas.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/> ⇧

[15] 1,200 km = 746.73 miles. ⇧

[16] <https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-satellite-shatters-entanglement-record>

<https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-quantum-communication-top-science-stories-2017-yir> ⇧

[17] For example, this one:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene> ⇧

[18] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude>

Max Born was awarded the Nobel prize in 1954 for this theory. ⇧

[19] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment>

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser> ⇧

[20] David J. Griffiths, _Introduction to Quantum Mechanics_ , second edition, Pearson Education Limited, 2014. ⇧

[21] Ibid. ⇧

[22] S. P. Walborn et al., _Double-Slit Quantum Eraser_ , Physical Review A, 65, 2002. ⇧

[23] Englert, Berthold-Georg, _Remarks on Some Basic Issues in Quantum Mechanics_ , 1999. ⇧

[24] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment> ⇧

[25] Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Anton Zeilinger, _Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations_ , Reviews of Modern Physics, 88, 2016. ⇧

[26] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment> ⇧

[27] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser> ⇧

[28] _Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past_

<https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html> ⇧

[29] _Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom_

<http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html> ⇧

[30] _In the quantum world, the future affects the past_ ⇧

[31] <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209083011.htm> ⇧

[32] Asher Peres, _Delayed choice for entanglement swapping_

<http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9904042.pdf> ⇧

[33] _Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness_

<http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness> ⇧

[34] The area of a sheet of A4 paper is only 3% greater than the area of a sheet of letter sized paper. ⇧

[35] About 622 million billion miles. ⇧

[36] Ironic allusion to Stephen Hawking, well-known British physicist, author of the book _A Brief History of Time_ in which he supports the idea of "imaginary time," which would eliminate the need for a cause for the Big Bang. His idea is absurd, obviously, as there is absolutely no proof that time has two dimensions. Therefore, even if the Big Bang were real, it would still need a cause from outside space and time to precede it and to cause it (there is no effect without a cause). ⇧

[37] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann> ⇧

[38] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation> ⇧

[39] Known as the "Max Tegmark poll."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#History_of_interpretations> ⇧

[40] <https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/many-worlds-interpretation-quantum-mechanics-viable> (David Tulloch) ⇧

[41] <https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/many-worlds-interpretation-quantum-mechanics-viable> (David Petechuk) ⇧

[42] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_in_a_Bottle_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)> ⇧

[43] Bogdan-John Vasiliu, _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , chapter 3 ( _Science and the Limits of Knowledge_ , also available for free in several electronic formats on the internet–details and links at the end). Also, chapter 8.1.1 ( _Creation_ ) from the same book, available only in the book itself. ⇧

[44] Actual memory size would be 16 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024, because in computer world, a kilo- has 1024 elements, that is 210, not 1000. A mega- has 1024 x 1024 elements, and so on. ⇧

[45] Register: memory location inside a microprocessor, separated from the main memory.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_register> ⇧

[46] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug> ⇧

**[47]** For an Orthodox Christian vision of hell, see chapter 8.3 ( _Hell in the Vision of the Orthodox Church_ ) from the book _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , by the same author. Briefly, hell is, first of all, a state of the soul, and only after that a physical place. Those in hell suffer eternally because of their spiritual diseases, which can never be cured, and because of their passionate desires which can never be satisfied again, and not because God tortures them out of revenge. ⇧

[48] Silas Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage, _Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation_ , (November 9th, 2012)

<https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis_physically> ⇧

[49] Tom Campbell, Houman Owhadi, Joe Sauvageau, David Watkinson, _On testing the simulation theory_.

<https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058> ⇧

[50] <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/> ⇧

[51] _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , chapter 5.1.1 ( _Complexity of Cell Machines_ ). ⇧

[52] St. Gregory of Nyssa, _The Life of Moses_. ⇧

[53] Adapted after St. John of Damascus, _On the Orthodox Faith_. ⇧

[54] St. Peter Chrysologus, _Selected Sermons_ , The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C., 1953, p. 112 (Sermon 61: _On the Apostles' Creed: To the Catechumens_ ). ⇧

[55] St. Gregory of Nazianzus, _Theologica quinta: De spiritu sancto_ , M.P.G. XXXVI, col. 141. ⇧

[56] Clark Carlton, _The Life: The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation_ , Regina Orthodox Press, Salisbury, Massachusetts, 2000, p. 75-76 (the footnote). ⇧

[57] The Seventh Ecumenical Council started in the year 726. ⇧

[58] Fr. Nicolae Grebenea, _Memories from Darkness_ (in Romanian). Quoted in _Atitudini_ periodical, no. 38/2015, p. 8 (in Romanian). ⇧

[59] Seventh Ecumenical Council. ⇧

[60] "I think therefore I am," in Latin. The thinking belongs to Rene Descartes. ⇧

[61] _Spiritual Homilies_ of St. Macarius the Great (300 - 390), Homily XII. Quoted in Saints Barsanuphius and John, _Guidance Toward Spiritual Life_ , revised second edition, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, California, 2002, p. 157-158. ⇧

[62] Fr. Seraphim Rose, _The Soul After Death_ , 4th edition, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, California, 2004, p. 117. ⇧

[63] Dionysios Farasiotis, _The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios_ , St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, California. ⇧

[64] Intrinsic curvature: A curvature that doesn't require an extra dimension. For example, a square cloth can be stretched to become a trapeze, but it remains a two-dimensional object.

Extrinsic curvature: A curvature that requires an extra dimension. For example, a square cloth can be stretched on a sphere, thus becoming a three-dimensional object. ⇧

[65] The technique is called MIP mapping.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mipmap> ⇧

[66] From the point of view of atheist scientists, a human has no soul, only a body made up of atoms, and human feelings and emotions are just chemical reactions and electrical signals sent between the neurons in the brain. ⇧

**[67]** "I am Who I am" ("I am the Existing One" in newer translations) is the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses:

> «So Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I go to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' what shall I tell them?"

> Then God said to Moses, "I AM the Existing One." He also said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The Existing One sent me to you.' "» `[Exodus 3:13-14.]`

The ancient Hebrew alphabet included no vowels, and God's name "I am Who I am" was written with just four letters (יהוה‬ – YHWH), to which later were added the vowel points (יְהֹוָה‬ – latinized as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"). ⇧

[68] Antichrist: the one who is against Christ, who will come before the end of times and will attempt to deceive the entire world. ⇧

[69] _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , chapter 3.3.5 ( _An Extremely Absurd Theory_ ), also available in the free excerpt _Science and the Limits of Knowledge_ , in several electronic formats on the internet (details and links at the end). ⇧

[70] _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , chapter 5.1.5 ( _The Right Explanation_ ). In a few words, the movement of a car can also be explained without the need for a driver, and this explanation is realistic indeed, because the technology for driverless cars has existed for several years. However, in that case, the explanation, though realistic, was false: the car did have a driver. ⇧

[71] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry> ⇧

[72] _Dialogue with a Nonbeliever_ , chapter _An Extremely Absurd Theory_. ⇧
