God Does Not Play Dice

Fred-Rick
5 min readAug 8, 2023

Einstein was correct, Bohr not incorrect, Oppenheimer ran with the dice.

Photo by Riho Kroll on Unsplash

After so many years, the debate that took place between Bohr and Einstein is still vital to understanding how the universe works. When Bohr declared that probability is a major mechanism in quantum mechanics, Einstein mentioned that God does not play dice.

Interestingly, there is no real conflict, and yet we understand Einstein’s words as a challenge to Bohr’s (c.s.) information.

The quick way to see the distinction is through understanding that Einstein’s remark is based on the atomic reality we all live in. The word ‘atom’ means indivisible. With Einstein’s remark, we can recognize the understanding how our universe functions in a complicated manner but with whole parts only. Then, Einstein peered over the wall and could not believe that God was rolling dice in a spot where our beloved physicist had not been looking.

With Bohr, we are no longer in the atomic reality; we moved into the sub-atomic reality that has its own laws. In this reality, that what is discovered is based inherently on divided grounds. While there is division, there isn’t a conflict between scientific sides, tough many do consider this to be a conflict nevertheless.

  • The problem between Einstein and Bohr is fully based on the desire to make both realities one. Einstein did not want God to have two separate realms; he desired all realms to be one realm. Interestingly, Bohr only pointed to the subatomic reality, and remained silent about the whole of existence.

Understanding the structural setup of everything is crucial in understanding what was really going on. If we think that the whole is identical to the parts, based on the same grounds, then we will bump into problems. The whole will never be based on the same foundation as all the parts.

Imagine a person trying to understand how people are all the same. We may get far indeed. Yet making a person fully male and fully female at the same time, for instance, will be hard to achieve. Somehow, we are forced to create a structural superposition in our minds to express what it means for all of us to be human beings. At that overarching level, we do not have any conflicts showing. Meanwhile, at the specific levels, and we all occupy this level as well, we need to accept that some of our aspects are not meant to be identical for all of us. For instance, some aspects will be oppositional, different.

We must use two structural levels to express what our reality means:

  • A generic overall level not showing any conflicts
  • Specific levels on which all cannot be united

Interestingly, when physicists declare their desire to unify everything, no one wonders much out loud if that overall level without conflicts is even possible. Many of us may think that it is quite normal for the universal results we live in to have a single underlying unified reality. It is almost as if, when physicists speak, we believe that what they say always makes sense.

It is therefore a surprise that physicists are asking a question about the generic, overall level that has already been shown to not have a possible unified answer for all details in our ordinary lives. We cannot have a single person be the model for all of mankind; it is not possible to have a person be fully male and fully female at the same time. Similarly, we cannot have a single model that expresses all matter on a single unified foundation including all matter’s oppositional aspects.

We must declare the generic overall level as generic only indeed.

At the specific level, we accept the specific aspects. We don’t look for all that is the same for everything on these levels.

When we declare quantum mechanics an overall truth, then we will overstep ourselves when we try to make the subatomic reality the actual reality overall. Quantum Mechanics is based on Quantum Mechanics, and not on General Relativity.

When we declare General Relativity the overall truth, then we will overstep ourselves when we try to make the atomic reality the actual reality overall. General Relativity is General Relativity; its structural realm is limited to what belongs to this setup.

  • The desire to make all based on a single unified foundation is a fallacy.

The universe cannot be a result unless the original state broke. Living in a result, as we all are, means that there is no underlying superposition that applies to all — except for the breakage that occurred some 13.8 billion years ago. We all carry that breakage with us. We express our own overall state fully in agreement with ourselves.

Each unit expresses itself in accordance with itself.

Why is this important?

When calculations are based on quantum mechanics and this subatomic reality subsequently applied to the atomic reality, then the model will likely be warped, possible even contain inverted features.

This appeared to have happened with Spacetime, with physicists other than Einstein starting to point to Space and Time as the essence of our universe instead of seeing Spacetime as the framework that helped explain the behavior of matter.

  • Einstein was never involved in explaining what Space or Time is. Einstein was involved, as was Newton, in explaining the behavior of matter. Spacetime is about the behavior of matter. It says nothing about the Universe as a whole; it expresses something about the parts.

Similarly, the Black Hole model can very well be an inverted model. With Oppenheimer, c.s., we find that outcomes of the subatomic reality are applied to the atomic reality. Since both are distinct realities, we end up with a model that contains an event horizon at the very heart of that model, which should be read as a scientific red flag.

  • An event horizon is that location that cannot be observed directly by our scientific instruments. As such, the center spot of the Black Hole model is based on scientifically accepting what cannot be shown scientifically.

A model containing such a central scientific unknown will automatically have competition from a model that does not contain an event horizon.

The Black Eye model is fully based on gravity, has no event horizon, and contains an enormous gravitational depression instead of a directly-undetectable mass.

Einstein was correct when he mentioned that God does not play dice — that is, when discussing the universe in whole units.

Bohr was not incorrect when he described the quantum mechanics of the subatomic reality. In as far as we know, he did not discuss the big picture.

Oppenheimer ran with the subatomic reality as if this were fully applicable to the atomic reality.

--

--