God, the Observer, continually creates the universe!

There is an interesting report by Raymond Ciao in “Quantum Mechanics–Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action” (Vatican Observatory Publications) on the quantum eraser/delayed choice experiments his group carried out at Berkeley. Effectively, the observer, by his choice of experimental arrangement, can go backwards in time to effect particle paths. Ciao interprets his results as “In this viewpoint, every elementary, individual quantum event… is a result of the creative act of the universal Observer, in which all properties of all particles come into existence upon their observation, in continual acts of creatio ex nihilo, which constitutes a kind of creatio continua occurring everywhere at once.” He says explicitly that the results of his experiments have led him to a neo-Berkeleyan perspective and a deeper faith.

Some very interesting speculation. So little time, so much to know.

Neat. Where did you find this? I must admit I only have a basic understanding of physics and chemistry and such.

While this is interesting it is important to understand that most of these conclusions reached by way of quantum physics and such is still in its infant stages, and should not even be provisionally accepted until more concrete evidence comes to light.

There are a series of publications put out by the Vatican Observatory Publications and by the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, published by University of Notre Dame Press, on Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. They are the results of conferences, called by John Paul II,held at Castle Gondalfo (sp?), on various topics related to the general one cited above: (I"m quoting these from memory, so they may not be exact) “Philosophy, Theology and Physics”, “Evolution”, “Neurosciences (Brain and Soul?)”. “Quantum Cosmology”, “Quantum Mechanics”, among others. They give introductory and special papers by various experts in the field (not all of them Catholic). The one quoted in the first post is by Raymond Chiao, who was a professor of physics at U.C. Berkeley and has now moved to another University in the UC system, and was from the “Quantum Mechanics” volume.
here’s a link to a summary of the article:
Click on the “Quantum Mechanics” book icon, and then on the right hand frame “Chiao”
Glad you liked the post.

that’s not science, that’s just jumping to conclusions without evidence. also known as pseudoscience.

are you saying that Chiao’s nice quantum eraser and delayed choice experiments aren’t science? I’d disagree. If you’re saying his interpretation of the results isn’t “science” I’d agree, I’d call it philosophy or theology (and in his article, which I assume you haven’t read) he puts those conclusions under a “philosophy” and “theology” heading. Using the term “pseudo-science” is a pejorative, loaded criticism, because it implies his science is bad. You may disagree with his philosophical and theological interpretations (I find them interesting if not totally convincing), which you’re perfectly free to do, but let’s be discriminating in your criticisms.

From the article: “Theologically he uses this generalized Berkeleyan point of view to depict God as the Observer of the universe.” I don’t understand why that isn’t equivalent to saying observers play no part at all – the Observer is either everywhere or nowhere. Any idea why Chiao jumps one way rather than the other? It seems very weak unless I’m missing something.

*There was a young fellow named Todd, who said ‘it is extremely odd, to think that this tree continues to be, when no one is about in the Quad’
There is nothing especially odd; I am always about in the Quad. And that’s why this tree continues to be. Yours faithfully, God.

apparently from Quantum Enigma*

Hi Anselm, here is my opinion.

Science; Tell you what I know of Quantum physics and mathematics. Many years ago my brother studied the subject for 10 years. He got his Phd, Masters, Professorship in a Canadian University in the subject of Quantum.
One year later, he abandoned this exercise as ‘The most useless subject ever invented by man.’ Now please do tell me he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Permission given to quote me.

Faith: Proof as to its uselessness in faith is the fact that we are taught that God FINISHED creation in six days, yes FINISHED it. God maintains His creation yes, but there is no continuous creation. Thus quantum maths has already produced a big fat anti-Catholic error.

I’m sorry about your brother and that he didn’t achieve the career in science he started out for. As for the rest of your comments, I’m not going to reply, nor will I reply in the future to any of your posts (and those of Excubitor, Buffalo, and other young earthers beyond the pale). Here’s a web link that explains my future non-response:

One other point that I can’t resist making: when are you going to give up using computers, TV’s, devices involving lasers, all of which derive from quantum mechanical applications? The selective faith or credence of you folks continually amazes me!!!


Here is what The Teachings of the Catholic Church (Vol. I, p 94, Creation) has to say:

“Creation is to us but an aspect of an eternal activity. The statement of Genesis that God “rested” on the seventh day is metaphorical of the eternal contentment of God in the knowledge of all things in himself. In regard to the universe his activity has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change.

So, you’re saying that’s not so?

(Bolding and underlining are mine.)

God bless,

I suggest you retire from discussion forums then Anselm. One sided rhetoric gets very boring.

Activity and creating are not the same thing.

Miss Paula Haigh, Thomist scholar explains:
The Thomistlc relation of creation gives no support to a theory of continuous creation

St. Thomas says:

“Creation places something in the thing created according to relation only; because what is created is not made by movement or change. For what is made by movement or by change is made from something pre-existing. And this happens, indeed, in the particular productions of some beings, but cannot happen in the production of all beings by the universal cause of all things which is God. Hence God, by creation, produces things without movement. Now when movement is removed from action and passion, only relation remains. Hence, creation in the creature is only a certain relation to the Creator as to the principle of its being (its very existence). Nor is it necessary that as long as the creature is, it
should be created.” (ST, I, Q 45, a 3)

This Thomistic relation of creation, then, is nothing other than that radical and absolute dependence of every creature upon the Creator for its very existence. It is the passive aspect of that action of preservation whereby God, of necessity, “Does not preserve all things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them.” (ST, I, Q 104, a 3) And all creatures receive this gift of existence in a limited manner defined by their essence or nature. The relation of creation is analogous, in a faint manner, to the relation of the child to the parent that continues throughout time.

And so, the creation of all things in the beginning must be distinguished from the relation of creation which remains in the creature as a condition and state of radical dependence upon God and is a result of having been created, either 1) in the beginning during Creation Week, as is the case with all the corporeal kinds, or 2) at the moment of human conception when, it is assumed by most theologians today, the human soul is created directly and immediately by God in time but not in any way as a process of the temporal nature of time,

As St. Thomas asserts:

In the works of nature, creation does not enter but is presupposed. (ST, I, Q 45, a 8) The theory of “continuous creation” robs creatures of their own proper action as secondary causes or else it robs God of His proper Creative Action in the beginning, and so it is to be rejected as false.

But, Cassini, we are talking about the primordial exigency of the act of creation, not of some sequentially-, or time-, subsequent continuation of an act of pouring out existence. Now, think about it. God is Immensity and Infinity. Anything he does is outside of Time. There can be no time sequence, except where our thinking is concerned.

“Apart from God’s power the creature has no existence, and therefore cannot be regarded as an object antecedent to his production of it.” (Same source)

God bless,

Awwww schucks. :crying:

That useless subject has created the very machine you’re using to brand it useless…

Who performed your brain bypass operation? He or she must be very good.

There seem to be some Catholics who were taught different. For example, a guy named Joseph Ratzinger:
Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its confrontation with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process,* that they are only images**, which reveal something deeper and greater.

In the Beginning…, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (my highlights)*

I know your not speaking to me and others Anselm, but your going to love this post. you know, your right about quantum. I spoke to my brother and he told me no, he never gave up quantum maths and physics because it was useless, but because of circumstances when literature became more interesting to him. He said no quantum, no chemestry, etc. So, I really do stand corrected and am blushing at my false concept arising from a quip made by my brainy brother more that 30 years ago. My apologies to all for making such a fool of myself.

The courage to bare yourself so readily deserves a top-notch blessing - May the long time sun shine upon you, all love surround you, and the pure light within you guide your way on.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.