Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
i
referring to one of the active consciousnesses in the universe. Doing so produces the
21
Walker, 259260.
22
Ibid., 263266.
23
Ibid., 265.
311
familiar classic Cartesian dualism separating the world and our minds from each other,
since it implies a separate domain for consciousness from the physical world.
In addition, each of the
i
is associated with a control domain in
World
, in which a
consciousness is able to initiate wave function collapse and influence the outcome of
collapse. The need to do so follows from Stapps understanding of consciousness as an
emergent property of the brain, and therefore a connection between the brain and the
mind needs to be established. In actuality, the mind and the brain are two sides of the
same object, consistent with von Neumanns and Bohrs understanding of the
psychophysical parallelism.
The
i
are able to sense the quantum states in the brain and are able to influence
the quantum outcomes of wave function collapses in the brain. It is unclear how the
actual physical interface between brain and consciousness could be described or even
investigated. The conceptual separation of consciousness from the brain into the
i
implies the need to postulate the ability of consciousness to influence the processes in the
brain as well as the ability of consciousness to sense the state of the brain at the
quantum level. These unusual capabilities need to be limited to the brain, otherwise
consciousness obtains parapsychological powers as seen in Walkers and Heims
reasoning.
The physical area of the interface to consciousness is described by the control
domain of
i
in
World
, and all consciousnesses
i
are separate with nonoverlapping
control domains. The minds can therefore not directly communicate with one another
312
except through influencing and observing the world as represented by the universal wave
function.
24
The universe then evolves according to the two processes described by von
Neumann, also involving the consciousnesses
i
:
Process one is the collapse of the wave function. Any
i
can initiate process one at
any time, and this process will cause the removal of potentialities from the world wave
function
World
. Since
all
i
operate on the same
World
, any such determination by one
i
will cause the result to become available for subsequent actions of other
i
resulting in the
ability of the
i
to interact. The
i
are only able to affect wave function collapse of parts of
World
that are overlapping their control domain, which is the brain. However, these
collapses are then able to cause global instantaneous collapse of other elements of
World
entangled with the collapsed pieces in the control domain. Process one is atomic and
serializable; two consciousnesses cannot simultaneously cause process one, and the
occurrence of observation events must be ordered.
Process two is the continuous evolution of the wave function, as described by the
Schrdinger equation. In effect process two is the development of potentialities over
which the consciousnesses
i
have no influence. Process two represents the regularities of
the world.
The result of the so-far developed model is a Jamesian view of an interactive
universe containing free agents able to interact through
World
.
25
Jamess view of the
24
I therefore reject Walkers claim (Walker, 265) of direct consciousness to consciousness communication,
siding with Heims view of minds being prisoners that can only communicate through the world. See Heim,
The Riddle of Life, 205.
25
James, Determinism, 597.
313
selecting agency of consciousness fits with Stapps model of personal agency.
26
Heims
idea of the objective realm as a negotiating element among all conscious entities of the
universe is very similar to what is proposed here.
27
However, Heim, like Walker,
proposed that the control domain expands beyond the brain through faith, which leads to
problematic consequences of extrasensory perception as well as psychokinesis.
28
Stapps
approach restricts these phenomena to the brain since consciousness is conceived of as
only operational in the brain.
The dualism in the model is necessary for accommodating the psychophysical
parallelism in process one as defined by von Neumann.
29
As we have also seen in
Everetts discussion of observation,
30
the observer must be in a state that is at least
potentially classic (Everett uses memory for this purpose) and therefore cannot be
subject to the general indefiniteness characterizing the quantum world. The necessarily
classic nature of the observer is one problematic element not discussed in detail by
Penrose,
31
Stapp,
32
Walker
33
and Kafatos and Nadeau
34
who all envisioned the mind
causing process one as existing essentially as a classically described mind.
However, the therefore essentially metaphysical character of consciousness might
only be a temporary necessity due to our limited understanding in this area. There could
26
James, Principles of Psychology, 138139.
27
Karl Heim, The Riddle of Life in The Transformation of the Scientific World View (New York, Harper
& Brothers, 1953), 205.
28
Heim, The Problem of Miracles in Transformation, 174175.
29
John von Neumann, Der Meproze in Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, (Berlin:
Springer Verlag, 1932; reprint, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996), 222237.
30
Hugh Everett, III, Theory of the Universal Wave Function in Bryce S. DeWitt and Neill Graham eds.
The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1973), 6383.
31
Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, 349350.
32
Stapp, Mind-Matter, 106.
33
Walker, 259260.
34
Kafatos and Nadeau, Conscious Universe, 138139.
314
potentially be a way to confirm that matter can cause wave function collapse. Penrose
suggested the existence of a physical process to explain the effect of mind on matter
based on a future theory of quantum gravity.
35
Penrose thought that the neurons in the
brain have a cytoskeleton built out of, among other things, microtubules. These
microtubules, acting as a network, cause special quantum effects as well as wave function
collapse. The microtubules are the essential building blocks of consciousness.
36
However,
Kafatos and Nadeau reason that, given our current state of knowledge, there is
insufficient warrant to give wave function collapse a pivotal role in the creation of
consciousness, and that Penrose most likely oversimplified the complexities involved.
37
Stapp suggested the existence of feedback loops for multiple action plans
(represented by potential outcomes of process one) in the brain activated through
attention. Rapid rerouting then causes a quantum Zeno effect that causes one outcome
to be selected.
38
Kafatos and Nadeau critique Stapps position because he suggested a
quantum reality existing outside of the brain, but implicitly assumed a classic reality
inside the brain that does the processing of the wave functions. Stapps defense was that
the classic nature of the mind developed as a result of the evolutionary process, but
Kafatos and Nadeau see this as a philosophical speculation.
39
Stapp viewed the mind as
using classic concepts for communication and reasoning but insisted that he always treats
the brain in a quantum mechanical way. The mind correlates its classic view of the world
35
Ibid., 335347.
36
Ibid., 369, 373374.
37
Kafatos and Nadeau, 138139.
38
Stapp, Psycho-Physical Theory and Will in Mindful Universe, 6768, 3948; Stapp, A Quantum
Theory of the Mind-Brain Interface in Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, 45172.
39
Kafatos and Nadeau, 138.
315
with a quantum mechanical reality of the brain.
40
However, the quantum Zeno effect
necessary in Stapps thought for the emergence of definite outcomes through wave
function collapse already requires repeated wave function collapses in order to generate
one outcome. It is therefore difficult to see how the quantum Zeno effect could be used to
explain wave function collapse in the brain if it is considered to be of a quantum nature.
These explanations are attempts to avoid the dualism of consciousness and matter
in order to recover monism. I agree with Kafatos and Nadeau that the triggering of
process one by matter might be something that is beyond our science today and might
stay outside of the realm of what we can possibly know since it is related to our processes
of perception.
41
Various conflicting theories have been proposed on what characteristic of
matter could cause process one. None of them have so far provided a satisfactory solution
and thereforeas also suggested by Kafatos and Nadeaua limited dualism needs to be
accepted until better explanations becomes available.
42
Given the understanding of personal agency and the operation of the world
through quantum theory, the paradox of Wigners friend mentioned earlier can now be
solved. Wigners friend will simply be described by a mixture to the observer. The
outcome of the observation by Wigners friend will already be reflected in
World
;
however, a wave function is used in the paradox to describe the observers knowledge or
perspective. A mixture is therefore necessary to describe the observers ignorance of the
already collapsed outcome that Wigners friend has obtained through his own
observation. A demonstration of the correctness of this approach could be shown in an
40
Private communication by Henry Stapp, 23 May 2003.
41
Heim, Riddle of Life, 205.
42
Kafatos and Nadeau, 139.
316
experiment that would need to be capable of distinguishing between the wave function
representation of Wigners friend as a mixture or a superposition.
43
Schrdingers cat presents a dilemma because the cat is an animal with a
consciousness. Therefore, the solution to the paradox of Wigners friend would also
apply here and the cat could die, or find out that it had died,
44
whenever it observed the
flask of poison. The scenario is certainly cruel but the cat might hope that a quantum
Zeno effect could reduce the chance of the atom decaying. It could continuously observe
the flask of poison and thereby cause the quantum Zeno effect, which could potentially
enhance its chances of survival.
45
When a person looks into the box, the person sees the
result of wave function collapse as caused by the cat.
If the cat is considered not to have a consciousness allowing it to cause wave
function collapse itself, then a superposition of a dead cat and a live cat exists until one
looks into the box. At that point, observation causes wave function collapse, resulting in
one of the potential outcomes to be determined, and thereforefollowing Wheelers
concept of the determination of the pastthe observation also determines the time of the
radioactive decay should it have occurred.
46
43
Eugene P. Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question in Symmetries and Reflections, 171184.
44
Here is the potential for a new form of the cat paradox.
45
An easy-to-follow discussion on the quantum Zeno effect is contained in Greenstein and Zajonc, 198
204. A theoretical discussion can be found in S M Roy, Quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno paradoxes in
PRANAMA Journal of Physics 56, nos. 2 and 3 (February and March 2001): 169178. A report on an
observation of Zeno and anti-Zeno effects can be found in M. C. Fischer, B. Gutierrez-Medina and M. G.
Raizen, Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System in Physical
Review 87, no. 4 (July 2001).
46
Wheeler, Genesis and Observership in At Home in the Universe; Erwin Schrdinger, The Present
Situation in Quantum Mechanics in Wheeler and Zurek, 158.
317
5. Divine Action by a Divine Observer
One way of adding divine action to the model of the universe is to add another
special divine observer,
God
, exercising personal agency analogous to all the other
consciousnesses. However, in contrast to the other consciousnesses there is no body for
God
and therefore also no brain that would restrict the control domain. It is necessary to
consider the control domain
God
to be
World
as a whole in order to be able to obtain a
reasonable ability for God to take action on the world. One could therefore think that the
universe represents Gods body or brain following the concept of the immanent God so
popular in Eastern religions and also reflected in Einsteins understanding of Spinoza.
47
However, I suggest that the control domain merely constitutes an area of influence and
control and does not necessarily imply the existence of a brain or body. The analogy to
personal agency breaks down at this point. In addition, the assignment of the control
domain violates the nonoverlapping nature of the control domains of all other
consciousnesses because Gods control domain contains all other control domains.
In this scenario divine action is the exercise of personal agency of
God
, as
discussed in the last section, through the use of process one on
World
. Since the control
domain is the whole world, God can perceive all the details of every part of
World
without causing process one and, based on his knowledge, is able to cause desired
outcomes by collapsing
World
at key points of interest to him at any time. In addition to
initiating process one, we also need to assume that God also can completely determine the
outcome of process one by overriding the stochastic-nonpersonal factor.
47
A similar idea is proposed, including the divine control over events through space and time, by Raymond
Chiao, Quantum Nonlocalities in Russell, Clayton, Wegter-McNelly, Quantum Mechanics, 38.
318
God is therefore able to determine a desired outcome of any potentiality in the
universe at any time, resulting in a form of divine omnipotence. However, divine action
is hidden from the other observers in the universe as actions of any other consciousness
are also hidden. Divine action is always constrained within the potentialities of the wave
function generated by the regularities of process two and is therefore noninterventionistic
in the sense used in the proposals by Murphy and Russell.
48
Divine action restricts the
degrees of freedom by eliminating alternate possibilities and therefore also limits the
autonomy of Gods creation, but divine action is not distinguishable from what could
have come about through the autonomous processes of the creation as long as it is
sporadic. If God would regularly determine certain outcomes of wave function collapse
then divine action would be detectable by scientific experiments sensitive to the
regularities of nature. The proposed idea of divine action on the one hand allows God to
insure that desired events happen while on the other hand preserves the freedom of
human action. It provides a solution to the problem of free will in harmony with the all-
powerful will of God, preserving the self-determination of beings in the world as far as
possible. The proposal is therefore kenotic as defined by Murphy and Ellis.
49
This approach has strong similarities with Tracys proposal of divine action in the
context of reductionist QDA.
50
The world could function properly without divine
intervention, developing possibilities that are only collapsed by personal and random
factors. Divine action is a special and distinct event where a process of personal agency
intervenes to bring about a desired event, and as argued by Tracy, these kinds of divine
48
Russell, Divine Action, 296, footnote 11.
49
Murphy and Ellis, 246247.
50
Tracy, Creation, 244; idem, Particular Providence, 320.
319
action proposals only allow an accounting for special divine action. General providence
can be understood to have been exercised by God in creating the universe with the
abilities to develop potentialities and methods of divine and human agency in the world.
However, even when God exercises his divine will in special divine action,
maximum flexibility is preserved for other events to take place that are not in conflict
with the desired event brought about by divine action. In such a way the freedom and
independence of the world is respected,
51
allowing humans as autonomous agents in the
world. The world can function independently without divine action, and therefore the
problem of evil is avoided since evil can be attributed to processes not directly influenced
by God. God can potentially act anywhere, which might be thought of as leading to a
reduced form of the problem of evil since he might not have acted to prevent evil from
occurring.
52
However, Murphy and Ellis have insisted that a kenotic approach to divine
action, such as the one presented here, is a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil
since suffering and disorder are a necessary byproduct of a noncoercive creative process
that aims at the development of free will and intelligent beings.
53
God would hinder the
exercise of free will if he would act to avoid all evil.
The autonomy of the world also implies that in general the probabilities emerging
from the wave function are not discarded but retain their significance. Divine action is a
single act of wave function collapse through process one which cannot be detected
through any change in probabilities. In reductionist QDA, often large quantities of
quantum events must be influenced through many wave function collapses which results
51
Murphys kenotic conception of divine action applies even for the divine observer. See Russell, Divine
Action, 315; Murphy, Divine Action, 343, 355356.
52
Tracy, Particular Providence, 320.
53
Murphy and Ellis, 247.
320
in a vulnerability to the argument that the probability distribution for these quantum
events is violated. The divine observer in the approach presented here can produce the
necessary macroscopic effect with a single wave function collapse. Macroscopic objects
are, like the rest of the universe, described by the universal wave function and therefore
exist in multiple potential states from which one can then be selected by a single collapse.
The necessity of a divine observer might also be seen to arise from the absence of
consciousnesses in the early universe. Without a divine observer, the first consciousness
emerging from the evolutionary process would need to have caused massive collapse
covering several billions of years of past history in a universe understood to have
developed into a pure collection of potentialities, as known from the Everettian many-
worlds situation. In my proposal the divine observer can be envisioned as guiding the
evolution of the universe by actualizing some potentialities and removing others, insuring
the emergence of humans. The first point has been argued before by Wheeler
54
and the
second by Chiao.
55
6. Divine Action by Underdetermination
It is not necessary to conceive of God anthropomorphically as a distinct observer
in the universe if divine action is understood to be exercised in each wave function
collapse caused by consciousness. If one of the minds in the world initiates process one
then God would participate in the determination of the outcome. Stapp has proposed that
the outcome of process one is determined by two factors: the causal-personal and the
54
Wheeler, Genesis and Observership, 44.
55
Chiao, 39.
321
stochastic-nonpersonal.
56
Walker has suggested similarly that quantum mechanics
underconstrains the determination of an outcome of process one.
57
We take that to refer
to Stapps stochastic-nonpersonal factor and as an argument for the causal-personal
factor. Now a third factor for the determination of the outcome of process one can be
added, the divine-action factor. Divine action takes the personal factor and the stochastic
factors into account (insuring a kenotic character of divine action), but the outcome of
process one is determined analogous to the determination of the outcome of process one
in reductionist QDA.
58
Divine action can then be envisioned in a way comparable to the
underdetermination proposed for quantum events by Murphy. God respects the natural
propensities of nature as arising from the stochastic-nonpersonal factor and the causal-
personal factor, and therefore the natural rights of the entities created.
59
Divine action is therefore inextricably bound to the act of observation through
consciousness, and therefore divine action implies that God works through the perceptual
processes of the consciousnesses in the world. The unsatisfactory aspect about God
influencing our perceptual processes is that such a proposal is generating an almost
matrix-like
60
situation where God exercises control over what is observed through our
senses. God in essence could be seen as creating a virtual reality for the
consciousnesses. If that is the case, then one could question the true nature of reality and
take quantum theory to be evidence that we live in a divine simulation.
56
Stapp, Mind-Matter, 106.
57
Walker, 259.
58
Russell, Divine Action, 296, footnote 11.
59
Murphy, Divine Action, 342.
60
Warner Studios, The Matrix (1999); idem, The Matrix Reloaded (2003),
<http://www.whatisthematrix.com> (accessed 16 July 2003). The matrix is a huge computer simulation of
the world interfacing with the human brains of the population.
322
Divine action also might necessitate the influence on the observations of multiple
consciousnesses. If one of the minds involved does not fully recognize an object, then
there are still underdetermined elements of the object to be influenced by divine action.
Divine action might necessitate the determination of multiple collapses.
Since God acts in every quantum collapse, the problem of evil can only be
addressed through theological arguments that follow along the lines of Murphys
reasoning for the quantum event situation.
61
God acts in a kenotic way by respecting the
natural propensities of the world. However, there is limited autonomy of creation. God is
involved in all events in the world and therefore, as argued by Saunders, could also be
seen as taking part in causing evil.
The other element of Saunderss criticism also remains. The probabilities
emerging from the wave function are not really determining the outcome of wave
function collapse. They are only respected by God because it is ultimately God who
determines the outcome of all wave function collapses.
7. Conclusion
In this chapter, a model of divine action has been developed by integrating
Stapps conception of the quantum world with two modes of divine action in the
framework of the reductionist QDA model. The first is based on the model of sporadic
action by a divine observer as proposed by Tracy and Chiao, and the other one following
the idea of underdetermination of process one by Murphy. Both models allow for the
understanding of divine and human agency and are compatible with Stapps proposal for
the quantum nature of the universe. The selected approaches are holistic and are based on
61
Murphy, Divine Action, 340341.
323
personal agency in contrast to the proposals of the VO/CTNS authors, which are
reductionist and based on the concept of an objective, observer-independent reality. See
Table 5 for a comparison of the approaches.
Table 5: Comparison of Divine Action Proposals
Divine Observer
able to exercise
process one at will
Underdetermination of
process one by the
minds in the universe
Determination of
some quantum
events (Tracy)
Underdetermination of
quantum events
(Murphy)
Concept of
Reality
Stapp, von
Neumann
Stapp, von Neumann Objective wave
function collapse
Objective wave function
collapse
Type Holistic Holistic Reductionist Reductionist
Mode of
Divine Action
Transcendent Immanent Potentially
Transcendent
Immanent
Evolution of
Early Universe
Guided by divine
observer
First consciousness
causes massive collapse
over billions of years
Divine guidance Divine guidance
Quantum
Probabilities
Preserved God respects innate
potentialities
Preserved God respects innate
potentialities
Divine Agency Sporadic wave
function collapse
anywhere in the
universal wave
function
Process one always
influenced during
observation of observer
Sporadic
determination of
quantum events
Divine determination of
all quantum events.
Quantity of
divine acts for
a macroscopic
effect
One A few if one observer
does not have full
knowledge of an object
Myriads or
amplification
necessary.
Myriads or amplification
necessary
The distinction between the reductionistic QDA approaches and the holistic ones
is apparent in particular in the number of divine actions necessary for effects on
macroscopic objects. Only the divine observer approach allows divine action in a single
act and is therefore the simplest possible explanation so far for divine action. The
problem of preserving quantum probabilities arises when divine action is considered to be
influencing all events: this also results in the need to address the problem of evil since
God is involved in all events. Sporadic divine action proposals like the one by Tracy and
324
the divine observer approach do not suffer from the problem of evil because the world is
assumed to operate largely in an autonomous way.
A significant problem for the reductionist QDA approaches is the concept of
reality, which is based on an extension of Heisenbergs discussion of wave function
collapse by Russell as discussed in Chapter Five. The corresponding holistic approaches
can provide a foundation in the concept of reality developed by Stapp, and at the same
time preserve major characteristics of the reductionist approaches.
Another advantage of the divine observer approach is that it allows envisioning
God as a separate personal agent in the universe, and hence the concept of a transcendent
God. Divine action through the concept of a divine observer allows a clear distinction
between special divine action and the autonomous operation of the world. The
approaches suggesting divine influence in every wave function collapse have the
advantage of an immanent concept of God. God participates in each and all events and
therefore one could solve the problem of evil by adopting Peacockes theological
argument that God is affected by the suffering of the world and suffers through evil.
62
A choice exists between an immanent or a transcendent conception of God. It is
probably my religious heritage that leads me at this time to choose the transcendent
option over the immanent. In the divine observer model, God can be conceived of in the
most anthropomorphic way as intervening in the world on behalf of those he loves
without these interventions being interventionistic. The world has the potential of
62
Arthur Peacocke, Biological EvolutionA Positive Theological Appraisal in Russell, Stoeger and
Ayala, 371372.
325
autonomous operation, which is important as an ingredient in an approach to the solution
of the problem of evil.
326
Conclusion
The causal joint that Murphy was looking for existsas already proposed by
Russell beforein von Neumanns process one. However, the existing conception of
divine influence at that point was based on a somewhat reductionist conception of reality,
which is questionable given the implications of holism emerging from quantum theory. It
was then assumed that divine action could be effective in the smallest events, the
quantum events. However, the notion of these events is questionable since no scientific
theory of wave function collapse exists that would support an objective notion of
quantum events. The notion of quantum events arose in contemporary QDA out of a
conjecture from Heisenbergs definition of the Copenhagen interpretation as to what
would constitute a measurement outside of Heisenbergs laboratory environment.
1
Bernard d`Espagnat noted the following regarding the tendencies in physics to
understand reality in an atomist-reductionist way:
Needless to stress here that contemporary physics itself shows such a view is
most nave. A special version of the view in question is even flatly contradicted
by this discipline and, ironically enough, this is just the conception most
persuasively suggested by the whole vocabulary of high-energy physics, with
such expressions as elementary particles, particle states, and so on. These
terms strongly suggest philosophical atomism, that is, the idea that Ultimate
Being is dispersed in myriad simple tiny, localized elements; whereas such a
conception is, as we saw, strictly incompatible with present-day knowledge.
Indeed, the information we now have makes such a picture of Being less
scientific than its opposite: Plotinism!
2
The understanding of noninterventionism proposed in contemporary QDA is
designed to be compatible with the Enlightenment view of nature and was conceived in
1
Belinfante, Measurements, 102. Belinfante realized the problematic nature of such events in 1975.
2
d`Espagnat, Veiled Reality, 401402. Plotinism included an understanding of the mind having an effect on
matter as well as the conceptualization of the world to be similar to an organism. Kafatos and Nadeau also
suggest in The Conscious Universe that the universe has the character of a consciousness. See also Simon
Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 290.
327
the context of liberal and conservative theology. As brought out by Belinfante, the
indeterminate processes embodied by these quantum events would typically need to be
determined in a highly regular way in order to generate significant effects.
3
The notion of
divine determination can therefore be seen as interventionistic in the sense that the
probabilities emerging from the wave function either are ignored or need to be considered
by God if he acts on a quantum event. The argument that God would act in all quantum
events can therefore be questioned.
Occasional divine acts determining quantum events, following Tracy, would not
be noticed and could be seen as compatible with the scientific understanding. However,
something different happens from the regular pure chance-based behavior of the quantum
events during divine action, which was seen by Saunders to constitute an intervention.
Given the situation and the historical connotations of the term interventionism, I would
suggest that the best way out of this difficulty in the reductionist QDA model is to use
another term, scientifically compatible divine action, instead and characterize divine
action as of a sporadic cryptodeterministic nature.
4
In the divine observer model that I
proposed in Chapter Seven, divine action is by its very nature sporadic and therefore
compatible with the preservation of the probabilities governing process one in the
overwhelming number of observation events. Saunders would likely argue that my
approach is interventionistic in the same sense as Tracys approach.
I have essentially suggested that divine action be conceived in the framework of a
holistic scheme instead of a reductionist one. The implication of quantum theory, that
reality must be conceived of as the result of an interaction with consciousness or the
3
Belinfante, Measurements, 100.
4
See the introduction to Chapter Four for a definition of cryptodeterminism.
328
mind, is an essential ingredient of this proposal. Instead of God acting on the most basic
constituents,
5
God is envisioned to be acting directly on the world as a whole. Events are
the global effects of the exercise of process one on the world by observation through
consciousnesses in the world or through the observation of the divine observer. These
might be characterized as quantum events and might then serve to provide a bridge to
bring the existing contemporary QDA approaches into a proper quantum theoretical
context. My model is compatible with Pollards view of divine action in which God
selects between the potentialities of different outcomes. However, in contrast to Pollard, I
have proposed that it is not necessary that God must act in every potentiality. God can
choose to eliminate potentialities and to bring about outcomes as he pleases as the divine
observer in the universe. He can defer or choose not to act at all, and thereby the problem
of evil is addressed in a satisfactory way.
My view of the world as influenced by minds is obviously counter to the
established perspective of science that considers the world as an objective observer-
independent causal framework. What I have proposed here is merely a model. The
limitations of the approach, due to the simplification already evident in the scientific
theories that I have chosen as a base for the model of divine action were discussed in
Chapter Seven.
However, if this model is a good approximation of reality, then perhaps some
progress has been made. The implication would then be that God is interacting with the
potentialities of the universe and therefore can also control catastrophic potentialities.
One might ask why we have not destroyed ourselves yet, given the numerous destructive
5
Murphy, Divine Action, 342.
329
technologies (nuclear, biological, chemical, cybernetics and so on) that have become
usable for that purpose in the last fifty years. If God watches the potentials and can
essentially cut off branches of destructive potentiality, then we might infer from this
scenario an eschatological hope that the universe will terminate as God wills, and not
because of some irresponsible action by humans.
330
Bibliography
Aczel, Amir D. Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics. New York: Four Walls
Eight Windows, 2001.
Audi, Robert, ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995.
Austin, D. Brian. The End of Certainty and the Beginning of Faith: Religion and Science
for the 21
st
Century. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2000.
Babloyantz, A. Molecules, Dynamics and Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
Baker, G. L. and J. P. Gollub. Chaotic Dynamics: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Ball, W. W. Rouse. A Short Account of the History of Mathematics. Stereotyped Edition.
London: MacMillan & Co, 1912; Reprint, New York: Sterling Publications, 2001.
Ballentine, Leslie E. The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in Review of
Modern Physics 42 (1970): 358381.
________. Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. Singapore: World Scientific,
1998.
Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion London: SCM Press, 1966.
________. Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue. New York: Harper
& Row, 1968.
________. Myths, Models and Paradigms. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
________. Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
________. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? New York:
HarperCollins, 2000.
________. Nature, Human Nature and God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Beck, Horst W. Biblische Universalitt und Wissenschaft: Interdisziplinre Theologie im
Horizont Trinitarischer Schpfungslehre. Weilheim-Bierbronnen, Germany:
Gustav-Siewert-Akademie, 1994.
Belinfante, Frederik Jozef. A Survey of Hidden-Variables Theories. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1973.
________. Measurements and Time Reversal in Objective Quantum Theory. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1975.
Bell, John S. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge:
Cambridge Unversity Press, 1987.
Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and
Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994.
Blsi, Benedikt and Lucien Hardy. Realism and Time Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics.
[online] Durham, United Kingdom: University of Durham, 1995.
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9505017>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
331
Blumenfeld, Jon. Paradox No More in The New England Journal of Skepticism 3, no.1
(Winter 2000):14.
<http://www.theness.com/articles/paradoxnomore-nejs0301.html>. Accessed 18
August 2003.
Bohm, David. Quantum Theory. New York: Dover Publications, 1951.
________. A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden
Variables, I and II, in Physical Review 84 (1952): 166193.
________. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. New Jersey: D. van Nostrand,
1957.
________. Classical and Non-Classical Concepts in Quantum Theory; An Answer to
Heisenbergs Physics and Philosophy in British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science 12 (1962): 265280.
________. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.
________. A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter in Philosophical
Psychology 3, no. 2 (1990): 271286.
________. A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter [enlarged version of
the publication in Philosophical Psychology including the discussion of
parapsychology] (1990). <http://www.uri-geller.com/bohm1.htm>. Accessed 16
July 2003.
Bohm, David and Basil J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation
of Quantum Theory. London: Routledge, 1993.
Bohm, David and F. David Peat. Science, Order and Creativity. 2
nd
ed. London, New
York: Routledge, 2000.
Bohr, Niels. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1958.
________. Essays 19321957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge: Volume II.
Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow Press, 1958.
________. Essays 19581962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge: Volume III.
Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow Press, 1963.
________. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature: Four Essays, with an
Introductory Survey. New York: AMS, 1978.
Born, Max. The Born-Einstein Letters. New York: Walker and Company, 1971.
Brody, Thomas, The Philosophy Behind Physics. Edited by Luis de la Pea and Peter
Hodgson (Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1993).
Brody, Thomas A. and Luis de la Pena. Real and Imagined Non-localities in Quantum
Mechanics in Il Nuovo Cimento 54B (1979).
Bub, Jeffrey. Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997; Paperback, 1999.
Bultmann, Rudolph. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Scribners Sons, 1958.
________. Jesus Christus und die Mythologie: Das Neue Testament im Licht der
Bibelkritik. Hamburg, Germany: Furche-Verlag, 1958.
332
Byron, Frederik W., Jr. and Robert W. Fuller. Mathematics of Classical and Quantum
Physics. New York: Dover Publications, 1970.
Calaprice, Alice, ed. The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 2000.
Callender, Craig and Robert Weingard, Trouble in Paradise? Problems for Bohms
Theory in Monist 80, no. 1 (January 1997).
Carlson, Richard F., ed. Science & Christianity: Four Views. Downers Grove, Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 2000.
Chaturvedi, S. and Peter D. Drummond. Macroscopic Test of Quantum Mechanics
Versus Stochastic Electrodynamics in Physical Review A55, no. 2 (February
1997): 912914.
Chihara, Charles S. Ontology and the Vicious-Circle Principle. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1973.
Clayton, Philip. God and Contemporary Science. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1997.
Compton, Arthur Holly. The Freedom of Man. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935;
Reprint, New York: Greenwood Press, 1969.
Cushing, James T. Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen
Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
________. Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between
Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
Cushing, James T. and Ernan McMullin, eds. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum
Theory: Reflections on Bells Theorem. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1989.
Cushing, James T., Arthur Fine and Sheldon Goldstein, eds. Bohmian Mechanics and
Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Dortrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1996.
Davies, Paul. Other Worlds. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1980.
________. The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. New York:
Touchstone, 1992.
Davies, Paul and John Gribbin. The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge
our Understanding of Physical Reality. New York: Simon &
Schuster/Touchstone, 1992.
de La Pena, Luis and Ana Maria Cetto. The Quantum Dice: An Introduction to Stochastic
Electrodynamics. Dortrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
d`Espagnat, Bernard. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. 2
nd
ed. Reading,
Massachusetts: W.A. Benjamin, 1976.
________. In Search of Reality. New York: Springer Verlag, 1983.
________. Reality and the Physicist: Knowledge, Duration and the Quantum World.
Translated by J. C. Whitehouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
333
________. Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2003.
Deutsch, David. The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes-And Its
Implications. New York: Penguin, 1997.
DeWitt, Bryce S. and Neill Graham. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics: A Fundamental Exposition by Hugh Everett, III, with Papers by J. A.
Wheeler, B. S. DeWitt, L. N. Cooper and D. Van Vechten and N. Graham.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973.
Dirac, P.A.M. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Revised Fourth Edition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1958.
Earman, John. Humes Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Einstein, Albert. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper in Annalen der Physik 17
(1905): 891921.
________. Ist die Trgheit eines Krpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhngig? in
Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 639641.
________. Die von molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wrme geforderte Bewegung von
in ruhenden Flssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen in Annalen der Physik 17
(1905): 549560.
________. The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concept to
Relativity and Quanta. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1938.
________. Out of my Later Years: The Scientist, Philosopher and Man Portrayed
Through His own Words. New York: Wings Books, 1956.
________. The World as I See It. Translated by Alan Harris. New York: Citadel Press,
1984.
Eisberg, Robert and Robert Resnick. Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids,
Nuclei, and Particles. New York: John Wiley, 1974.
Ellis, George F. R., ed. The Far-Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic
Perspective. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002.
Feynman, Richard P., Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands. The Feynman Lectures on
Physics: Quantum Mechanics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1965.
________. The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1965.
________. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1988.
Feynman, Richard P. and Steven Weinberg. Elementary Particles and the Laws of
Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987.
Foster, James and J. David Nightingale. A Short Course in General Relativity. New York:
Springer Verlag, 1995.
Gaskin, J. C. A. Hume's Philosophy of Religion. 2
nd
ed. New Jersey: Humanities Press
International, 1988.
334
Gleason, Andrew M. Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space in Journal of
Mathematics and Mechanics 6 (1957): 885893.
Goldstein, Sheldon. The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum
Theory in Physics Today (September 1994): 90.
________. A Theorist Ignored in Science 275 (March 1997): 1893.
Good, I. J., ed. The Scientist Speculates. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1961; New
York: Basic Books, 1962.
Grayling, A. C., ed. Philosophy: A Guide through the Subject. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995.
Greenstein, George and Arthur G. Zajonc. The Quantum Challenge. Sudbury,
Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett, 1997.
Gribbin, John. In Search of Schroedingers Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. New
York: Bantam Books, 1984.
________. In Search of the Big Bang: Quantum Physics and Cosmology. New York:
Bantam Books, 1986.
Griffiths, Robert B. Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Guilini Domenico, Erich Joos, Claus Kiefer, Joachim Kupsch, Ion-Olimpiu Stamatescu
and H. Dieter Zeh. Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in
Quantum Theory. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996.
Gwynne, Paul. Special Divine Action: Key Issues in Contemporary Debate (1965
1995). Ph. D. diss. Rome, Italy: Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 1996.
Hgglund, Bengt. History of Theology. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia, 1968.
Originally published in 1966 under the title Teologins Historia in Swedish.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New
York: Bantam Books, 1988.
________. Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays. New York: Bantam
Books, 1993.
________. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam Books, 2001.
Hawking, Stephen and George F. R. Ellis. The Large Scale Structure of Space Time.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Hawking, Stephen and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Heidelberger, Michael. The Mind-Body Problem in the Origin of Logical Empiricism:
Herbert Feigl and Psychophysical Parallelism in Paolo Parrini and Wesley
Salmon, Logical Empiricism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
(Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: Pittsburg University Press, 2003).
Heim, Karl. Weltschpfung und Weltende: Das Ende des Jetzigen Weltzeitalters und die
Weltzukunft im Lichte des Biblischen Osterglaubens. Hamburg, Germany: Furche
Verlag, 1952.
335
________. Die Wandlung im Naturwissenschaftlichen Weltbild: Die Moderne
Naturwissenschaft vor der Gottfrage. 3
rd
ed. Hamburg, Germany: Furche Verlag,
1953.
________. The Transformation of the Scientific World View. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1953.
________. Der Christliche Gottglaube und die Naturwissenschaft: Grundlegung. 2
nd
ed.
Hamburg, Germany: Furche Verlag, 1953.
________. The Christian Faith and Natural Science: The Creative Encounter Between
20
th
Century Physics and Christian Existentialism. New York: Harper & Brothers,
1953.
________. Jesus der Herr: Die Herrschervollmacht Jesu und die Gottesoffenbarung in
Christi. 5
th
ed. Wuppertal, Germany: Aussaat Verlag, 1977.
________. Jesus der Weltvollender: Der Glaube an die Vershnung und
Weltverwandlung. 6
th
ed. Wuppertal, Germany: Aussaat Verlag, 1985.
________. Glaube und Denken: Philosophische Grundlegung einer Christlichen
Lebensanschauung. 5
th
ed. Wuppertal, Germany: Aussaat Verlag, 1987.
Heisenberg, Werner. ber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik
und Mechanik in Zeitschrift fr Physik 43 (1927): 172198.
________. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. Translated by Carl Eckart
and F. C. Hoyt. Chicago: Dover Publications, 1930.
________. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York:
Harper & Row, 1958; Reprint, New York: Prometheus, 1999.
Hempel, Carl G. Aspects of Scientific Explanations and Other Essays in the Philosophy
of Science. New York: Free Press, 1965.
Hermann, Armin. Lexikon Geschichte der Physik A-Z. 3
rd
ed. Cologne, Germany: Aulis-
Verlag, 1987.
Hiley, Basil J. and F. David Peat, eds. Quantum Implications: Essays in Honor of David
Bohm. London: Routledge, 1987.
Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. The Protestant Reformation. New York: Harper, 1968.
Hodgson, Peter E. Realism and Quantum Mechanics in International Studies in the
Philosophy of Science 11, no. 1 (1997): 5365.
________. Gods Action in the World: The Relevance of Quantum Mechanics in
Zygon 35, no. 3 (September 2000): 505516.
Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understandings. Edited by L. A. Selby-
Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902; Reissued countless times.
________. Of Miracles. Edited by A. Flew. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1985.
Isham, Chris J. Lectures on Quantum Theory: Mathematical and Structural Foundations.
London: Imperial College, 1995.
James, William. The Principles of Psychology: Volume One. Henry Holt and Company,
1890; Reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1950.
________. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Touchstone, 1997.
336
________. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York:
Longmans, Green and Company, 1907; Reprint, New York: Dover Publications,
1995.
Jammer, Max. Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics. Mineola,
New York: Dover Publications, 1957.
________. Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics. Mineola, New York:
Dover Publications, 1961.
________. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics in Historical Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
________. The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics: The History of Modern
Physics, 18001950. 2
nd
ed. Los Angeles: Tomash Publishers, 1989.
________. Concepts of Space: The History of Space in Physics. 3
rd
ed. New York: Dover
Publications, 1993.
________. Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999.
Jauch, J. M. Foundations of Quantum Theory. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley,
1968.
Jeffrey, Richard C. Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Jewett, Paul K. God, Creation and Revelation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991.
Jones, David E. H. Daedalus: God Plays Dice in Nature 385 (1997): 122.
________. The Further Inventions of Daedalus: A Compendium of Plausible Schemes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Jordan, Pascual. Science and the Course of History. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1955.
Kafatos, Menas and Robert Nadeau. The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in
Physical Reality. New York: Springer Verlag, 2000.
Kane, Robert. The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kberle, Adolf. Karl HeimDenker und Verkndiger aus evangelischem Glauben.
Stuttgart, Germany: Steinkopf Verlag, 1979.
Koperski, Jeffrey. God, Chaos and the Quantum Dice in Zygon 35, no. 3 (September
2000): 553557.
Kronz, Frederick M. Bohms Ontological Interpretations and Its Relations to Three
Formulations of Quantum Mechanics in Synthese 117 (1999): 3152.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3
rd
ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1996.
Kunkle, Daniel R. John von Neumann: Genius of Man and Machine. [online] Rochester,
New York: Rochester Institute of Technology, 2002.
<http://www.rit.edu/~drk4633/vonNeumann/>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
Lakatos, Imre. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Edited by John
Worral and Gregory Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Lameter, Christoph. Cosmology in On the Moral Nature of the Universe in CTNS
Bulletin 18, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 1518.
337
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity Volume I: Beginnings to A.D. 1500.
New York: HarperCollins, 1975.
________. A History of Christianity Volume II: Reformation to the Present. New York:
HarperCollins, 1975.
Lifshitz, E. M., ed. From a Life of Physics. Singapore: World Scientific, 1989.
Lindberg, David C. and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. God and Nature: Historical Essays on
the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Berkeley, California: University
of California Press, 1986.
Lundin, Roger. The Culture of Interpretation: Christian Faith and the Postmodern
World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993.
MacIntyre, Alaisdair. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy
and Tradition. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990.
Manschrek, C. ed. A History of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1981.
Marion, Jerry B. and Stephen T. Thornton. Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems.
4
th
ed. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1995.
Mascall, E. L. Christian Theology and Natural Science: Some Questions on Their
Relations. London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1956.
Maudlin, Tim. Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity. 2
nd
ed. Malden, Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
McDermott, John J., ed. The Writings of William James: A Comprehensive Edition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Messiah, Albert. Quantum Mechanics: Two Volumes Bound as One. Reprint of Quantum
Mechanics, Wiley & Sons, 1958. Mineola, New York: Dover Publishing, 1999.
Meystre Pierre and Marlan O. Scully, eds. Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and
Measurement Theory. New York: Plenum Press, 1983.
Monod, Jaques. Chance and Necessity. Translated by Austryn Wainhouse. New York:
Vintage Books, 1971.
Murphy, Nancey. Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern
Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity
Press, 1996.
________. Reconciling Theology and Science: A Radical Reformation Perspective.
Kirchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 1997.
________. Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science,
Religion and Ethics. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997.
________. Religion and Science: God, Evolution, and the Soul. Edited by Carl S.
Helrich. Ontario, Canada: Pandora Press, 2002.
Murphy, Nancey and George F. R. Ellis. On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology,
Cosmology, and Ethics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Myrvold, Wayne C. On Some Early Objections to Bohms Theory in International
Studies in Philosophy of Science (March 2003) [Page numbers follow online
version available at <http://publish.uwo.ca/~wmyrvold/BohmFinalv2.doc>
accessed 16 July 2003].
338
Nadeau, Robert and Menas Kafatos. The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and
Matters of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University, 1999.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans, 1989.
Newton, Isaac. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by Andrew
Motte. Chicago: William Benton, 1934.
________. Definitions and Scholium: Newtons Philosophy of Nature: Selections from
His Writings. New York: Hafner Publishing, 1953.
Nicolis G. and I. Prigogine. Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. New York: W.H.
Freeman, 1989.
Obermann, Heiko. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought
Illustrated by Key Documents. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
O'Connor, J. J. and E. F. Robertson. Eugene P. Wigner. [online] Scotland, University of
St. Andrews, 2001.
<http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/References/Wigner.html>.
Accessed 16 July 2003.
Omns, Roland. The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1994.
________. Quantum Philosophy: Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary
Science. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999.
________. Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1999.
Overbye, Dennis. Cosmos Sits for Early Portrait, Gives Up Secrets in New York Times
(12 February 2003).
Parrini, Paolo and Wesley Salmon, Logical Empiricism: Historical and Contemporary
Perspectives. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: Pittsburg University Press, 2003.
Pauli, Wolfgang. Remarques sur le problme des paramtres cachs dans la mcanique
quantique et sur la thorie de londe pilote in Louis de Broglie: Physicien et
Penseur, 3342. Paris: ditions Albin Michel, 1952.
________. Aufstze und Vortrge ber Physik und Erkenntnistheorie. Braunschweig,
Germany: n.v., 1961.
Peacocke Arthur. Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming Natural, Divine,
and Human. Enlarged edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
________. Paths from Science towards God: The End of all our Exploring. Oxford:
Oneworld Publications, 2001.
Peat, F. David. Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
________. From Certainty to Uncertainty: The Story of Science in the Twenty-First
Century. Washington, District of Columbia: Joseph Henry Press, 2002.
Peebles, P. J. E. Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, New Jesey: Princeton University Press,
1992.
339
Penrose, Roger. The Emperors New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The
Laws of Physics. New York: Penguin Books, 1989.
________. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
________. The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. Edited by Malcom Longair. Canto
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Peres, Asher. Can we undo Quantum Measurements? in Physical Review D22 (1980):
879883.
________. "Karl Popper and the Copenhagen Interpretation" in Studies in History and the
Philosophy of Modern Physics 33B (March 2002): 2334.
Peskin, Michael E. and Daniel V. Schroeder. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory.
Westview Press, 1995.
Peters, Ted, Robert John Russell and Michael Welker, eds. Resurrection: Theological
and Scientific Assessments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002.
Polkinghorne, John C. The Quantum World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1984.
________. The Way the World is. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984.
________. Science and Providence: God's Interaction with the World. Boston: New
Science Library, 1989.
________. Reason and Reality: The Relationship between Science and Theology.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991.
________. Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion. New York:
Crossroads, 1994.
________. Beyond Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University, 1996.
________. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1998.
________. Science & Theology: An Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
________. Faith, Science & Understanding. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene, 2000.
________. Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Polkinghorne, John, ed. The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001.
Pollard, William G. Chance and Providence: God's Action in a World Governed by
Scientific Law. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1958; London: Faber and
Faber, 1958.
________. Physicist and Christian: A Dialogue between the Communities. Connecticut,
Greenwich: Seabury Press, 1961.
________. Man on a Spaceship: The Meaning of the Twentieth Century Revolution and
the Status of Men in the Twenty-first and After. Claremont, California: Claremont
College, 1967.
________. Science and Faith: Twin Mysteries. New York: T Nelson, 1970.
340
________. Rumors of Transcendence in Physics in American Journal of Physics
(1984): 877881.
________. Transcendence and Providence: Reflections of a Physicist and Priest.
Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1987.
________. The Cosmic Drama: A Faculty Paper. New York: National Council Episcopal
Church, n.d.
Pope, D. T., Peter D. Drummond and W. J. Munro. Disagreement between Correlations
of Quantum Mechanics and Stochastic Electrodynamics in the Damped
Parametric Oscillator in Physical Review A62 (2000): 042108- 115.
Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.
________. The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. Edited by W. W.
Bartley III. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1981.
________. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowan and
Littlefield, 1982.
Prigogine, Ilya. Order out of Chaos. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
________. The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York:
Free Press, 1996.
Quine, W. V. O. From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1953.
Rau, Jochen. Entropy Production via Particle Production [online] Heidelberg, Germany:
Max-Planck-Institut fr Kernphysik, 1994.
<http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~jochen>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
Rich, Elaine. Artificial Intelligence. Auckland: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Richardson, W. Mark and Wesley J. Wildman, eds. Religion and Science: History,
Method, Dialogue. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Richardson, W. Mark and Robert John Russell, Philip Clayton and Kirk Wegter-
McNelly, eds. Science and the Spiritual Quest: New Essays by Leading Scientists.
London: Routledge, 2002.
Roubina, Ekaterina. William James 18421910. [online] Internet, 1996.
<http://website.lineone.net/~williamjames1>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
Russell, Bertrand, Logic and Knowledge: Essays 19011950. London: Routledge, 1956.
Russell, Robert John. Does The God who Acts Really Act? New Approaches to Divine
Action in the Light of Science in Theology Today 54 (1997): 4365.
Russell, Robert John, Nancey Murphy and C. J. Isham, eds. Quantum Cosmology and the
Laws of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine action. Vatican City State:
Vatican Observatory; Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,
1993.
Russell, Robert John, Nancey Murphy and Arthur R. Peacocke, eds. Chaos and
Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican
Observatory; Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1995.
Russell, Robert John, William R. Stoeger and Francisco J. Ayala, eds. Evolutionary and
Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State:
341
Vatican Observatory; Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,
1998.
Russell, Robert John, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne, eds. Physics, Philosophy
and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding. 2
nd
ed. Vatican City State:
Vatican Observatory, 1995.
Russell, Robert John, Nancey Murphy, Theo C. Meyering and Michael A. Arbib, eds.
Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican
City State: Vatican Observatory; Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural
Sciences, 1999.
Russell, Robert John, Philip Clayton, Kirk Wegter-McNelly and John Polkinghorne, eds.
Quantum Mechanics: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City
State: Vatican Observatory; Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural
Sciences, 2001.
Salgado, Rob. The Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime: Introducing the Light Cone. [online]
Korea: Hallym University, 1995.
<http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/syracuse/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html>.
Accessed 16 July 2003.
Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984.
Saunders, Nicholas. Does God Cheat at Dice? Divine Action and Quantum Possibilities
in Zygon 35, no. 3 (September 2000): 517544.
_______. Divine Action and Modern Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002.
Schilpp, Paul Arthur, ed. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. La Salle, Illinois: Open
Court, 1970.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. "On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers," (1799) in
A History of Christianity. Edited by C. Manschreck. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
Schrdinger, Erwin. Die gegenwrtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik in
Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935): 807812, 823828, 844849.
_______. What is Life? With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches. Canto
Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
________. Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism. Canto Edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Smith, Huston. Beyond the Post-Modern Mind: Updated and Revised. New York: Quest
Books, 1989.
________. Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief.
New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
Stackhouse, Max L. Apologia: Contextualization, Globalization and Mission in
Theological Education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Stapp, Henry. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1993.
________. Quantum Ontology and Mind-Matter Synthesis. [online] X-th Max Born
Symphosium, 1997. <http://www.categoricalanalysis.com>. Accessed 16 July
2003.
342
________. Von Neumanns Formulation of Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in
Nature. [online]. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
2001. <http://www.categoricalanalysis.com>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
________. The Mindful Universe. [online] [draft] Berkeley, California: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, 2003.
<http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/MindfulU.pdf>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
Stieler, Wolfgang. Neuer Weltrekord bei Quantenkryptographie in ct: magazin fr
computer technik (December 2002).
Stout, Jeffrey. The Flight from Authority: Religion, Morality and the Quest for Autonomy.
Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Styer, Daniel F. The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
Szegedi, Peter. The History of the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
From Hungary to Mexico. [online] Hungary: Etvs University, 2003.
<http://hps.elte.hu/~szegedi/cikkek/fenymexi.doc>. Accessed 7 August 2003.
Templeton, John M. and Robert L. Herrmann. The God Who Would be Known:
Revelations of the Divine in Contemporary Science. San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1989.
Thiel, John E. Nonfoundationalism: Guides to Theological Inquiry. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1994.
Thiemann, Ronald F. and William C. Placher, eds. Why Are We Here? Everyday
Questions and the Christian Life. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1998.
Thomas, Owen C. ed. God's Activity in the World: The Contemporary Problem. Chico,
California: Scholars Press, 1983.
Toulmin, Stephen. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1990.
Tracy, Thomas F., ed. The God who Acts: Philosophical and Theological Explorations.
University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.
________. Divine Action and Quantum Theory in Zygon 35, no. 4 (December 2000):
891901
von Neumann, John. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer
Verlag, 1932; Reprint, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996.
________. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Translated by Robert T.
Beyer. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955.
von Weizscker, Carl Friedrich. Aufbau der Physik. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag, 1985.
________. Zum Weltbild der Physik. Stuttgart: Hirzel Verlag, 1990.
Walker, Evan Harris. The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 2000.
Wallace, Philip R. Physics: Imagination and Reality. Singapore: World Scientific, 1991.
_______. Paradox Lost: Images of the Quantum. New York: Springer Verlag, 1996.
Ward, Keith. God, Chance & Necessity. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1996.
343
Wegter-McNelly, Kirk. The World, Entanglement, and God: Quantum Theory and the
Christian Doctrine of Creation. Ph.D. diss. Graduate Theological Union, 2003.
Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.
________. The Quantum Theory of Fields: Volume I: Foundations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
________. The Quantum Theory of Fields: Volume II: Modern Applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
________. The Quantum Theory of Fields: Volume III: Supersymmetry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
________. Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries. Cambridge: Havard
University Press, 2001.
________. The Quantum Theory of Fields 3 Volume Set. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
Wertheim, Margaret. Science and Religion: Blurring the Boundaries. Cover Story in
Omni 17, no. 1 (October 1994).
Wheeler, John Archibald. At Home in the University. New York: Springer Verlag, 1996.
Wheeler, John Archibald and Wojciech Hubert Zurek, eds. Quantum Theory and
Measurement. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Wheeler, John Archibald and Kenneth Ford. Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A
Life in Physics. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
Wigner, Eugene P. Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays. Woodbridge,
Connecticut: Ox Bow Press, 1979.
Wilber, Ken, ed. Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the Worlds Greatest
Physicists. Boston: Shambhala, 2001.
Wilson, John. Examining Peacockes Plumage in Christianity Today (12 March 2001).
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations: The German Text, With a Revised
English Translation. 3
rd
ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.
Worthing, Mark William. God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996.
Zajonc, Arthur. Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Zeilinger, Anton. On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundations of Quantum
Mechanics in U. Ketvel et al., Vastokohtien todellisuus: Festschrift for K.V.
Laurikainen. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1996.
<http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/zeilinger>. Accessed 16 July 2003.
Zurek, Wojciech H. Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical in
Physics Today (October 1991): 3644.