Using quantum theory and software to unify Science and Religion
I’ve always struggled to understand how anyone can believe that the world history according to Genesis, in the Bible, is in any way incompatible with the big bang and evolution. I just don’t see it. Because… perspectives! Let me explains…
When I look at the Bible, at Genesis specifically, I take the scholars at their word, that this is considered a historical account. However, I take issue with the view that the text must be “literally” interpreted, because it creates a paradox where a much more simple explanation does not.
[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
If I were to express this same thing as code, this is how it turns out:
10. $spaceTime = new Universe(); // 1:1
30. $earth = $spaceTime->findEntityByConstraints(Life::ORGANIC);
40. $spaceTime->begin(TIME); // 1:2
50. $spaceTime->begin(SPACE); // 1:3
60. $spaceTime->input($energy); // 1:4
Then I would save this to earth.php, and commit it to source, and “ship it!”
The “wind” from God, then, means the universe is “up and running” to an extent — space-time exists, and it seems to me that since there is no light, it means matter isn’t yet able to react, so space is still static, even though the universe around the matter is able to expand, nothing in the universe is able to yet react. Which I think may even work, model wise, with our current understanding of things.
“Let there be light” — so we enable space, which then allows chemicals to react, and light is then generated.
“God separated the light from the darkness” took me quite a while to figure out. But to do that, I think, the simplest explanation looks like this:
In this model of the big bang, the universe is brought into existence empty, and then populated with all required matter and antimatter and whatnot from generic templates. There’s a “wind” … so it’s alive, but everything is still static. It’s devoid of energy, so nothing is spinning, nothing is orbiting, nothing is glowing. Everything is dark, and dead. And earth is a ball of blue water, with no atmosphere to speak of yet, so the waters are kissed directly by the wisps of energy from God’s interactions. This is merely a sign of the “friction” because time is running while space is still held static.
Then to create “light” we simply release our hold on space, which allows things to then begin their chemical reactions. The sun lights up, the stars begin to shine. But the universe is still devoid of energy. Nothing is spinning. So to separate light from dark, that means the earth then began revolving around the sun at that point. Mechanically, the thing that makes the most sense to me, is to describe it as an influx of energy.
And then, because there’s clearly been a lot of coding done to be able to make the code look this simple, Of COURSE God ran it for a “day”, just to watch everything move. Gosh, it’s so pretty, isn’t it?
Now, I hear you… trust me I hear you. You’re telling me that I’ve got my big bang all out of order. First the energy, then the reactions, then the planets. Not the other way around!
And you’re right, but I’m not discussing our perspective of the big bang, I’m discussing God’s perspective of the big bang. Time didn’t exist until line 40 was executed in production. The sun didn’t produce light until line 50 was executed. And the earth didn’t spin around the sun until line 60 was ran.
I see the book of Genesis could very well be an accurate historical account, provided we understand that they used the best words they could comprehend to use. The effective difference between saying a “day” and a “period of intentional wakefulness” is a large one, but was it an important distinction to convey for the purpose of the text for the target audience? Certainly not. Day conveyed all the appropriate connotations. But since time didn’t exist, I believe it is then fundamentally clear that, no matter what it did mean, that Day in reference to “time as it was perceived by God,” could not have meant “24 hours.”
Interestingly, in this sort of model, that a day is 24 hours is actually a result of the energy input in line 60, since that would be what affected the speed of earth’s rotation.
How am I doing? Step on too many toes yet? I hope not. I hope this make sense. I feel like there’s a lot of fighting where there should be a lot of love.
Now, the title of the article says “using quantum theory” because to me, this looks like the same sort of inversion we see crossing into the quantum realm. Where particles become waves, and electrons can both be here and there, but really neither, all at once. It’s looking at reality from another perspective… one from the outside of the space-time construct itself.
So if Genesis is the story of the big bang, from the perspective of God (which it is supposed to be, as told to the prophets by God, right?), for the target audience of Man, it would make sense that some of the context gets muddled. Consider each “day” that God referred to as the “time before time” “day”, in which massive amounts of behind the scenes structural work is done, and then at the end, Got “commits” the changes, and “runs” another “day” for whatever a day means at that time with the level of energy in the universe then. It could be minutes here, or eons. it’s just a value to God, not a law that God must conform to. Until we’re here to observe it, there’s no way for us to measure it!