Quantum Decoherence/Darwinism

There is always an essential element of pragmatism in physics. Does the experiment or process work? Given the problem of induction, this may be one of the best results one can hope for in science. Quantum physics works! That is one of the great successes of the Standard Model of particle physics. Entanglement is a basic feature of the quantum formalism and is an empirical fact, which has been confirmed by many different labs with many different particles, and was definitively demonstrated by Anton Zeilinger in the Canary Islands in 2018 (Zeilinger 2018). So our discussion here cannot go “beyond entanglement” in so far as it is a proven element in QM.

Various suggestions employing a quantum “bottom up” (moving from the quantum to the classical level, Russell 1999) or a chaos theory “lateral” (moving sideways from classical to classical via quantum Polkinghorne 2007) approaches among others have been employed, particularly in the Divine Action Project,(Russell, Murphy, Isham, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2018) with significant success. But the problem of the quantum‐classical transition still remains a challenge. This is where quantum decoherence involving selection, pointer states, and quantum biology becomes important for scalar appropriation of quantum metaphors. Decoherence, where the delicate superposition encounters the measurement process, was always thought to cause the collapse of the wave function and not permit the influence of quantum states upon classical ones. But this may not always be the case in an extremely high concentration of quantum states and entangled environment. As will be explained shortly, a quantum state, say in an atom, becomes entangled with a quantum state in the environment, say a photon of sunlight, and both are preserved and then have the capacity for replication becoming the “fittest.” More speculatively, can entanglement, leading to the “natural selection” of pointer states (quantum states that are especially robust in the face of decoherence) not only allow for the transition of quantum to classical but also classical to biological?

Beginning in 2003, Wojciech Zurek, working at Los Alamos, sought to determine how the classical world could emerge from the quantum world. He came to propose that certain quantum states, by becoming entangled with their environment, could be stabilized, particularly as replicated through the entangled environment. This stabilization process he saw as a “survival of the fittest” process and somewhat whimsically named it quantum Darwinism (hereafter referred to as QD), not to be confused with biological Darwinian evolution. Induced by the environment interacting with the quantum system, the many possible quantum states are selected against in favor of a stable pointer state (so named to be analogous to a pointer on a dial). Zurek puts it this way,

Effective classicality of a property of a quantum system can be defined by using redundancy of its record in the environment. This allows quantum physics to approximate the situation encountered in the classical world: The information about a classical system can exist independently from its state. In quantum theory this is no longer possible: In an isolated quantum system the state and the information about it are inextricably linked, and any measurement may – and usually will – reset that state. However, when the information about the state of a quantum system is spread throughout the environment, it can be treated (almost) as in classical physics – as (in effect) independent from the state of the open quantum system of interest. This is a central idea that motivates the quantum Darwinism approach to the interpretation problem… This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) fitness of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment‐induced superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create offspring – copies of the information describing the state of the system in that environment. I show that this ability to ‘survive and procreate’ is central to effective classicality of quantum states. (Zurek 2004, 121) [Italics not mine]

Zurek sees survival as assisted primarily by the entangled environment in which the quantum probability states allow einselection (environment‐induced superselection) to occur, assisting in the emergence of pointer states. It is these pointer states which regular decoherence brings about leading to a definitive measurement. (For a dissenting opinion, see Kastner 2015.)

These pointer states also allow for massive multiplication so that multiple observers would observe the same thing. Zurek and Jess Reidel, another QD advocate, calculated that a grain of dust one micrometer across, after being illuminated by the sun for just one microsecond, will have its location imprinted about 100 million times in the scattered photons. It is because of this redundancy that objective, classical‐like properties exist at all (Zurek 2018, 2019; Ball 2019). Reidel comments, “Quantum Darwinism putatively explains, or helps to explain, all of classicality, including everyday macroscopic objects that aren't in a laboratory, or that existed before there were any humans” (Ball 2019). As Philip Ball comments, “It doesn't matter, of course, whether information about a quantum system that gets imprinted in the environment is actually read out by a human observer; all that matters for classical behavior to emerge is that the information get there so that it could be read out in principle” (2019). Zurek's point is that the classical understanding of decoherence had ignored the environment and it is the environment that is key in making the transition from quantum to classical levels by assisting in the multiplication of the pointer state.

Elise Crull, in an excellent entry on “Quantum Decoherence” in the Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics, argues for an important role for quantum decoherence beyond simple collapse. She observes,

Nature's apparent “preference” for certain bases of measurement is not due to as‐yet undiscovered selection rules, but rather to the relative stability of particular bases over others due to decoherence dynamics. The rate at which a system's phase relations become decohered in a particular environment depends on the strength and character of the system‐environment entanglement. System DoFs [Degrees of Freedom] that commute most effectively with environmental DoFs will become most quickly entangled with one another, and therefore most robustly decohered in the associated basis. (Crull 2018, 11)

Crull cautions, however, that “…while decoherence explains the apparent definiteness of pointer positions, it is a separate claim – and one not substantiated by decoherence qua physical process alone – to insist that pointer positions are truly definite” (Crull 2018, 13). While decoherence may allow for environmental saturation, significant presence in an environmental location, there is also the challenge of the definition of classicality to which this transition may be ascribed. None of the traditional definitions of classicality are able to explain the emergence from quantum to classical. Crull concludes, “Since decoherence models are designed to examine precisely these dynamics in wide‐ranging situations, many consider this the most promising approach to the question of emergent classicality” (Crull 2018, 15).

While there are questions regarding the function of pointer states and QD in particular (Kastner), there is increasing evidence of QD's empirical viability. Philip Ball indicates that three experiments have vetted QD. In 2019, three teams of researchers in Italy, China, and Germany have independently put the theory to the experimental test by looking for its key feature: how a quantum system imprints replicas of itself on its environment. One of the tests, done by teams in Italy and China, used a single photon interacting with other photons and found the polarization of the single photon was carried over into the “environment” of the bombarding photons. In Germany, an optical test using a nitrogen atom to replace a carbon atom in the crystal lattice of a diamond was used to test QD saturation. The nitrogen atom has one more electron than the carbon atoms in the diamond and this free electron's spin was used in the experiment. It was found that this spin was replicated in the surrounding environment and the information of the spin saturated quickly.

QD has also been found to be helpful in quantum chemistry as well. Brandss and Poznanski argue for the value of employing QD in quantum chemistry. They state, “It [QD]is shown to play a pivotal role, giving support to the signature of life and consciousness at the quantum‐classical transition zone where long range correlative information is cultivated by energy‐entropy dissipation in organisms at multiple levels of hierarchical and functional organization” (2020,1). They go on to affirm regarding DNA that, “Due to their quantum properties, the electron‐proton formation of hydrogen bonding provides both stability, preserving the genetic code, and transiency, giving rise to mutations” (3). What this is attempting to show is that quantum processes play a role not only in the transition from the quantum to the classical but also in certain biological functions, such as DNA bonding as well.

Quantum Biology

The father of quantum biology is considered to be the great physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who wrote a book in 1944 entitled What is Life? (1944, 1967). Here, Schrödinger speculated that quantum phenomena may be influential on life but, before the discovery of genetics, it was considered too speculative. For most of its history, therefore, quantum phenomena were believed to only occur at the subatomic level. Starting around 2000, however, it was discovered that quantum phenomena may not only be present at the biological level but essential to some biological functioning, including evolution (McFadden 2002In 2003, NASA convened a conference at its Ames Laboratory in California entitled “Quantum Aspects of Life” with presentations to explore these ideas, later published in a book by the same title (Abbott, Davies and Pati 2008). The ideas of quantum biology are still very controversial but some areas of application have achieved greater certainty than others. The role of quantum states in hydrogen, essential for proton bonding in DNA mentioned above, is one such example. That discovery may, in fact, be a vindication of Schrödinger's initial insight. I will briefly discuss two other examples of such “quantum biology” to illustrate the value of quantum concepts for discussing much larger systems. ²

Evolutionary Theodicy

One of the most helpful ways to address theodicy (the reconciliation of the existence of God with the existence of evil and suffering) is to do a good/harm analysis (GHA) of the various aspects and recipients of actions. Christopher Southgate and Andrew Robinson have developed a threefold typology for GHA, which provides a background for analyzing various types of theodicies.

1. Property‐Consequences GHA (Eteological): A consequence of the existence of a good as a property of a particular being or system. For example, “Free Will.”

2. Developmental GHA (Teleological): The good is a goal which can only develop through a process which includes the possibility of harm. For example, Irenaean/Hick “Soul Development.”

3. Constitutive GHA (Axiological): The existence of a good is inherently, constitutive, inseparable from the experience of harm or suffering. For example, Beauty/Ugliness (Southgate and Robinson 2007, 70).

This then produces nine types of possible theodicies, with three types of theodicy for each category of GHA depending on whether the focus is on a “Human,” “Anthropocentric,” or “Biocentric” Reference (Southgate and Robinson 2007, 72). It is not necessary to go into these various types here but only to see that in many cases more than one type of theodicy might be necessary, especially if one is addressing both the human and wider biotic (creation) suffering simultaneously.

Drawing on this GHA, Southgate works with the insight that questions of theodicy are of different types so that only one explanation is insufficient. He proposes what he calls a “compound theodicy” involving several different approaches. In his very fine book The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil, he offers six affirmations for a compound theodicy;

1) the affirmation that creation is good, 2) an only way argument, “An evolving creation was the only way in which God could give rise to the sort of beauty, diversity, sentience and sophistication of creatures that the biosphere now contains.” 3) that God co‐suffers with “every sentient being in creation,” 4) the Cross of Christ is the epitome of this divine compassion, 5) a pelican heaven (McDaniel) where creatures “that have known no fulfillment in this life” will find it so that, “No creature should be regarded as an evolutionary expedient.” 6) a high doctrine of humanity as co‐Redeemer so that humans, “have a crucial and positive role, cooperating with God in the healing of the evolutionary process.” (2008, 15–16, see also 2002)

Southgate observes, “All evolutionary theodicy, then, should start from a version of the ‘only way’ argument, based on a developmental good‐harm analysis. This was the only, or at least the best, process by which creaturely values of beauty, diversity, and sophistication could arise” (2008, 48). (For a fine collection of critiques, see Zygon September , regarding animal suffering, Sollereder, 2019.)

Southgate then seeks to argue for a “deep intratrinitarian kenosis” which links, “the creation of biological selves to the theology of Trinitarian creation” so that, “It is from the love of the Father for the world, and for the glory of the Son, that other selves gain their existence, beauty, and meaning, that which prevents them from reverting to nothingness….It is from the power of the Spirit, predictable only in its continual creativity and love, which is the same self‐transcending and self‐renewing love as is between the Father and the Son, that each creature receives its particularity” (63). Connecting this with the GHA would necessarily include the loss of species as well as generalized suffering for all biological creatures, but this is the price that is paid to achieve such emergent complexity, not the result of a human “fall” which would have had to come much later in evolutionary history (2020, 61–75).

Southgate goes on to affirm that God is a co‐sufferer and that no creature is simply an “expedient” a “means” to a more complex level to ease the impact of such evolutionary loss (2008, 16) (For more on animal suffering, see Sollereder.) This is where the “pelican heaven” (McDaniel 1989) affirmation comes in so that all creatures will experience ultimate fulfillment not just the human. Southgate concludes, “In a sense all theodicies that engage with real situations rather than philosophical abstractions, and endeavour to give an account of the God of the Christian scriptures, arise out of protest and end in mystery” (2008, 16). The concept of panentheism may assist in explaining how this could all be taking place within God in the God‐World relationship, while God is also able to transcend it and preserve the meaning and beauty that has been created. (See Whitehead 1929 and 1979, 349—350, Dodds, 2012.) Gregersen's concept of deep Incarnation develops the identification of God in Christ with the whole of creation and with the suffering of all creatures and may offer a way to contextualize this loss in wider evolutionary development, providing meaning and hope in the face of evolutionary theodicy (Greshko, 2019).

Deep Incarnation

Historically, in trying to understand the “Word became flesh,” (logos sarx egeneto) (John 1:14), the emphasis has been upon human flesh with an anthropocentric bias. Redemption for the rest of creation was deemphasized. Today, with environmental crises, there is a need to expand “flesh” to a more ecocentric and inclusive focus, to support redemption for all living creatures and the natural environment. Regarding this anthropocentrism of Christian theology, H. Paul Santmire observes, “This was a fateful mistake. If theology is fundamentally theoanthropocentric, then the natural world will have its ultimate meaning, it's raison d’être, only in terms of God and humanity, as a kind of appendix. Nature will be allotted no integrity of its own in the greater scheme of things. Nature, at best, will have instrumental meanings” [Italics not mine] (2020, xiv). We are paying the price for this position today in the ecological crises we are facing. Santmire argues for a more faithful attitude toward nature based on a theocosmocentric paradigm observing, “This way of thinking takes God's purposes with the whole natural world just as seriously as God's purposes with humanity in particular” (xv). To do this requires us to understand God identifying with creation in all its diversity and conditions, including death and suffering. This is where entangled panentheism meets deep Incarnation in the ecology of creation.

Gregersen's concept of deep Incarnation proposes that the “flesh” (sarx) of Christ, as with all human flesh, involves the most fundamental processes of biological life and as such connects to all living creatures. That is why it is referred to as “deep,” going below the human macro level alone. Denis Edwards contends that, “The cross of Christ reveals God's identification with creation in all its complexity, struggle and pain. Gregersen finds in the cross a microcosm of God's redemptive presence to all creatures that face suffering and death” (2006, 59, 2007.). For Christians this flesh is the basis for God's identification with the suffering of humanity and the wider creation so that it holds redemptive power for all of life. Gregersen clarifies,

In this context the incarnation of God in Christ can be understood as a radical or “deep” incarnation, that is, an incarnation into the very tissue of biological existence, and systems of nature. Understood this way, the death of Christ becomes an icon of God's redemptive co‐suffering with all sentient life as well as with the victims of social competition. God bears the cost of evolution, the price involved in the hardship of natural selection. (Gregersen 2001, 205)

In effect, deep Incarnation affirms a creatio crucis, a form of creation through the cross, and addresses the problem of evolutionary theodicy grounded in the brutality of natural selection. In a more recent work speaking of the Trinitarian nature of deep Incarnation, Denis Edwards elaborates, “He [Gregersen] speaks of the ‘stretch’ of the Trinity, of the relation between the Father and the Word which is bridged by the Spirit. It is this ‘divine stretch’ between the father and the eternal word, mediated by the Spirit, which is the presupposition of the divine stretch, or reach, into the depths of creation and deep incarnation. Deep incarnation is mediated by the Holy Spirit of God at every point” (2019, 22). While creation is cruciform in nature, a via dolorosa as Rolston describes it, with Divine “kenosis” that need not be all that it is, (Wegter‐McNelly, 2007).s

This kenotic “emptying” of God into creation does not necessarily mean a withdrawal or absence of God from the world. Kenosis has often been used to discuss the Incarnation in relation to humanity but not to describe God's relation to the creation. However, there are multiple meanings for kenosis which would also allow for the God‐Creation relationship. Gregersen points out that historically there are four different models for kenosis;

1. God as voluntarily abdicating,

2. God undergoes a radical metamorphosis or historization,

3. God kenotically refrains from the exercise of detailed predetermination, and

4. “By creating the world out of love, God neither withdraws from the world nor gives up divine power, but actualizes divine love in the history with God's beloved creatures. Kenosis is here the self‐realization of who God eternally is….The self‐emptying of kenosis comes out of the divine plerosis, [fullness] and flows into the fullness of life in, with, and under the world of creation” [Italics not mine] (2013, 256–257). This is the model Gregersen prefers, and is assumed in this article as well.

Only models 1 and 2 would require God's absence from the creation. In deep Incarnation, kenosis means, rather, that it is not a full disclosure of who God is. (For a variety of perspectives on deep Incarnation, see Gregersen, ed. 2015.)

The heart of the Christian faith is the affirmation that God has become “Emmanuel” and, through St. Paul, this “with‐us‐ness” is understood as the kenotic self‐emptying of God in Christ (Phil. 2:7). Kenosis becomes a theological window through which to peer into the heart of divine love and as such reveals not only the manner of the Incarnation but also the very nature of the Triune God. Kenosis understood through the metaphor of entanglement can be used to characterize the spiritual presence of God in the world through nonlocal relational holism and superposition. (See Simmons 2014, Chapter 9.) God is always “with us” as the divine superposition within the midst of the creation. But in the Incarnation, this superposition takes on a unique character as it “collapses” into the particularity of the Incarnation, which is the presence of sanctifying agapeic love in a particular time and place. With the Incarnation, the logos that has been implicit within creation becomes explicit, becoming transparent to the God with whom it exists. The entanglement becomes explicit. One could say that the Son kenotically gave up the Trinitarian perichoresis precisely in order to enter into the creation. Christ kenotically emptied himself of the immanent perichoresis of the Trinity in order to enter the economic perichoresis of the creation. The Communion of God clearly becomes communion which includes the world (Simmons 2014, 177). Gregersen further clarifies, “Neither divine omnipresence nor incarnation presuppose that God is ‘omni‐manifest,’ that is, revealed in all the vicissitudes of natural evolution and human history, including natural and human horrors. Rather, the point is that the embodied Word of God shares from within the sufferings of all who suffer from the powers of tsunamis, earthquakes and hunger and takes the side of the victims of the horrors that human beings inflict upon one another” [Italics not mine] (2015, 235).

Entanglement is one way of conceptualizing this interrelationality, affirming that God is continually present with all creaturely suffering. To be enfleshed means to be entangled biologically. Since God is so related, however, suffering and death need not be the end. The point of understanding the Incarnation as deeply entangled enfleshment is that it brings the suffering of creation into the life of the Redeemer as well as the Creator facilitating redemption and hope through the divine life. The entangled Trinity affirms the interrelationality of the whole of the Economic Trinity so that all creational suffering is brought into the divine perichoresis of the Immanent Trinity where it is overcome by divine love which then overflows back into the creation providing hope and grace even in the face of loss. In that transformation lies hope and the divine promise that death shall not be the end. Through the Creative Spirit, there is also a new creation from the old, creatio nova ex vetere (Gregersen 2001, 193). Theologian Elizabeth Johnson refers to this as “deep resurrection” (2014, 192–210) and affirms such deep redemption in her book Creation and the Cross: The Mercy of God for a Planet in Peril, which seeks to save not only the human species but all species and “will redeem the whole cosmos” (2018 190). With the presence of the Creative Spirit there is the possibility of community, change, redemption and hope which can allow for the preservation of the value of all creatures in God. The creation too becomes larva Dei, the “masks of God” as Martin Luther referred to it (Westhelle 2016). This means that while in faith one may appeal to God as Creator one cannot prove such a creation by empirical observation of the natural world.

The Christian affirmation is that Divine love is at the heart of both creation and redemption. Understanding that love as thoroughly enfleshed and entangled with creation connects it to all sentient creatures and perhaps to the cosmos itself. ⁴ It has been the purpose of this article to show that the scientific understandings of quantum decoherence, quantum Darwinism and quantum biology, demonstrating the plausibility of quantum phenomena scaling up to the classical and biological levels, gives credence to the theological utilization of such concepts for metaphorically expressing the relationship of God and the world and the possibility of hope and redemption for all of creation in the face of suffering, death and even extinction. The metaphorical appropriation of these quantum concepts assists in making a coherent presentation of the Christian understanding of God to a contemporary scientific and technological society. Indeed, quantum entanglement may provide metaphorical assistance in articulating deep incarnation in ways that can bring hope to life caught in the inexorable vice of natural selection.