Causality's death in quantum theory greatly exaggerated

Causality’s death in quantum theory greatly exaggerated Kazmer Ujvarosy Author of The Seed Cosmology: Revelations of the Seed Origin of the Universe The fact that the parameters or determining values of our open universe have anthropic properties, just as a tree’s parameters have seed properties, constitutes evidence that the cosmic system has human input and output, just as a tree system has seed input and output. From the finding that human life constitutes the cause, and the universe its effect, follows that the law of cause and effect does not cease to apply, as believed in quantum theory. In 1973 Edward P. Tryon, a professor emeritus of physics at Hunter College of the City University of New York, was the first physicist to propose that our universe originated as a quantum fluctuation. In his Nature article of 14 December 1973 (246, 396–397), “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?”, he wrote: “Here I propose a specific big bang model which I believe to be the simplest and most appealing imaginable — namely, that our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, where ‘vacuum fluctuation’ is to be understood in the sense of quantum field theory.” According to Tryon’s model “the Universe has always existed” and “did indeed appear from nowhere” about 10 billion years ago. The publisher of Tryon’s paper, proposing that the universe “did indeed appear from nowhere,” is not a science fiction firm, but the journal Nature, established in 1869. It prides itself to be “the world’s leading multidisciplinary science journal” publishing “the finest peer-reviewed research ...” But if the universe’s proposed appearance “from nowhere” constitutes science, then what is not science? And since the idea passed the “finest” peer-review, then which ideas failed to pass? The ones that make sense? In modern cosmology many origin models for the universe have been proposed, but I find this one the weirdest. Reacting to the meritless ideas physicists proposed Morris Kline noted in his Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge (Oxford University Press, New York, 1985): “The greatest science fiction stories are in the science of physics.” I agree with his statement. Commenting on the state of theoretical physics Nobel laureate Christian de Duve also noted in his Vital Dust (Basic Books, New York, 1995): “Physicists … have been driven into such weird territories by their explorations that they are now far ahead of the most imaginative science fiction writers in the kind of cosmological scenarios they can invent.” In the 18 December 2014 issue of Nature (516, 321-323) George Ellis and Joe Silk expressed concern about the state of modern cosmology in their article, “Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics.” They called attention to the fact that in theoretical physics the inability to formulate a falsifiable theory that can describe correctly the observed universe resulted a variety of speculative theories which are not backed up by evidence. They argue that even if a theory is professed to be elegant and explanatory it still must be falsifiable to be scientific, otherwise such speculative constructs undermine science and mislead people. So here we have the “death” of causality in professor Tryon’s “simplest and most appealing imaginable” origin model. No cause is needed out of which the universe is made. The universe simply appeared “from nowhere.” It did not even appear from the empty hat of a magician. Properly the idea is not even an origin model unless “nowhere” qualifies as the origin of the universe. Never mind, modern cosmology determined that the place where we can find the origin of the universe is “nowhere.” That’s the “scientific evidence” for the origin of our universe. Evidently professor Tryon got the “nowhere” origin for the universe from quantum theory where the reality of particles is replaced with electromagnetic field interactions. The reasoning is that if particles are no longer real, then no material cause can exist for the origin of the universe, because the cause of the universe depends on the reality of particles. Simply stated: no particles, no cause. Causality’s death in quantum theory, however, is greatly exaggerated. The probability is that not the particles cause the universe’s mass, laws, structure, exponential expansion and functions, but the seed of the universe, which seed constitutes the open universe’s input and output. What indicates the universe’s seed origin is the finding that the cosmic system’s parameters or determining values have anthropic properties, just as a tree system’s parameters have seed properties. Based on that finding I propose “the simplest and most appealing imaginable” origin model, namely that our universe has anthropic properties because the universe’s cause or parent seed is a man who generated the cosmic system to produce human beings in his own image, similarly as a seed generates a tree for the reproduction of itself. In other words our universe is a production line to make human output in the human input’s image, just as a tree is a production line to make seed output in the seed input’s image. Thus according to this scientific theory of creation a man’s quantum field is the cause behind the universe. The human quantum field constitutes the instantaneous faster-thanlight hidden connection between all the particles of the cosmic system. Also by means of the human input’s or parent seed’s quantum field instantaneous communication between all the particles is possible. The universe’s anthropic properties also allow us to infer the eternity of the cosmic system’s human input and output. As a tree’s seed input and output can exist above and beyond the tree system, similarly the universe’s human input and output can exist above and beyond the cosmic system. As a tree has no power to act on its cause, namely on its parent seed, similarly the universe has no power to act on its cause, namely on its human input. In efforts to discredit the finding that the values of our universe have anthropic properties, indicating the universe’s human origin, those who kissed reality good bye proposed that infinitely many universes exist, and by chance our universe happens to be the one suitable for human life. In his book, Quantum Reality (Oxford University Press, 2020), Jim Baggott calls the many-worlds interpretation “unconstrained metaphysical nonsense.” Well said. The principle of causality, as established by science, stipulates that cause and effect are proportional because the effect cannot be greater than its cause. A cause, in other words, cannot give rise to an effect greater than itself. Otherwise the extra part of the effect would be without a cause, which absurdity is contrary to reason. So if the universe appeared from nowhere, or from a dimensionless and inanimate singularity’s Big Bang, then the result of those absurdities in no way can be the cosmic system’s order and complexity and, least of all, life. Thus in the light of the principle of causality the fact immediately becomes evident that the standard model of particle physics is delusion on a grand scale. To keep the delusion alive attempts are being made in scientific circles to discredit the law of causality. Anyway Nature’s “The Principle of Causality” article of 18 June 1932 (129, 897) — prior to professor Tryon’s universe-from-nowhere article of 14 December 1973 in Nature — affirmed the validity of causality: “The first principle which philosophy might receive, as established by science, is the principle of causality, which, in spite of recent attacks by some physicists, still reigns supreme.” Related to causality the U.S. novelist, Margaret Deland (1857-1945), pertinently remarked: “A pint can’t hold a quart — if it holds a pint it is doing all that can be expected of it.” In addition to the principle of causality the standard model’s soundness is conclusively invalidated by the unfalsified principle of biogenesis. The Oxford Dictionary of Biology (Martin and Hine, 2015) stipulates: “biogenesis The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material.” In light of the principles of causality and biogenesis it is evident that the complexity of life “can never originate from nonliving material,” i.e. from the alleged singularity of the imaginary Big Bang. And because for us nothing can be more evident than the existence of human life, and the fact that in our experience human life only and always arises from human life akin to itself, the theory is reasonable in light of the evidence that human life in no way emerged from lower forms of life and eventually from nonlife. It is obvious, at the same time, that the highest form of existence in evidence is human life. No life superior to human life, or superhuman life, is in evidence. Consequently human life’s superhuman origin remains what it is, a product of the imagination of theologians. Similarly the contention of evolutionists, namely that we humans are not the universe’s end product because we may evolve into a higher being, remains a product of the imagination, utterly unsupported by scientific evidence. To conclude, the universe’s appearance from nowhere or from a singularity’s Big Bang is delusion from the start. Human life constitutes the universe’s seed or input and output.