Indeterminacy in Physics

Some of the "features" philosophers would like to avoid bringing minds into it by making this a cause-and-effect relation of things, but "correlation does not imply causation," and part of the interest in superposition is due to the strong but mysterious correlation of a responding collapse with an at least indirect observer. 

To observe requires intention. To intend requires a mind - thus the conundrum of Schrödinger's Cat. Schrödinger's Cat is a thought experiment designed to point out the absurdity of Quantum Mechanics, where a cat is put in a special sealed box (to create a closed system) and the cat's life or death is dependent on an indeterminate quantum trigger, such as the radioactive decay of an atom. Schrödinger's cat also has a mind, but it is not a quantum-scale observer (Or is it? See below.). It would therefore be in the superposition of being both alive and dead or neither alive nor dead until an adequate observer intends to check the state of the cat. Furthermore, even if we ignore David Hume's skepticism, any cause-and-effect should have to run from the Logos as the cause to the effect seen by the observer, not the other way around, as an observed wave function collapse has it. 

What is NOT Random? (2014) Veritasium - youtube.com

To be clear, quantum effects take place in the wild, even without immediate observers. The "measurement" is any observation of anything that requires a resolution to particular states. A lot of physicists have spent their time trying to fill out this picture, trying to tease out how indirect the measurement can be or whether intentions are truly required. However, from early on, there was a resistance to exploring deeper, to move the theory past the standard model. Physicists were taught and told to "shut up and calculate." And so even though Schrödinger's Cat is over 90 years old, we are still asking whether the cat is dead or alive.

The real force of Schrödinger's Cat is the absurdity of superposition. Its next concern is determining if the unaware macroscale cat is a sufficient observer to resolve particles. If it is, whether dead or alive, the cat will never be in superposition. If particles are resolved only by some sort of more qualified observer, the cat is in superposition until the box is opened. 

Quantum effects enter the macroworld (2019) by Stephen Ornes - pnas.org 

In summary, there are three major issues involved with the Measurement Problem: 

1. The collapse of the probabilistic wave function - the superposition - to one definite result. This creates a division in reality between macro-scale phenomena and nano-scale phenomena—that is, between classical physics and quantum mechanics. This is most specifically seen in the disagreements of the Force of Gravity as Albert Einstein presented General Relativity with the other known forces of nature. The randomness of the collapse appears to destroy information available before the collapse, which is at odds with all deterministic principles.

2. The qualifications of the interaction to produce a collapse. Physicalist scientists want this to be a mere subatomic-level conception, and to some extent it is. However, superposition has been demonstrated for objects approaching the macroscale. Furthermore, the intention of the measurement and therefore the qualifications of the observer or measurer appear to be relevant in at least some collapses. 

3. The lack of necessity for the collapse to be a local interaction in time or space. Entangled particles separated by any distance can instantaneously collapse into complementary states. This is in defiance of the causal speed limit of the universe, the speed of light. 

It is the unrealistic, non-causal, and non-physical understanding of Quantum Mechanics that Einstein rejected, and most experts in the field have learned to accept.

I misunderstood Schrödinger's cat for years! (I finally get it!) (2024) FloatHeadPhysics - youtube.com 

Blurry Physicalism

There has been libraries worth of books, studies, and experiments trying to work out what the Measurement Problem means for reality, mind, and science. An oft-repeated view that seems dubious on its face comes from those who propose a "materialist view of consciousness." Materialism - the philosophical position that all phenomena are due to interactions of matter - was damaged as a philosophy at the discovery of electromagnetic waves and then, mortally wounded at the beginning of the 20th century as soon as physics began dealing with subatomic particles, electron clouds, E=mc2, and the austere "information" in the universe. Of the four forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force - only the force of gravity works with materialism without entirely undermining it. 

How Electricity Actually Works (2022) Veritasium - youtube.com 

Furthermore, the particle-wave duality and indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics vitiate materialism. A superposition has no specific physical properties. There is no "material" in a wave function. Entangled particles can violate every conception of material being. 

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible … Atoms are not things.  

- Werner Heisenberg

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.   

-  Max Planck, Das Wesen der Materie (1944)

Since "materialism" is a deceased philosophy and a poor label for any process except large-scale dynamics, one must wonder why such a term is still being used. Is it there to prop up social philosophies that require it, such as Marxism? Is it a prejudice for a form of determinism that is now obsolete? Is it ironic science? 

Physicalism is by far the better term, and by using it, most of the objections melt away. The first principle that defines physicalism is called Monism, which demands there be only one order or substance that forms the basis of all reality, such as information, or spacetime, or subatomic particles, or the substrate of those particles, or the wave functions, or The Wave Function that makes up all of reality. That six possibilities are listed in the last sentence - at least two of which are formally indeterminate - show a relative tenuousness of the belief. Rather than declaring the most fundamental order philosophically, physicalists are looking for what properties of existence supervene upon others and letting Physics as a science update the lowest order on the stack of supervenience to be the One. 

A fact or property is said to supervene if it is entailed or consequent on another fact or property. Supervenience is an odd enough metaphysical conception that a more concrete example is in order. The shape and structure of a house are based on its parts. The roof supervenes upon the walls, which supervenes upon the floor plan, which supervenes upon the foundation, which supervenes upon the foundation excavation, which supervenes upon the topography and geology of the land. If a large section of the foundation were suddenly moved, the house would collapse, whereas putting a hole in the walls or roof would not affect the foundation at all. Stick-built house construction follows this perfectly: first, the topography of the location is surveyed and staked; then excavation; then the foundation is poured; then the room boundaries with flooring joists and sheathing placed; then the walls with doors and windows; and finally the roof. This is where the 'secular' version of supervenience ends. 

However, the intention to build a house is surely not in its excavation and foundation, even though the house structure supervenes on these things. The intention to build a house is based on its function as a shelter, with comfort, convenience, durability, and location being supervening goals to that function. In terms of function as a shelter, the stack of supervenience runs the opposite way: the roof alone achieves the fundamental function, the walls enhance the basic function, the room and floor design add comfort and convenience, the foundation adds durability, and a proper excavation adds more durability, and topography is all about location, location, location.

If we are looking for intentionality, which is the foundational element in the more loaded terms of 'consciousness', 'thought', and 'free will', the place we are least likely to find it is in the topography, excavation, and foundation. Universal order gives us one stack of supervenience with the roof at the top. Intentionality gives us another stack with the roof at the bottom. They are incommensurate. Cogito ergo sum - "I intend, therefore I am." Dualism.

Furthermore, quantum indeterminacy from wave function collapse throws a big wrench into the 'secular' version of physicalism. Again, a superposition has no specific physical properties. There is no "material" in a wave function. It is difficult to see how quantum indeterminacy or any other type of deep indeterminacy can comport with monism and be a useful distinction with non-monist views such as dualism or trialism. As the well-subscribed Many Worlds interpretation has it, there are entire, finely tuned universes incident on collapsing wave functions. How then can we call this physicalism? 

Monism

One may ask, doesn't everything supervene upon an orderly universe? Yes, it does, but that is tantamount to saying "God did it." We have already found that in the ancient Logos. The attitude of scientists seeking out universal order and its implications should be in physicalism as far as it goes. But physicalism doesn't go so far as fundamental probabilities, randomness, and non-locality. Since an indeterminate but orderly wave-particle duality supervenes the Logos, there is no clear line of distinction between monism and dualism. With no clear distinction, the monist-dualist dichotomy is a false dichotomy. Dualism wins by default.

>>That is not to say every form of dualism could be seen as true from a monistic point of view or that we are now allowed to stray as far from monism as we want, but it does mean such ideas as God's intentionality or the soul's irreducibility are still very much in play. There have been many statements of a duality surrendering to the monism of God in the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly from those deemed to be the more grounded "mystics": Jakob Böhme, William Law (1686-), George Mueller, etc. In all of these, the idea is that self-willed independence from God is what separates one from God. A self-surrendering or submission of willfulness to God is the only means of attaining something like a union with God. This cannot be done solely through personal attainment. One way or another, God must intend to have a relationship. God must express, His hand must move and direct, which means there is an experience of God, which is precisely where the label of "mystic" comes in. 

Philosophically, all the Abrahamic faiths require outside of monism is a modicum of Free Will. Free will can be minimally defined as the faculty of a self-referential entity to choose to approach God or not. Depending on the person, this may be more strategic than reflexive. Such free will need not always be present, but when it is present, the choice that is made defines that person's absolute character and culpability. All the reflexive choices that follow may be deterministic until the next opportunity for decision comes. 

Why I am now a Christian (2023) by Ayaan Hirsi Ali - unherd.com 

>>Soren Kierkegaard, infinite resignation, receiving back a self from god by virtue of the absurd. 

Amongst the philosophers who had a clear answer to the successful predictions of physics is the 17th-century Christian polymath and cofounder of calculus Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and his prescient "windowless monads." 

But when I looked for the ultimate reasons for mechanism, and even for the laws of motion, I was greatly surprised to see that they could not be found in mathematics but that I should have to return to metaphysics. This led me back to entelechies, and from the material to the formal, and at last brought me to understand, after many corrections and forward steps in my thinking, that monads or simple substances are the only true substances and that material things are only phenomena, though well founded and well connected. Of this, Plato, and even the later Academics and the skeptics too, had caught some glimpses… I flatter myself to have penetrated into the harmony of these different realms and to have seen that both sides are right provided that they do not clash with each other; that everything in nature happens mechanically and at the same time metaphysically but that the source of mechanics is metaphysics. 

- (G III 606/L 654–55) via plato.stanford.edu 

Now, first of all, it is very evident that created substances depend upon God, who preserves them and who even produces them continually by a kind of emanation, just as we produce our thoughts. For God, so to speak, turns on all sides and in all ways the general system of phenomena which he finds it good to produce in order to manifest his glory, and he views all the faces of the world in all ways possible, since there is no relation that escapes his omniscience. The result of each view of the universe, as seen from a certain position, is a substance which expresses the universe in conformity with this view, should God see fit to render his thought actual and to produce this substance. 

- (A VI iv 1549–50/AG 46–47) via SEP 

The Optimistic Science of Leibniz (2014) by Marc E. Bobro - thenewatlantis.com 

Being the closest match to the wave-particle duality of Quantum Mechanics before the 20th century and compatible with the findings of Quantum Mechanics once any anti-theist prejudices are removed, it serves to reflect on Leibniz's monads: 

• Simple mind-like indivisible substances.

• Immaterial, without extension in space or time.

• The fundamental substances of reality.

• Each monad is unique, reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective.

• Each monad has primitive active and passive powers.

• They don't interact causally; rather, they are in sync, unfold according to an established harmony. 

• Monads are perceived only in the aggregate. Aggregates can unite to produce phenomena such as bodies.

• There are at least two types: the simple type and a soul-like monad with memory.

The Monadology (1714) by Gottfried Wilhelm LEIBNIZ, translated by Robert Latta (1998) - plato-philosophy.org

Monads are the most fundamental substance that follows the Predicate-in-Notion principle rather than the extrinsic determinism following after Isaac Newton: 

“in every true affirmative proposition, whether necessary or contingent, universal or particular, the notion of the predicate is in some way included in that of the subject. Praedicatum inest subjecto; otherwise I do not know what truth is”

- Letter to Arnauld, G II 56/L 337

doctrine of marks and traces: 

“when we consider carefully the connection of things, we can say that from all time in Alexander's soul there are vestiges of everything that has happened to him and marks of everything that will happen to him and even traces of everything that happens in the universe, even though God alone could recognize them all” (A VI iv 1541/AG 41) 

Summary of Leibniz's view of reality:

Thus, the only real things are simple substances; the bodies that we perceive in motion around us are phenomena and not themselves substances, though they are grounded ultimately in simple substances or monads. Furthermore, the bodies of the natural world ought be considered intentional objects in that they are objects about which we have certain beliefs. This is what Leibniz means in saying that they have reality insofar as there is a harmony between perceivers or between the same perceivers' beliefs or perceptions at different times. In other words, one's body or even a stone is real because it is an object of perception that fits into an account of the world that is both coherent from the point of view of the single perceiver and in harmony with the perceptions of other minds. 

- Brandon Look, "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz" 5.2, SEP 

As one of the inventors of calculus, Leibniz no doubt analogized these monads to be like infinitesimals. A universe made by the Christian God of an infinite number of infinitesimal monads, indeterminate from a human perspective, provides all that is needed for all the intentionality of God and man, bodies of animal and angel, and all the patterns recognized in Quantum Mechanics and the hard sciences. 

Leibniz’s Monads - ChatGPT 7/19/2025 PDF

Wheeler’s “It from a Bit”, Monadology, Neutral Monism, Bertrand Russell, and Secular Morality - ChatGPT 7/25/2025 PDF

One might object that the Christian Trinity is not "monistic", but this is a confusion of terms. The orthodox view of the Trinity is that the three persons (ie. hypostases) of the Godhead are of the same substance/essence and inseparably united as One. Whatever distinctions they have in their persons, their energies are completely united, and their products are seamlessly enmeshed. One cannot point to a clear boundary or separation between them. Thus, Trinity is a form of monotheism. All else then would supervene on the Trinity - this is called 'monism' outside of the field of religion. It is Rene Descartes and his cogito ergo sum that separates the mind from the body, which provides the dualism that modern philosophy and physicalism contend with. 

Viewed in reverse, if Cartesian Dualism is true and there is an order of mind completely separate from any possible order of deterministic physics, how would that be grappled with within physicalist physics? We have an answer - it would be mathematically modeled as randomness in a probabilistic function, just like collapsing quantum superpositions. The hard part of the solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness has already been thoroughly considered in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the inflexible physicalist's philosophical nightmare.

Quantum Minds 

As soon as quantum mechanics began to achieve acceptance, hypotheses of quantum mind and quantum consciousness emerged. The basic idea underlying these proposals is that areas of the otherwise electrochemical brain operate coherently with quantum processes or amplify quantum-level phenomena, such as electron tunneling or quantum teleportation. The indeterminacy of quantum-level phenomena potentially brings features of dualism, such as a limited independence of mind from physical determination and intentionality without otherwise leaving monism. This means that quantum brains and their correlating minds cannot necessarily be reduced to digital or analog computers or even deterministic "physical" processes. Therefore, minds can never be completely explicable within physicalist physics. 

Wigner's Friend Flowchart - jacobbarandes.com 

And it may not just be humans. Schrödinger's cat is constantly updating its state of being and building memories of its state while in the box. As an observer, the only distinction that separates the unsuspecting cat in the box from the awaiting observers outside is the intention to measure a specific result of a wave function collapse. One of the things to tease out of this is whether intention, even if it is indirect, is required to observe the collapse. Otherwise, it would seem that the cat's continual updating of its state is a sufficient indirect measurement of a collapse. If Schrödinger's cat were to come out of the box dead, an approximate measurement of when this happened would be when the cat's brain ceased to create memories. This would show the cat was never in a superposition - unless particles resolve retroactively, which would be a whole new ballgame and the end of comprehensive physicalism. 

Quantum effects enter the macroworld (2019) by Stephen Ornes - pnas.org 

This brings up two broad possibilities of the quantum mind - the first is a non-computational consciousness capable of both creative and indirect observation. The second is the deeply intentional mind approaching something like free will. Interesting experiments, such as the bomb experiment, show that both of these options are very much in play. For instance, the Elitzur-Vaidman Bomb experiment shows that a potential event at the quantum level can be determined without actually initiating that event, thus producing an interaction-free measurement. As a dramatic application, the authors imagined a nondestructive test to determine if a bomb with a light-sensitive trigger was a dud or not. 

  Why is quantum mechanics weird? The bomb experiment (2021) by Sabine Hossenfelder - youtube.com

Elitzur-Vaidman bombs by Barton Zwiebach - MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2016 - youtube.com

Avshalom Elitzur: The Genius Behind the Bomb Testing Experiment (2023) - EISM - youtube.com

The early 'secular' response to the possibility of quantum minds was to claim that the animal mind was too large a scale and too hot for quantum effects to be in play. As small as neurons are, the process of operation requires 1000s of molecules operating across several micrometers - thousands of times larger than the less-than-nanometer scale in which quantum mechanics tends to coherently operate. 

Most biologists think that quantum effects all just cancel out in the brain, that there’s no reason to think they’re harnessed in any way. Of course they’re there; quantum effects are there in your car, your watch, and your computer. But most things — most macroscopic objects — are, as it were, oblivious to quantum effects. They don’t amplify them; they don’t hinge on them.  

- Penrose and Dennett, 1995 via Jedlicka, 2017 

Since then, several non-trivial quantum effects have been found in biological systems (Jedlicka 2017). Even the high efficiency of photosynthesis in plants may lie at the edge of quantum coherence (Ball 2018). The possibility of the electrochemical brain interacting with non-trivial quantum effects is very high. Whether those effects solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness or attain to something like "free will" is the big question. 

Is Photosynthesis Quantum-ish? (2018) by Philip Ball - physicsworld.com 

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (2020) by Harald Atmanspacher - plato.stanford.edu 

Sir Roger Penrose & Dr. Stuart Hameroff: CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE PHYSICS OF THE BRAIN (2020) - youtube.com 

As humans near the top level of the stack of supervenience are capable of intentional observation of quantum phenomena near the bottom of the stack of supervenience, and our intentional observations produce "wave function collapses", the concept of supervenience is already strained with paradox. If an observer with a quantum brain has the properties of observation that produce a wave function collapse, that puts the observer on the same level of supervenience as quantum phenomena. This effectively produces a supervening table that looks like dualism - the observer(s) is both near the top and near the bottom of the supervening levels of existence. If found, the quantum brain stresses the physicalist's Stack of Supervenience to breaking.

>>Having broken the Stack of Supervenience, the Quantum Brain may possibly produce a deeper form of self-reference than has previously been considered in positivist theories. 

The Low Road 

We don't really have to wait for scientists and philosophers to come to an evident consensus on the internal Quantum Brain. Chaos is enough. Consider the Butterfly Effect where a butterfly farting in Brazil can "cause" a tornado in Texas. By "cause," we mean that in a world where the butterfly had let one go slightly earlier or later, or the insect had sworn off the magic milkweed and not been so gassy, the tornado would not have developed. We might also look at the Mona Lisa's thin grin as an example. Were she to have had a proper smile or not smiled at all, the world would be a totally different place. With all the flapping about it, her thin grin might have produced several tornados - who knows? 

Chaos: The Science of the Butterfly Effect - Veritasium - youtube.com 

The REAL Three Body Problem in Physics (2024) Up and Atom - youtube.com 

Chaos on the billiard table (2014) by Marianne Freiberger - plus.maths.org 

How then would chaos seeded by a truly indeterminate random event be different from determinate chaos? Let's say that an indeterminate quantum event created the magic in the milkweed that made the butterfly flatulate a tornado. How will that be different than an equally potent determinate stink-inducing milkweed? After the "initial conditions," both are chaos. Chaos is equally known to the Logos as presupposed by physics and demonstrated in the short-term conformity of the system to classical physics. The probability of causing a tornado is the same. All the other downstream effects could be essentially the same, even over a long time. From this perspective, there is no functional or phenomenal difference between determinate and indeterminate chaos - except for the symbolism some minds see in an entire realm of action only contingent on the whims of the Logos, God. This is only symbolic because the universe is already contingent on the whims of the Logos. All an indeterminate event gives is a somewhat "local" time or place of inception (maybe not even that, see below). Perhaps this double contingency in the universe has been revealed to correct those who have sought out so many devices. It is a kindness given even to those who have their thumbs on the scales. 

As the organ most correlated to the mind, the brain is said to operate on the razor edge of order and chaos. That means that it is predictable in a few cases and unpredictable in most others - a bounded chaos. The recent interest and proven existence of neuronal avalanches and conditions of the brain near critical states only reinforces that view. The brain is at least partially determined and at most partially predictable. It is only unexamined prejudice that could say the brain is fully determined. 

Could One Physics Theory Unlock the Mysteries of the Brain? (2023) - Quanta Magazine - youtube.com 

When a superposition collapse (or some other truly random event, see below) were to find its way into a self-referencing entity and produce macro-phenomena such as sparking neuronal avalanches out of turn, this would produce the Quantum Mind. As shown above, the superposition collapse doesn't need to occur inside the body or have any standard form of operation to be effective. There doesn't have to be any measurables, and if chaos is involved in the transmission, there aren't any measurables to distinguish it from deterministic chaos. That particles are entangled (see below) removes any need for a collapse's cause to be local in space or time. As the Bomb Experiment shows, a potential future event could even cause a collapse! 

The general lesson is that there is no way to discern a somewhat orderly indeterminate chaos from a determinate one. Scientists have chosen to call this decoherence, but that term doesn't quite capture the issue. In any system of determinate or indeterminate chaos, the Butterfly Effect tells us that the difference between any event occurring or not comes down to the tiniest variation - a single superposition collapse of a photon in one of the many right places and times, for instance. 

If true randomness were somehow removed from the standard model tomorrow, the physicalists would still have to resort to probability, chance, and randomness (and intent, see Responsible Science) to model these systems. There would still be just as much missing. The quantum level is still of a different order, incongruent with classical macro-scale physics. And any other indeterminate aspects of the universe can freely lurk about in chaos, tacitly affecting and guiding the overall system, unless by chance or providence they are revealed. If every phenomenon is found to come from an infinite number of infinitesimal indeterminate monads in our orderly universe, that is an argument for God, not against him.

There’s No Wave Function? (2024) Jacob Barandes & Curt Jaimungal - youtube.com

>>Interestingly enough, many of the physicists with the most forthright claims of solving the measurement problem, or uniting gravity with the other forces of nature, or completing a "Theory of Everything," agree. 

Great interview of Dr. David Suzuki with Dr. David Bohm, physicist, colleague of Dr. Albert Einstein (1979) - youtube.com

Retrocausality & The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (2025) Ruth Kastner & Curt Jaimungal - youtube.com

Is Physics Stuck in Materialism? (Transactional Quantum Mechanics) (2025) Ruth Kastner & Curt Jaimungal - youtube.com 

The Physicist Who Proved Entropy = Gravity (2025) by Ted Jacobson & Curt Jaimungal - youtube.com 

On top of the chaos, the fact that quantum effects are observed in the world at all is a sufficient argument for the quantum brain. The persistent seeding of improbable events and unique indeterminate events that an observer receives from the universe produces the macro independence of one mind from another, regardless of any specific internal quantum mechanism that might be found in the brain. That does not mean we shouldn't try to find an internal mechanism, but it does mean there are no philosophical arguments that would be concluded by failing. 

Quantum Entanglement

According to Leibniz, a single monad would not be extended in space and time. There would be no physical observation possible in this case. Observable physical phenomena are a result of the monads within us and our instruments of measurement observing and reflecting each other from its own perspective in cosmic harmony. This is not a causal relationship. With no extension in space and time, Leibniz's monadology would predict non-locality. The windowless monads synced in harmony, perceiving and reflecting the universe like mirrors, is a fairly good description of what goes on when entangled particles are measured and found to have complementary states despite distance, and even when manipulated. Furthermore, the discrete energy states - the "quanta" of quantum mechanics - is also predicted because each monad is a discrete and unique. If photons, particles of light, are just one or two levels of aggregate above monads, the whole of quantum mechanics is explained.

Quantum entanglement shows the Logos has memory. For two objects to be separated by any significant distance to be paired in such a way that the observation of one determines a property of another requires both a form of information storage and an ability to communicate that information faster than the speed limit of the universe - the Speed of Light. One could try to say that the pairs are simply synced, but that doesn't explain what happens once you change the properties of one in the pair - the complementary property is shown in the other. It is precisely this apparent cause-and-effect-like property of entanglement that allows the possibility for Quantum Computing. 

Why Did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics? (2022) - PBS Space Time - youtube.com

Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox - MinutePhysics - youtube.com

Quantum Entanglement Explained - How does it really work? (2021) by Arvin Ash - youtube.com 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEK4-XtMwro 

My purpose in defending Leibniz's monads is not to "prove he was right." Rather, it is to show that 3 centuries ago, a doctrinally orthodox Christian, one of the greatest minds of his time, considered by many the last great polymath, was able to invent/discover/hypothesize calculus, mathematical logic, and a monotheistic monadology that could make specific predictions that agree specifically and uniquely with the findings of Quantum Mechanics. The idea that science, math, or any other endeavor of the Knowledge Project requires a person to functionally be an atheist, 'secular', or agnostic is easily refuted by Leibniz, Isaac Newton, and other believing scientists. What is really needed to do great work is to find your meaning and purpose in God and pursue the field, mindful of your assumptions and presuppositions. This fosters curiosity, perception, and self-humility to produce both good and great work.

Sumerian Toy Model

I will play this model out in the Sumerian religion rather than the biblical one so as not to treat the Abrahamic religions flippantly.

>>From the infinite stash that is God - An or Ansar in the Sumerian. Enlil gives so many trillion superposition collapses in the universe to each of the lesser gods. Enki has received a smaller infinite from An, and distributes so many trillions superposition collapses to each human, other animals, and earth-bound processes. The collapses that are retained are used to mold, define, and manage the destiny of all the animals and gods. 

Summary 1B

The state of Physics as it exists in 2025 leaves the intentionality of God, free will, and many forms of dualism wide open. The randomness in a collapsing wave function and peculiarities producing the Measurement Problem do not allow for a clear-line distinction between physicalist monism and several forms of dualism. This indeterminacy in quantum systems provides the degrees of freedom necessary for all the souls and angels in the Abrahamic faiths. Therefore, any presumption of atheism is a prejudiced or motivated choice. 

Leibniz's monadology (1714) is a monotheistic philosophical world-view created by a Christian that has been affirmed within its level of specificity by Quantum Mechanics experiments. Had it been actively pursued as a theory during the major revolutionary realizations of Quantum Mechanics, it could have produced falsifiable hypotheses that would have passed. As a philosophy that came before quantum mechanics, it stands alone in the specificity of its affirmed predictions. Mechanistic philosophical views that have cause and effect going all the way down have not been successful and indeed are incoherent.

It is very tempting to say, "Quantum Mechanics has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled theist." However, like all the rest of the sciences, I will insist that quantum mechanics doesn't rise above a Platonic truth. We do not require the rudiments of Quantum Mechanics to seek God meaningfully. The nature of ordered chaos provides all of the same degrees of freedom as random collapses, save for the symbolism that some people desire in their theodicies. 

Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply that any formal construction of math and logic is incomplete. This means there will be areas of order unique to math and logic, and areas of disagreement. Even if that were not the case, we could never know that with any certainty, as shown by the Halting Problem. Therefore, even if quantum randomness were somehow removed from physics, there would still be another indeterminate level with all the degrees of freedom necessary for all the souls and angels in the Abrahamic faiths.