The Case for Theistic Idealism

IDEALISM – GEORGE BERKELEY

I hold to philosophical idealism, as it seems to me for a variety of reasons that the fundamental layer of reality is not material in nature, but rather is mind-like. Dr. Kenny Pearce – a George Berkeley scholar – describes Berkeley’s fascinating take on idealism using the example of a chair. Materialist thinkers would say that if you take away every aspect in which we can perceive the chair (such as the smell, look, feel, and taste of the chair), then you are still left with the essential matter that is the chair (Pearce). However, idealist thinkers like Berkeley would say that if you have taken away all those aspects in which the chair can be perceived, you have taken away the chair itself (Pearce)! In other words, those sensory ways in which an object can be perceived are that which cause that thing to be what it is. There’s no point, Berkeley would say, to positing some unknowable, mind-independent material behind those sensory qualities, as it does nothing to explain how our minds can perceive those things, nor does it do anything to explain the metaphysical nature of the object (Pearce). So then, idealism says that to exist is to be observed. If something is not being consciously observed, does it exist at all? More on that question later when I discuss Quantum Mechanics.

IDEALISM – THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is a significant part of why I affirm idealism. The version of the argument I will refer to in this paper goes like this:

P1: It is possible for a maximally great being to exist.

P2: If it is possible for something to exist, then it exists in a possible world.

C1: A maximally great being exists in a possible world.

P3: It is greater to exist in all possible worlds than in one possible world.

C2: Therefore, a maximally great being would exist in all possible worlds.

P4: Our world is a possible world.

C3: Thus, a maximally great being exists in our world.

C4: This maximally great being is what we call God.

Given this argument, it is also true that it is better to be greater than all other things than to be equal in any substantive respect to another thing. Therefore, there can only be one maximally great being and one being which displays any quality maximally. Thus, nothing else can be fundamental in the way that God is fundamental. By virtue of this and other arguments (such as arguments from contingency and grounding), we realize that God must be the grounding force of all that exists. God is necessary for all things to exist.

This ontological argument also demonstrates that God, as a maximally great being, is personal and mind-like. Only a personal being can display properties necessitated by maximal greatness such as love, kindness, mercy, justice, the ability to will and act, freedom, etc. Additionally, if God were a material being, He would be beholden to some other outside force, as no matter can create itself and no matter can be eternally existent (because only God is eternally existent), and matter again cannot be God as it does not have personal qualities. God must be unique and immaterial. If God were made of material, the question would arise as to what or who ordered that material into the being of God. If God was created or ordered by another being, He would not be maximally great. God is grounded in and ordered by Himself alone, and thus cannot be made of material. A being made of material would also be limited by the nature of the material the being was made from, which would also contradict maximal greatness. Thus, God is immaterial. He has created all material and is outside of that which He has created.

IDEALISM – DIGITAL PHYSICS

The field of digital physics is another major factor that – to me - confirms idealism. Christian philosopher and online content-creator Michael Jones outlines an argument for God’s existence from digital physics, which goes like this:

P1: Simulations can only exist in a computer or in a mind.

P2: The universe is a simulation.

P3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind.

P4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind.

P5: This mind is what we call God.

C1: Therefore, God exists.

This argument helped lead me to idealism as it demonstrates that the universe functions as a simulation. A computer simulation is not out of the question, but it cannot be prime reality because computer simulations would lead to either an infinite regress problem or a final simulation in a mind (as the argument posits). Because of this, prime reality must be mind-like so that it can simulate all other things. Of course, this mind-like being which is prime reality itself must be what we call God!

This argument depends on the premise that this universe is, in fact, a simulation. In his paper entitled “The Physical World as a Virtual Reality,” Brian Whitworth gives a prima facie case for the known universe being more akin to a “virtual reality” or simulation than a purely material world. He gives eleven points (most of which I will outline below) in which our universe seems to match what we know about simulations or virtual realities.

Firstly, creation. A virtual reality arises from nothing, matching how the big bang theory proposes the beginning of the universe (Whitworth 9). This also matches the Christian idea of creation ex nihilo. If all things are simulated by God, then things must arise materially from that which is nonmaterial, that being a thought.

Second, a maximum processing rate. In a simulation, a pixel can only cross the screen as fast as the computer’s hardware will allow. In the same way, the speed of light seems to be that limit for our universe (Whitworth 9).

Third, non-local effects. The non-local collapse of a quantum wave function may be best explained by comparison to a computer screen. A CPU is no further from one part of a screen than another, so virtual reality processing effects can ignore screen distance (Whitworth 9). So then perhaps our universe is like a three-dimensional screen in which all points are equidistant to its processing (Whitworth 9). Of course, a theistic perspective would say that this CPU is God, who is omnipresent and therefore equidistant from all points in the universe simultaneously.

Fourth, processing load effects. Like how a computer slows down when processing a lot of information, perhaps the effects of the theory of relativity (space-time curving/slowing and faster objects causing time to dilate, causing space to extend) can be explained by this theory (Whitworth 9).

Fifth, algorithmic simplicity. Frequent calculations must be kept simple so that the CPU is not overburdened, which may explain why the basic mathematical principles that govern our universe are surprisingly simple (Whitworth 9).

Sixth, choice creation. It appears quantum events are not truly random, and so Einstein argued that quantum mechanics would one day uncover that quantum events occur due to hidden properties which were yet unknown to him (Whitworth 10). This brings up the concept of randomness in nature, which is an idea I am not convinced by. As explained by Dr. Luke Barnes, the Kolmogorov Complexity says that a string of characters is roughly the length of the shortest description of that string. For example, the number 33333333333333333 is best explained by the shortest explanation, that being “seventeen threes”. On the other hand, the number 2340284924 does not have a simpler explanation than to list the numbers in order. However, Barnes notes that this only works if we know that there is not a simpler explanation. For example, someone may realize that that number is best explained not by listing the numbers, but by calling it something else... a phone number. Therefore, it is not random as it has a simpler explanation. In this same way, things in the universe only appear random because we do not know the reason for them to be arranged in that way. As a theist, I would posit that nothing is random as all things could be known and explained by God, though us humans do not yet know those explanations.

Seventh, complementary uncertainty. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means that one cannot know both the position and momentum of quantum objects simultaneously, so “measuring particle position displaces its momentum information, and vice-versa,” (Whitworth 10). Much in the same way, virtual reality is only calculated when viewed/interacted with (Whitworth 10). Objects can appear to have either position or momentum, but not both simultaneously (Whitworth 10).

Eighth, digital equivalence. Much like every digital symbol is the same due to the coding being the same for each symbol, (for example, the letter G appears the same each time it is typed due to the identical coding for each typed G) every photon, electron, quark, etc. are all identical to one another (Whitworth 10).

Again, Whitworth poses three more examples, though I chose to exclude them from this paper. It is important to note that his virtual reality theory, “does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real,” (6). The world is very real to us, though our material world is not prime reality. Prime reality is God Himself.

IDEALISM – THE DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT

The double-slit experiment is famous for proving that light acts both as a particle and a wave, but this experiment also brought about a very curious advancement in the field of metaphysics: that light exists in a superposition until observed (Hamer). The experiment has been done several times in different ways, but the general outline of the experiment has photons of light being shot toward two slits. If the light is a particle, it would create a certain pattern, whereas a wave would create a different pattern. It was discovered that the photons seemed to “know” where to go if they were a wave, like “a theater audience” that “showed up without seat assignments, but each person still knew the exact seat to choose to fill the theater correctly,” (Hamer). When researchers put a detector at each slit, however, the wave pattern disappeared, meaning that the photons “selected” one slit to go through as a particle instead of being a wave that goes through both simultaneously (Hamer). So, the experiment proved that the very act of observation collapses a quantum superposition into one definite reality.

This has also been discovered through photon entanglement, where two photons are oppositely polarized so that one always vibrates horizontally and the other vertically (Merali). When one is taken far away, observed, and found to be vibrating in one direction, the other automatically syncs and vibrates oppositely (Merali). Thus, because the two seem to be interacting with each other faster than the speed of light allows, it seems that Whitworth’s example of non-local effects is bolstered.

Much like a virtual reality or simulation, future events occur as a wave of possibilities rather than a string of definite futures. Thus, the future is perhaps dependent on the observations of conscious beings... or is it? More on this after a brief aside.

DOES THE DSE DISPROVE THEISM?

If this is in fact true, then how can we say God exists? If God is omnipresent and conscious, then He would be observing all things, leaving no room for quantum superpositions to exist. But since we can observe superpositions, there must be an explanation. Well, tweaking the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox can help in this regard. For example, if the cat were in a superposition of being alive and dead, you could choose – instead of viewing the cat yourself – to send someone else to view it and then report back to you. Until they bring the news to you, the cat remains in its superposition to you though the wave has already collapsed for the person who observed it firsthand. In the same way, God may observe all things yet not cause the wave-function to collapse for us humans because He has not revealed that information to us.

Another argument could be made that God is not consciously observing all things, though I do not believe this could be true. If God is prime reality and is therefore simulating all things, for Him to not perceive something would be for that thing to be forgotten from reality itself, and therefore nonexistent. Thus, the first solution is preferable.

WHAT CAUSES WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE?

However, observation is not the only means by which a wave function collapses! Research has found that even inanimate objects can cause wave-function collapse through a process known as decoherence (Merali). For example, sometimes lab-created superpositions are ruined by collisions with fast air particles (Merali). How can this be explained theistically?

Well, it seems that our observation is not special in collapsing the future into a definite path. Instead, something inanimate may do this... something like our free will. Our choices actively shape the future and take us down a path that we set for ourselves. This most often leads to sin and suffering, but it can also lead to salvation in Christ. Verses such as Galatians 5:13, John 7:17, Joshua 24:15, and Romans 13:2 (among many others) indicate that we have free will to choose not only God/not-God, but also our day-to-day actions and experiences.

FREE WILL AND OPEN THEISM

1 Corinthians 10:13 (NET) reads: “No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others. And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to bear it.” This verse clearly states that in any temptation, God will provide a way out so that we are able to escape the temptation without giving in to sin. This does not mean that God controls every aspect of our daily lives, but rather He remains active and present with us while not infringing on our free will.

This aligns well with my view of Openness Theology, which makes two main claims: (1) middle knowledge is logically contradictory and therefore is not held by any being – even God – and (2) God – being all-knowing of everything that can be known, sees the future accurately – as waves of possibility rather than a string of definite points. Thus, God holds our free will in high regard so that we can be free to choose Him or not-Him, and thus be truly in loving relationship rather than in a forced relationship.

Because God does not infringe on our free will (and knowing our free will choices would also be an infringement upon them, as a perfect God cannot know something and then be proven wrong, meaning that what God knows is determined and what God does not know is up to the free creatures He has created), we cause decoherence through our free choices.

This may bring up this objection: if God gives over the course of human history to our free will, how can He affirm prophecies and work in history to accomplish His goals? Is He subject to our free will? Absolutely not. God has given us free will, but He retains the right to revoke it in certain circumstances to accomplish His plans, and He is also able to step into history and play a direct role. He can affirm with 100% certainty that His promises will come true because He – in His all-powerful nature – knows that He will step in and cause those promises to come true when the time is right.

DO WE EXIST MATERIALLY, EVEN WHILE BEING SIMULATED BY GOD?

Due to my belief in Open Theism, I would say that – yes – we must exist (potentially materially) outside of God’s thoughts. It seems that – though reality is grounded in God, who is mind-like – He has created us both in a simulated sense and some material sense. If we only existed in the mind of God, then God would perhaps know all our thoughts and choices before we made them, as you cannot think of a free creature doing something unpredictable to you. If you are the one thinking about that free creature making some decision, then it is you making that decision. If this were the case, God would be at fault for our sins and failures, which is inconsistent with his nature.

So, there must be some sense in which we are separate from God while still being grounded in Him as the ultimate reality. It seems that the Bible may offer a solution (as it often does) to this problem. When God creates, He does so through His spoken word, His action. It appears the act of creation has two parts: the conscious thought and the active will. God thinks us into existence, and then actively wills us to exist materially (to some degree, perhaps), outside of Himself yet still grounded within Him. This allows for us to have true freedom of the will.

This reminds me of Plato’s idea of the Forms, in that God, being prime reality, thinks things into being as a perfect form (thus His pronouncement that creation was “very good” at the start) and then He speaks/wills them into the material world to be at the mercy of free will which is outside of Himself. He seems to have ordered the universe through scientific laws and principles which – although they cause some natural evils – are a part of a truly free creation.