RE: [CreationTalk] Eliminating a major atheistic argument.
The notion of randomness in interpreting Quantum Theory caused me to have a real problem accepting Quantum Mechanics. The problem is that the randomness interpretation is what is given in text books such that you come away thinking that its part of Quantum Theory even though it’s not. Your work has helped me get over that I hump such that not only do I no longer have a problem Quantum Mechanics but see it useful in Creation Science It has also led to my Information Universe model which builds on your GGU and GID models. By the way I have a major up date to the Information Universe model coming soon involving particle physics.
I think that one reason why atheists tend to see Quantum Mechanics as randomness is precisely because the only real alternative is an Intelligence; specifically God; being behind the process and to the atheistic mind set God or any intelligence is not even allowed to be considered. I have made the argument when discussing God in science that not allowing God to even be considered as an option is turning science from a search for truth and into an atheistic propaganda machine. Needless to say the responses tend to be insulting or unquotable do to the nature of the language used.
Thanks for all your help Dr. Bob.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
As you know, these days, it takes me considerable time to transfer my thoughts to a computer screen. My desire is to continue to glorify God and not the model builder. I have presented to the creationary science movement some rather useful ideas. A logical unification for any collection of physical laws or theories that is independent from the laws or theory statements is useful. All the material on the GGU and GID models, the rapid formation model etc. But, in 2001, a paper  was published in the Int. J. Math and Math Sciences that puts the first nail into the coffin of “randomness” the attempt to use language, unnecessarily, to constantly claim that God in no way is rationally sustaining our universe’s development. Although what has been done applies to all physical behavior, previously assumed random macroscopic behavior may lose this feature upon further observation. But for the hidden world of Quantum Theory this need not be the case. In the original paper, it is shown that all collections of physical events that can be classified as probabilistic in character are, as complete collections, intelligently designed by a higher-intelligence. It is shown in a reversion that the results hold even if the assumed random behavior has no probabilistic feature.
Due to the explicit existence of deterministic statements that mimic assumed “randomness” behavior, Mark Kac tells us that mathematically the entire concept of randomness is so elusive as to cease to be viable. For physical science, Casti states, “As to the inherent randomness of nature, this appears to be as much a question of subjective psychology as it is physics and mathematics.” Relative to Quantum Theory and the “confirmed” Bell Theorem, Casti, d’Epadnat and others state “that kind of determinism is far different from that with which we are familiar from everyday [secular] life.” The problem is that there was no converse to the general notion of “chaotic” behavior. Determinism can produce similar chaotic behavior, but general chaotic behavior was not established as satisfying, at least, a rationally presented design. This allows Caltech quantum physicist Preskill to state to his students that scientists must accept pure randomness “although of course a complex classical [deterministic] system can exhibit behavior that is in practice indistinguishable from random.”
In  below, I have been adding to the original 2001 paper new results as they are obtained. Now the last nail has been driven into the coffin of “randomness.” I note that the results in  are shown to apply not only to Bernoulli trials but to distributions as well. I have explained in detail and with many illustrations these new and now complete results. Of interest is an illustration of a “simple” deterministic process that yields a sequence of relative frequencies that does not converge to any real number. But the major new result is that physical behavior that is considered as random in that whether it occurs or not is not determinable “by any human means” or an occurrence is random in the most general way, not only satisfies a higher-intelligence rational design as an entire collection of events but the order in which the events occur also satisfies a higher-intelligence rational design. Due to the participator universe feature of the GGU-model, this last fact is not dependent upon the order of selection from a data-set. Of course, I will continue to refine and illustrate these results as necessary, but in general this concludes my work in eliminating a major atheistic notion. These result falsify the claim that God is not continually sustaining His creation in a highly rational manner, a manner that is, in all respects, predictable from the viewpoint its Designer.
 This paper has been refined and added to over the years. For the latest version, where the new results are presented, see
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Mathematics (Ret.)
U.S. Naval Academy
"Science Declares Our
Universe Is Intelligently Designed."