Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
Full Version: Is God compatible with Quantum Theory?
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 08:09 PM) 
Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
Well even if we disregard our limited abilities to understand QT I guess the first thing that could be argumented is that the collapse of particle wavefunction would only have been observed and the data shared by and between humans. As wicked QT is it has potentional to be working in the way that the collapse might not happen if the observer is of another species or kind.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 15 2008, 04:09 AM)
Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
Since I am completely out of my depth on this subject, I am quite comfortable to post a reply in this thread, Leonardo. I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
I will do so by the usual methodology of copy-pasting from websites, as follows:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abra.../Einstein4.html
... When Neils Bohr and others were developing the quantum theory, it was spiritually unacceptable to Einstein that the ultimate nature of reality was randomness. "The [quantum] theory yields much," he wrote to quantum physicist Max Born in 1926, "but it hardly brings us close to the secrets of the Ancient One. In any case, I am convinced that He does not play dice." Generations of physicists have been profoundly influenced by the faith of the man who wrote, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever….This is a somewhat new kind of religion." ...
-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/scienc...rver_effect.htm
THE OBSERVER EFFECT
Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'.
The implications of the 'Observer Effect' are profound because, if true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing. The Observer Effect clearly implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of 'consciousness'.
This notion has a striking resemblance to perennial esoteric theory which asserts that all phenomena are the result of the consciousness of a single overlighting Creative Principle or the Mind of God.
There is a delicious irony in all this. Contemporary Western scientific theory postulates that human consciousness is solely a result of the workings of a physical brain, yet if the observer effect is correct, the physical matter comprising a brain cannot come into existence until it is the subject of observation by some pre-existing consciousness.
NOTE: For an excellent introduction to Quantum Physics in laymen's terms see:
* 'A World with a View' by Ross Rhodes
* 'A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics' by Ross Rhodes
-=-=-=
Over to Tiggs and the Cat:
Karlis
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 14 2008, 08:35 PM)
Since I am completely out of my depth on this subject, I feel quite confident to post the first reply in this thread, Leonardo.
I will do so by the usual methodology of copy-pasting fro a website, as follows:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abra.../Einstein4.html
... When Neils Bohr and others were developing the quantum theory, it was spiritually unacceptable to Einstein that the ultimate nature of reality was randomness. "The [quantum] theory yields much," he wrote to quantum physicist Max Born in 1926, "but it hardly brings us close to the secrets of the Ancient One. In any case, I am convinced that He does not play dice." Generations of physicists have been profoundly influenced by the faith of the man who wrote, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever….This is a somewhat new kind of religion." ...
-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/scienc...rver_effect.htm
THE OBSERVER EFFECT
Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'.
The implications of the 'Observer Effect' are profound because, if true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing. The Observer Effect clearly implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of 'consciousness'.
This notion has a striking resemblance to perennial esoteric theory which asserts that all phenomena are the result of the consciousness of a single overlighting Creative Principle or the Mind of God.
There is a delicious irony in all this. Contemporary Western scientific theory postulates that human consciousness is solely a result of the workings of a physical brain, yet if the observer effect is correct, the physical matter comprising a brain cannot come into existence until it is the subject of observation by some pre-existing consciousness.
NOTE: For an excellent introduction to Quantum Physics in laymen's terms see:
* 'A World with a View' by Ross Rhodes
* 'A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics' by Ross Rhodes
-=-=-=
Over to Tiggs and the Cat:
Karlis
I will do so by the usual methodology of copy-pasting fro a website, as follows:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abra.../Einstein4.html
... When Neils Bohr and others were developing the quantum theory, it was spiritually unacceptable to Einstein that the ultimate nature of reality was randomness. "The [quantum] theory yields much," he wrote to quantum physicist Max Born in 1926, "but it hardly brings us close to the secrets of the Ancient One. In any case, I am convinced that He does not play dice." Generations of physicists have been profoundly influenced by the faith of the man who wrote, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever….This is a somewhat new kind of religion." ...
-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/scienc...rver_effect.htm
THE OBSERVER EFFECT
Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'.
The implications of the 'Observer Effect' are profound because, if true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing. The Observer Effect clearly implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of 'consciousness'.
This notion has a striking resemblance to perennial esoteric theory which asserts that all phenomena are the result of the consciousness of a single overlighting Creative Principle or the Mind of God.
There is a delicious irony in all this. Contemporary Western scientific theory postulates that human consciousness is solely a result of the workings of a physical brain, yet if the observer effect is correct, the physical matter comprising a brain cannot come into existence until it is the subject of observation by some pre-existing consciousness.
NOTE: For an excellent introduction to Quantum Physics in laymen's terms see:
* 'A World with a View' by Ross Rhodes
* 'A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics' by Ross Rhodes
-=-=-=
Over to Tiggs and the Cat:
Karlis
*victory dance*
What qualifies as an observer in QM?
QUOTE (Raptor @ May 14 2008, 08:39 PM)
What qualifies as an observer in QM?
Even better
I tried to keep it simple and manageable and you had to take it further!
QUOTE (Condescending @ May 15 2008, 04:37 AM)
*victory dance*
Hhmph! 
I DID start typing well before you posted .. so there!
Karlis
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 10:09 AM)
Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
God is not the easiest person to nail down. Considering that he exists in dimensions that we can't fully grasp with our limited understanding - it's hard to say. As far as the idea of God being omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, infinite, etc. I think he's certainly capable of all those things. The question is, does he choose to exist that way? Let's say for a minute that you had the unique ability to predict and understand completely, every decision, choice, action and thought that your wife or daughter would ever make. You would know the exact time that she came home from the store or from work. You would know every thought she had before she even made it. How long would it take before you became bored with knowing everything? Wouldn't it be more interesting to have a conversation with your wife when she came home?
I'm just speculating. But I have read many passages of scripture that lead me to believe that God chooses to limit himself in ways and that each person has the freedom of thought and choice. Just because God has the ability to see what choices a person makes does not mean that he limits their ability to make the choice.
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 14 2008, 07:12 PM)
God is not the easiest person to nail down. Considering that he exists in dimensions that we can't fully grasp with our limited understanding - it's hard to say. As far as the idea of God being omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, infinite, etc. I think he's certainly capable of all those things. The question is, does he choose to exist that way? Let's say for a minute that you had the unique ability to predict and understand completely, every decision, choice, action and thought that your wife or daughter would ever make. You would know the exact time that she came home from the store or from work. You would know every thought she had before she even made it. How long would it take before you became bored with knowing everything? Wouldn't it be more interesting to have a conversation with your wife when she came home?
I'm just speculating. But I have read many passages of scripture that lead me to believe that God chooses to limit himself in ways and that each person has the freedom of thought and choice. Just because God has the ability to see what choices a person makes does not mean that he limits their ability to make the choice.
I'm just speculating. But I have read many passages of scripture that lead me to believe that God chooses to limit himself in ways and that each person has the freedom of thought and choice. Just because God has the ability to see what choices a person makes does not mean that he limits their ability to make the choice.
Nice thinking, but can infinity (as that is what God would effectively be) limit itself? The comparison to how we would feel to be omniscient is not relevant to how God might feel about it. He is described as all-PKG in scripture is He not? Thus He is all-PKG for the purpose of this discussion.
To Karlis, Condescending et al. As far as I am aware the 'observer' in the Observer Effect does not have to be sentient, conscious, alive etc. Therefore the Universe is not (or rather, does not have to be) a product of consciousness - our perception of the universe is a product of our consciousness.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 11:09 AM)
Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
It's a very interesting question, Leo.
Collapse of the particle waveform via observation is only one of the many Quantum interpretations, albeit the most popular one - the Copenhagen interpretation.
However, a new interpretation concerning Decoherence has been gaining popularity, which effectively removes the need for an observer. The basic principle behind Decoherence is that once a particle interacts with it's surroundings in a thermodynamically irreversible way, the waveform, for all intents and purposes, effectively appears to have collapsed. In short, it replaces the role of the observer with that of the wavefunction's surroundings, making the need for an observer redundant.
However - in QT, there are much more perplexing problems to deal with than just the Observer effect. In particular, there's a thought experiment designed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR Paradox, which was originally designed to show that there must be a gap in our knowledge of QT. It's a fascinating read.
Unfortunately (For Einstein et al), the actual experimental results support the Paradox, a result that gave rise to Einstein stating his belief that "God does not play dice with the universe" (and the eloquent rebuttal of "Einstein, stop telling God what to do" by Niels Bohr)
In layman's terms, the Paradox implies the following:
1. Information is being transferred between two entangled particles at faster than the speed of light.
2. A mechanism is in place that ensures, over time, that the correct number of matching particles is recorded for the entire system - a Cosmic Auditor, if you will.
In short Leo - I think that currently QT actually tips the scales in the favour of a Cosmic Auditor / Intelligent Designer, rather than the other way around.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 08:22 PM)
It's a very interesting question, Leo.
Collapse of the particle waveform via observation is only one of the many Quantum interpretations, albeit the most popular one - the Copenhagen interpretation.
However, a new interpretation concerning Decoherence has been gaining popularity, which effectively removes the need for an observer. The basic principle behind Decoherence is that once a particle interacts with it's surroundings in a thermodynamically irreversible way, the waveform, for all intents and purposes, effectively appears to have collapsed. In short, it replaces the role of the observer with that of the wavefunction's surroundings, making the need for an observer redundant.
However - in QT, there are much more perplexing problems to deal with than just the Observer effect. In particular, there's a thought experiment designed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR Paradox, which was originally designed to show that there must be a gap in our knowledge of QT. It's a fascinating read.
Unfortunately (For Einstein et al), the actual experimental results support the Paradox, a result that gave rise to Einstein stating his belief that "God does not play dice with the universe" (and the eloquent rebuttal of "Einstein, stop telling God what to do" by Niels Bohr)
In layman's terms, the Paradox implies the following:
1. Information is being transferred between two entangled particles at faster than the speed of light.
2. A mechanism is in place that ensures, over time, that the correct number of matching particles is recorded for the entire system - a Cosmic Auditor, if you will.
In short Leo - I think that currently QT actually tips the scales in the favour of a Cosmic Auditor / Intelligent Designer, rather than the other way around.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
Collapse of the particle waveform via observation is only one of the many Quantum interpretations, albeit the most popular one - the Copenhagen interpretation.
However, a new interpretation concerning Decoherence has been gaining popularity, which effectively removes the need for an observer. The basic principle behind Decoherence is that once a particle interacts with it's surroundings in a thermodynamically irreversible way, the waveform, for all intents and purposes, effectively appears to have collapsed. In short, it replaces the role of the observer with that of the wavefunction's surroundings, making the need for an observer redundant.
However - in QT, there are much more perplexing problems to deal with than just the Observer effect. In particular, there's a thought experiment designed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR Paradox, which was originally designed to show that there must be a gap in our knowledge of QT. It's a fascinating read.
Unfortunately (For Einstein et al), the actual experimental results support the Paradox, a result that gave rise to Einstein stating his belief that "God does not play dice with the universe" (and the eloquent rebuttal of "Einstein, stop telling God what to do" by Niels Bohr)
In layman's terms, the Paradox implies the following:
1. Information is being transferred between two entangled particles at faster than the speed of light.
2. A mechanism is in place that ensures, over time, that the correct number of matching particles is recorded for the entire system - a Cosmic Auditor, if you will.
In short Leo - I think that currently QT actually tips the scales in the favour of a Cosmic Auditor / Intelligent Designer, rather than the other way around.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
The EPR Paradox can be circumvented in two ways that I can see (there may be more).
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 09:22 PM)
It's a very interesting question, Leo.
Collapse of the particle waveform via observation is only one of the many Quantum interpretations, albeit the most popular one - the Copenhagen interpretation.
However, a new interpretation concerning Decoherence has been gaining popularity, which effectively removes the need for an observer. The basic principle behind Decoherence is that once a particle interacts with it's surroundings in a thermodynamically irreversible way, the waveform, for all intents and purposes, effectively appears to have collapsed. In short, it replaces the role of the observer with that of the wavefunction's surroundings, making the need for an observer redundant.
However - in QT, there are much more perplexing problems to deal with than just the Observer effect. In particular, there's a thought experiment designed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR Paradox, which was originally designed to show that there must be a gap in our knowledge of QT. It's a fascinating read.
Unfortunately (For Einstein et al), the actual experimental results support the Paradox, a result that gave rise to Einstein stating his belief that "God does not play dice with the universe" (and the eloquent rebuttal of "Einstein, stop telling God what to do" by Niels Bohr)
In layman's terms, the Paradox implies the following:
1. Information is being transferred between two entangled particles at faster than the speed of light.
2. A mechanism is in place that ensures, over time, that the correct number of matching particles is recorded for the entire system - a Cosmic Auditor, if you will.
In short Leo - I think that currently QT actually tips the scales in the favour of a Cosmic Auditor / Intelligent Designer, rather than the other way around.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
Collapse of the particle waveform via observation is only one of the many Quantum interpretations, albeit the most popular one - the Copenhagen interpretation.
However, a new interpretation concerning Decoherence has been gaining popularity, which effectively removes the need for an observer. The basic principle behind Decoherence is that once a particle interacts with it's surroundings in a thermodynamically irreversible way, the waveform, for all intents and purposes, effectively appears to have collapsed. In short, it replaces the role of the observer with that of the wavefunction's surroundings, making the need for an observer redundant.
However - in QT, there are much more perplexing problems to deal with than just the Observer effect. In particular, there's a thought experiment designed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR Paradox, which was originally designed to show that there must be a gap in our knowledge of QT. It's a fascinating read.
Unfortunately (For Einstein et al), the actual experimental results support the Paradox, a result that gave rise to Einstein stating his belief that "God does not play dice with the universe" (and the eloquent rebuttal of "Einstein, stop telling God what to do" by Niels Bohr)
In layman's terms, the Paradox implies the following:
1. Information is being transferred between two entangled particles at faster than the speed of light.
2. A mechanism is in place that ensures, over time, that the correct number of matching particles is recorded for the entire system - a Cosmic Auditor, if you will.
In short Leo - I think that currently QT actually tips the scales in the favour of a Cosmic Auditor / Intelligent Designer, rather than the other way around.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
I can't see the logic in this.... at all
Signing off for now...been awake for about 36 hours and I'm a bit tired. Hope you guys can keep this going!!!
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 12:32 PM)
The EPR Paradox can be circumvented in two ways that I can see (there may be more).
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
Ehn. I personally don't put much weight in any of the current string theories, mostly as they're not falsifiable.
In order to get around the cosmic auditor problem - every single quanta has to know the past, present and future fate of every other quanta within the Universe. In short - every particle would be all-knowing.
Just wanted to point out that the "collapse of the probability waveform" is not the same as "coming into existence."
A quantum state can be in limbo, but the thing that emerges upon observation was there all along, as superimposed possible quantum states of matter or energy.
At any rate, maybe God is the waveform.
Harte
A quantum state can be in limbo, but the thing that emerges upon observation was there all along, as superimposed possible quantum states of matter or energy.
At any rate, maybe God is the waveform.
Harte
QUOTE (Condescending @ May 14 2008, 12:35 PM)
I can't see the logic in this.... at all
I believed Einstein was right, long before I became an Atheist.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 09:55 PM)
I believed Einstein was right, long before I became an Atheist.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
Well are you always comfortable with basing your belief's on what seems like the easiest way to provide an answer? Thats what you seem to suggest or do I read it wrong?
And if we are talking QT I would not spend much time trying to look into the easy and simple "answers" thats why scientists or should I say people who enjoy a comfortable logic and simplicity in things to hate this theory especially.
QUOTE (Condescending @ May 14 2008, 01:05 PM)
Well are you always comfortable with basing your belief's on what seems like the easiest way to provide an answer? Thats what you seem to suggest or do I read it wrong?
And if we are talking QT I would not spend much time trying to look into the easy and simple "answers" thats why scientists or should I say people who enjoy a comfortable logic and simplicity in things to hate this theory especially.
And if we are talking QT I would not spend much time trying to look into the easy and simple "answers" thats why scientists or should I say people who enjoy a comfortable logic and simplicity in things to hate this theory especially.
I believe it's known as Occam's Razor.
How would you explain the quantum auditing mechanism?
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 09:10 PM)
I believe it's known as Occam's Razor.
How would you explain the quantum auditing mechanism?
How would you explain the quantum auditing mechanism?
Yeah it is, but I believe personally that Occam's Razor and everything else you make use of as logical is for the most part useless when operating with QT. Maybe except chance.
I can't explain quantum auditing mechanism
But I see this a little like..... If evolution was disproven, would that make you say that Intelligent design must be right then? Why grab the first straw you can find when one theory might be proven wrong instead of looking for one more fitting straw even if it would mean taking a 1 mile walk into the field to locate it.Its too easy.
Would you feel contend applying Intelligent design to the quantum auditing theory just to have something attached instead of adding a fat questionmark and letting it sit there until a brilliant fit is found?
edit: just to make sure, I am not pretending that IT is a theory when we talk science
QUOTE (Condescending @ May 14 2008, 01:20 PM)
Yeah it is, but I believe personally that Occam's Razor and everything else you make use of as logical is for the most part useless when operating with QT. Maybe except chance.
I can't explain quantum auditing mechanism But I see this a little like..... If evolution was disproven, would that make you say that Intelligent design must be right then? Why grab the first straw you can find when one theory might be proven wrong instead of looking for one more fitting straw even if it would mean taking a 1 mile walk into the field to locate it.
Its too easy.
Would you feel contend applying Intelligent design to the quantum auditing theory just to have something attached instead of adding a fat questionmark and letting it sit there until a brilliant fit is found?
I can't explain quantum auditing mechanism
But I see this a little like..... If evolution was disproven, would that make you say that Intelligent design must be right then? Why grab the first straw you can find when one theory might be proven wrong instead of looking for one more fitting straw even if it would mean taking a 1 mile walk into the field to locate it.Its too easy.
Would you feel contend applying Intelligent design to the quantum auditing theory just to have something attached instead of adding a fat questionmark and letting it sit there until a brilliant fit is found?
I have no problems with saying "I Don't know". In regards to QT - physicists have had little choice for the last 80 years or so.
Bell's Theorem states that there is absolutely no possible way that local variables can give the results seen in Quantum Physics. It's not a case of saying "Wait until someone works it out" - Bell's Theorem states that it's an absolute mathematical impossibility.
So, we have an auditing mechanism external to the system. By external to the system, Physicists mean external to anything that can be measured by Physicists.
In order to audit in the way it does, it need knowledge of the past, present and future state of every single particle of matter.
It is, in effect, omniscient and omnipresent. As it's also the mechanism that effects every particle of matter, it's not a large stretch to get to Omnipotent, either.
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Sounds pretty much like a reasonable definition of God to me.
However - as I'm on the Einstein side of the fence - that's not an issue for me.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 12:49 PM)
I have no problems with saying "I Don't know". In regards to QT - physicists have had little choice for the last 80 years or so.
Bell's Theorem states that there is absolutely no possible way that local variables can give the results seen in Quantum Physics. It's not a case of saying "Wait until someone works it out" - Bell's Theorem states that it's an absolute mathematical impossibility.
So, we have an auditing mechanism external to the system. By external to the system, Physicists mean external to anything that can be measured by Physicists.
In order to audit in the way it does, it need knowledge of the past, present and future state of every single particle of matter.
It is, in effect, omniscient and omnipresent. As it's also the mechanism that effects every particle of matter, it's not a large stretch to get to Omnipotent, either.
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Sounds pretty much like a reasonable definition of God to me.
However - as I'm on the Einstein side of the fence - that's not an issue for me.
Bell's Theorem states that there is absolutely no possible way that local variables can give the results seen in Quantum Physics. It's not a case of saying "Wait until someone works it out" - Bell's Theorem states that it's an absolute mathematical impossibility.
So, we have an auditing mechanism external to the system. By external to the system, Physicists mean external to anything that can be measured by Physicists.
In order to audit in the way it does, it need knowledge of the past, present and future state of every single particle of matter.
It is, in effect, omniscient and omnipresent. As it's also the mechanism that effects every particle of matter, it's not a large stretch to get to Omnipotent, either.
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Sounds pretty much like a reasonable definition of God to me.
However - as I'm on the Einstein side of the fence - that's not an issue for me.
Wow! I just had cranial whiplash and I think I like it! I had to read through this a couple times. Way to go deep. If I understand your postition correctly, it sounds like what you're saying is that there are two possible ways to explain the phenomenon that occurs with respect to sub atomic particles behaving very strangely and seemingly contradicting the known laws of physics. One of these explanations (the one you'd like to avoid) has something to do with God.
In this viewpoint God is either directly involved with subatomic particles, such as actually being the "strong force" or any other type of theoretical "force" that would explain why atoms behave the way they do; or he has established certain guidlines for the behavior of subatomic particles, and every molecule in the universe. These laws of God or underlying principles may not be fully understood by mankind at this time. Is that about right?
depends on your perception of god.
depends on your perception of certain quantum theories.
and does the parralel(dunno how u spell it!) worlds theory not contradict the observer theory anyways.
always preffered the idea of parrallel(maybe thats it) worlds more, i've just created several worlds just by deciding to use certain words and make this post.
depends on your perception of certain quantum theories.
and does the parralel(dunno how u spell it!) worlds theory not contradict the observer theory anyways.
always preffered the idea of parrallel(maybe thats it) worlds more, i've just created several worlds just by deciding to use certain words and make this post.
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 14 2008, 02:25 PM)
Wow! I just had cranial whiplash and I think I like it! I had to read through this a couple times. Way to go deep. If I understand your postition correctly, it sounds like what you're saying is that there are two possible ways to explain the phenomenon that occurs with respect to sub atomic particles behaving very strangely and seemingly contradicting the known laws of physics. One of these explanations (the one you'd like to avoid) has something to do with God.
In this viewpoint God is either directly involved with subatomic particles, such as actually being the "strong force" or any other type of theoretical "force" that would explain why atoms behave the way they do; or he has established certain guidlines for the behavior of subatomic particles, and every molecule in the universe. These laws of God or underlying principles may not be fully understood by mankind at this time. Is that about right?
In this viewpoint God is either directly involved with subatomic particles, such as actually being the "strong force" or any other type of theoretical "force" that would explain why atoms behave the way they do; or he has established certain guidlines for the behavior of subatomic particles, and every molecule in the universe. These laws of God or underlying principles may not be fully understood by mankind at this time. Is that about right?
Not so much a force, Yeti, as a decision maker.
Physicist's generally don't spend much time trying to work out what Quantum Uncertainty means about the real world. Mostly because it's unexplainable. As Feynmann would say - "Shut up and calculate!."
Basically, when things get down to the Quantum level, it's impossible to work out what any one particle will do. The only thing that you can calculate is what statistically will happen with a set of particles. The inability to know what's happening with a single particle is called Quantum Uncertainty.
Let me give you a rough illustration.
Imagine a clump of 32 atoms of the imaginary radioactive element Tiggsium. Tiggsium has a half life of ten seconds. This means that every 10 seconds, half of the atoms will decay into radioactive particles.
Physicist's know that half of the atoms will decay each 10 seconds. They are, however, due to quantum uncertainty, completely unable to tell you which individual atoms will decay. What they can tell you, is that no set of variables exist that can accurately predict which atoms will decay.
In short - something, somewhere external to the system is deciding which atoms decay and which atoms don't.
It's not just radioactive decay. At a quantum level, something somewhere external to the system is deciding what each particle does, as and when it needs to.
To quote Richard Feynman (again) "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 10:09 AM)
Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
It would be a little more accurate to say "observation is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction" according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Observation is understood here to mean a physical process (e.g. the scattering of a photon off an electron to determine which slit it is going through in the classic double-slit experiment). Insofar as "God" is presumed to be a non-material entity who observes, if he does, through non-physical means and does not interact physically with quantum mechanical or other systems, I don't think wavefunction collapse has much of anything to say regarding His existence or the lack thereof.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 03:32 PM)
The EPR Paradox can be circumvented in two ways that I can see (there may be more).
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
I've always been fond of this idea. I find it easy to imagine with an example of being a piece of paper on a table top. Imagine living in this 2d world and want to travel to the end of the table top. Imagine a 3d being though, they would "step out" of our dimensional view travel to the other end of the table and re-enter our world. To us, the piece of paper, it would appear to be a violation of Einsteins traffic cop, but in reality all that happened was the being to a shortcut through space-time that is visible to us.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 03:55 PM)
I believed Einstein was right, long before I became an Atheist.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 06:18 PM)
It's not just radioactive decay. At a quantum level, something somewhere external to the system is deciding what each particle does, as and when it needs to.
To quote Richard Feynman (again) "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
To quote Richard Feynman (again) "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
Tigg's I meant to ask you this on the other thread, how do you feel about MWI?
What if the local observer, was not local in our universe but one close to ours? Take for instance the double slit experiment. When we fire one photon we see the effect of wave-interference. We would say that we observe what we observe because our observations dictate the probability of where the photon is going to hit. But, what if it is not actually our observation, but rather photons in similar universes.
This could explain hidden local variables. They are local in the sense that they occur in similar time-space conditions to ours. We know that particles interact with each other over long distances, so why not across universes?
I know, reality taking this form seems weird and the unfalsifiability of MWI (like so many quantum interpretations) is rather discouraging. Just a thought however. From what I know of theorietical physicists though, MWI or a version of, seems rather popular.
QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 14 2008, 05:19 PM)
Tigg's I meant to ask you this on the other thread, how do you feel about MWI?
What if the local observer, was not local in our universe but one close to ours? Take for instance the double slit experiment. When we fire one photon we see the effect of wave-interference. We would say that we observe what we observe because our observations dictate the probability of where the photon is going to hit. But, what if it is not actually our observation, but rather photons in similar universes.
This could explain hidden local variables. They are local in the sense that they occur in similar time-space conditions to ours. We know that particles interact with each other over long distances, so why not across universes?
I know, reality taking this form seems weird and the unfalsifiability of MWI (like so many quantum interpretations) is rather discouraging. Just a thought however. From what I know of theorietical physicists though, MWI or a version of, seems rather popular.
What if the local observer, was not local in our universe but one close to ours? Take for instance the double slit experiment. When we fire one photon we see the effect of wave-interference. We would say that we observe what we observe because our observations dictate the probability of where the photon is going to hit. But, what if it is not actually our observation, but rather photons in similar universes.
This could explain hidden local variables. They are local in the sense that they occur in similar time-space conditions to ours. We know that particles interact with each other over long distances, so why not across universes?
I know, reality taking this form seems weird and the unfalsifiability of MWI (like so many quantum interpretations) is rather discouraging. Just a thought however. From what I know of theorietical physicists though, MWI or a version of, seems rather popular.
Mostly, the Many Worlds Interpretation gives me an enormous headache just trying to think of all the alternative constantly branching Universes.
To be honest - I think it's a decent attempt to get rid of the observer issue, but, overall, it strikes me as trying to get local variables through the back door - they're local...just not in your Universe.
For me, it still fails to address the biggest problem - the role of the cosmic auditor. Now, instead of our 32 atoms of Tiggsium, we have 232 branches of our universe being formed, but the fact still remains that something, somewhere is still making sure that only half of those decay within our Universe every 10 seconds. In essence - I think we've just made the same problem a whole lot bigger.
As I've said - I still think that Einstein was correct & that hidden local variables are the cause of it all.
Obviously, this isn't exactly a very popular position. It's probably just me and a couple of Dead physicists who hold that view. Bell's Theorem back in the mid 1960's pretty much destroyed all hope for hidden local variables & quantum indetermination has more or less been a done deal since then amongst the Physics community.
In short, I believe that there must be fundamental flaws within Bell's Theorem. Unfortunately for me, however, Bell's Theorem has been described as "The most profound within Science". It's also the cornerstone of Quantum Mechanics. Getting a Physicist to even consider that it might be flawed is tantamount to asking them to believe that everything they know about QM might be possibly wrong.
As it happens, Startraveller and I have been discussing potential flaws within Bell's Theorem in the FuggedaboutitPhysics thread, over in the Science section. Startraveller definitely knows his stuff. If you're interested, pop in and have a read.
Observer cum analayser will make changes... but just a observor won't make any changes... but it is really very difficult to stand just like a observor!!
QUOTE (Sagredo @ May 14 2008, 10:35 PM)
It would be a little more accurate to say "observation is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction" according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Observation is understood here to mean a physical process (e.g. the scattering of a photon off an electron to determine which slit it is going through in the classic double-slit experiment). Insofar as "God" is presumed to be a non-material entity who observes, if he does, through non-physical means and does not interact physically with quantum mechanical or other systems, I don't think wavefunction collapse has much of anything to say regarding His existence or the lack thereof.
I stand corrected, my grammar wasn't the best.
The reason I say God is the ultimate observer is because of His all-PKG qualities. He is omniscient, thus He knows the state of each particle absolutely, at any time. I cannot imagine how that could be possible without observing (in the sense we are considering) each particle.
I'll admit I have difficulty imagining a non-material entity and how such a being could interact with our material universe (as God has supposedly done). Even if He were pure energy, this would still constitute material form.
If God is unconditional than God is ...... you betya everthing in the universe. Chaos of Quantum
QUOTE (manandmachine @ May 15 2008, 06:16 AM)
If God is unconditional than God is ...... you betya everthing in the universe. Chaos of Quantum
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 15 2008, 05:32 AM)
The EPR Paradox can be circumvented in two ways that I can see (there may be more).
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
From my simplistic understanding -- would it not be more staright-forward to postulate "another space/spatial dimension", interecting with our perception of "our" world?1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
Just my thought without knowledge,
Karlis
Edit note:
My apologies -- in this post I somehow COMPLETELY seem to have missed reading point # 1), which I think says what I posted.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 02:32 PM)
The EPR Paradox can be circumvented in two ways that I can see (there may be more).
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
1) We have the extra dimensions predicted by the various 'Superstring' theories. Those dimensions - being connected to the 'normal dimensions' we observe at all places simultaneously - facilitate this information propagation at a seemingly FTL velocity.
Leo,
I think this may be a slight misinterpretation.
Though entanglement appears to instantaneously send information from one particle to another, the information itself cannot be known prior to the "transmission." This means that, while the quantum state is being instantaneously defined by collapsing the wave of the nearby particle, the actual state itself is not (necessarily) "transmitted." IOW, which particle is doing the "transmitting?" That is, you can't actually "send" information in this way.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 14 2008, 02:32 PM)
2) The wavefunction of any particle is unbounded by spatial constraints. Can we say the information about the particle cannot be simultaneously available throughout the entirety of the wavefunctions 'probability curve'? If we cannot say that then we must concede this is possible and so the information about any given particle can (and does) exist in all places in the universe simultaneously.
In light of what I said above, this interpretation strikes me as much more useful.
Harte
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 14 2008, 10:49 PM)
I have no problems with saying "I Don't know". In regards to QT - physicists have had little choice for the last 80 years or so.
Bell's Theorem states that there is absolutely no possible way that local variables can give the results seen in Quantum Physics. It's not a case of saying "Wait until someone works it out" - Bell's Theorem states that it's an absolute mathematical impossibility.
So, we have an auditing mechanism external to the system. By external to the system, Physicists mean external to anything that can be measured by Physicists.
In order to audit in the way it does, it need knowledge of the past, present and future state of every single particle of matter.
It is, in effect, omniscient and omnipresent. As it's also the mechanism that effects every particle of matter, it's not a large stretch to get to Omnipotent, either.
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Sounds pretty much like a reasonable definition of God to me.
However - as I'm on the Einstein side of the fence - that's not an issue for me.
Bell's Theorem states that there is absolutely no possible way that local variables can give the results seen in Quantum Physics. It's not a case of saying "Wait until someone works it out" - Bell's Theorem states that it's an absolute mathematical impossibility.
So, we have an auditing mechanism external to the system. By external to the system, Physicists mean external to anything that can be measured by Physicists.
In order to audit in the way it does, it need knowledge of the past, present and future state of every single particle of matter.
It is, in effect, omniscient and omnipresent. As it's also the mechanism that effects every particle of matter, it's not a large stretch to get to Omnipotent, either.
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Sounds pretty much like a reasonable definition of God to me.
However - as I'm on the Einstein side of the fence - that's not an issue for me.
Well, again, I personally don't see the point in trying to apply mathematical logic when working with QT. Again because QT goes against things like mathematical beauty it is the reason a great amount of scientists hates the theory.
Its easy to see the paradox that the particles would need to be able to work in ways people would apply to a god but QT is an endless stream of paradoxes which in my eyes makes an onmitripple existanse near impossible as it would seem unlikely that an intelligence of that magnitude would allow such... that would be to work against itself.
QUOTE (Harte @ May 15 2008, 02:10 PM)
Leo,
I think this may be a slight misinterpretation.
Though entanglement appears to instantaneously send information from one particle to another, the information itself cannot be known prior to the "transmission." This means that, while the quantum state is being instantaneously defined by collapsing the wave of the nearby particle, the actual state itself is not (necessarily) "transmitted." IOW, which particle is doing the "transmitting?" That is, you can't actually "send" information in this way.
In light of what I said above, this interpretation strikes me as much more useful.
Harte
I think this may be a slight misinterpretation.
Though entanglement appears to instantaneously send information from one particle to another, the information itself cannot be known prior to the "transmission." This means that, while the quantum state is being instantaneously defined by collapsing the wave of the nearby particle, the actual state itself is not (necessarily) "transmitted." IOW, which particle is doing the "transmitting?" That is, you can't actually "send" information in this way.
In light of what I said above, this interpretation strikes me as much more useful.
Harte
Hey Harte!
I must admit, my explanation of what I meant leaves a lot to be desired. I was thinking of the problem with quantum entanglement when I postulated the 'other dimensions' idea and it wasn't really information transmission I was meaning but rather that the entangled particles - separated in our 'space' - are actually occupying the same space in the unseen dimension(s), where they are effectively the same particle. I know this sounds a bit far-fetched, how can two particles in our 'space' be one particle in the other dimensions? But the two particles we observe could be an illusion of sorts. *sigh*, I don't think this explanation is any clearer than the first!!! Must get my thoughts in order about this.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify though and if you can see where this idea might have difficulties with other aspects of QT (apart from the falsifiability issue Tiggs mentioned) I'd appreciate the input.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 15 2008, 03:09 AM)
Take the collapse of the particle wavefunction as an example. This is effectively states the observer is the cause of the collapse of the wavefunction, however God is the ultimate observer. He is everywhere and sees (observes) everything. If God existed there could be no wavefunction collapse as He would already be observing every single particle in the universe.
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
I'm not sufficiently briefed in QT to ascertain if this should be the case, but it does seem from my limited knowledge that it would be.
So, if QT is 'right' can God exist? Or does He simply not observe anything? Perhaps this is the nail in the coffin of an All-PKG God?
Depends how you define God because not everyone views god as a personal judging diety.
Yes God (in the mystic as well as less mystic sense) is compatible with quantum theory. But it depends on what Quantum theory you believe in. I myself believe in the holographic theory of quantum mechanics (that everything is reflected in everything else) and it is quite standard in this respect with that of direct mystic experience because mystics from such experiences say that God is all and all is God or as one of the upanishads says 'What is here is everywhere else' etc.
As for collapsing many quantum physicists say this only applies to the sub-atomic level and not the macro. However from experiments physicist Amit Goswami believes that collapsing also oocurs on a macroscopic level and views God as consciousness and the level of all being and that it is consciousness which is inherent in us all that is God.
So in that sense God is compatible with the collapsing function. Unsure of (never thought about it really) God in an orthodox Islamic or Christian sense.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 15 2008, 04:19 AM)
To Karlis, Condescending et al. As far as I am aware the 'observer' in the Observer Effect does not have to be sentient, conscious, alive etc. Therefore the Universe is not (or rather, does not have to be) a product of consciousness - our perception of the universe is a product of our consciousness.
Can you prove that the universe exists separate from perception?
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 15 2008, 04:22 AM)
In short Leo - I think that currently QT actually tips the scales in the favour of a Cosmic Auditor / Intelligent Designer, rather than the other way around.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
As you'll know - I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that Einstein was correct and that Bell's theorem is flawed. If I wasn't - then I'd have to seriously consider believing in an Intelligent Designer.
You also miss the implication that Bohm and others assert. The particles dont travel faster than the speed of light but actually also are part of a reality which is at the 'implicate level' in which all space is equal and therefore the particles are not separate but both different manifestations of the implicate order. This too is gaining more and more recognition.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 15 2008, 04:55 AM)
I believed Einstein was right, long before I became an Atheist.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
Basically, Einstein believed that there were a set of hidden local variables that determined the outcome of each particle. QT says otherwise - instead, it says that it's impossible for a set of hidden local variables to give the results seen experimentally, and that, instead, non-local variables must come into play - in effect, a cosmic auditing mechanism that decides the fate of each particle.
If I believed that QT is correct - it follows that the easiest way to reconcile the cosmic auditing mechanism would be via an Intelligent Designer.
I am intrigued. How so?
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ May 16 2008, 10:45 PM)
Can you prove that the universe exists separate from perception?
Can you prove that perception is even possible, if there is nothing to perceive, or, can you prove that perception would be physically possible if nothing existed to perceive? And if you cannot, on the balance of evidence available which is the most likely scenario?
Likewise with quantum theory. One way to measure what is possible is to include observed effects. in the real world. and see which model of QT if any allows for them.
A theory that does not allow for observed effects is less likely to be valid.
Lets start way out in left field (and yet the ideas are not disconnected)
Does either/any quantum theory allow for communication of physical events back or forth along a linear time line, thus explaining prophetic warnings or precognition? Does any theory explain how it may be possible for consciousness to move through the universe independent of its organic host? Thus allowing for esp., clairvoyance, remote viewing etc. Similarly, does any theory allow that consciousness may take a wave, or other, form which can be broadcast, or in another way, instantaneously spread through out the universe?
If yes to any of these or other metaphysical questions then that theory is more probably the right one. If no then we need to keep looking til we find one that includes the observed facts (and somehow allows for the observer effect which personallly i dont see as such an insurmountable obstacle as others)We need to identify what it is about the nature and form of observation which creates an effect before we can even be really certain of a causal link
There are probably more mundane observations that could be made, and used to validate different theories, but if qt has no other practical use, it might as well be utilised to investigate what have long been seen as metaphysical/paranormal aspects of life. In a way, at the moment, Qt is more metaphysical than anything else.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ May 16 2008, 10:22 PM)
Can you prove that perception is even possible, if there is nothing to perceive, or, can you prove that perception would be physically possible if nothing existed to perceive?
And if you cannot, on the balance of evidence available which is the most likely scenario?
And if you cannot, on the balance of evidence available which is the most likely scenario?
Well from a point of view short from direct mystical experience we cannot prove either way that there is an objective world or that the mind creates it all. What science has discovered however is that all our perception is translated signals by the brain and that the brain itself is a translation of itself (whether it is an interpretation of the mind/soul or not comes to one's personal belief).
Also Awareness which cannot be detected in any shape or form is that which allows us to percieve our perceptions but is that which cannot be physically percieved (though some scientists believe they will eventually find it in the brain).
I believe the mind creates what it percieves. I cant prove this in the sense that most scientists would consider proof but in the end whether or not you believe you are seeing a physical objective world or one merely created by our mind and senses is an act of faith either way.
Every man's world picture is and always remains a construct of his mind, and cannot be proved to have any other existence. ---Erwin Schrodinger (Quantum physicist)
For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. Alemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a colour and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.
----B.Russel and L. Wittgeinstein
QUOTE
Likewise with quantum theory. One way to measure what is possible is to include observed effects. in the real world. and see which model of QT if any allows for them.
A theory that does not allow for observed effects is less likely to be valid.
Lets start way out in left field (and yet the ideas are not disconnected)
Does either/any quantum theory allow for communication of physical events back or forth along a linear time line, thus explaining prophetic warnings or precognition? Does any theory explain how it may be possible for consciousness to move through the universe independent of its organic host? Thus allowing for esp., clairvoyance, remote viewing etc. Similarly, does any theory allow that consciousness may take a wave, or other, form which can be broadcast, or in another way, instantaneously spread through out the universe?
If yes to any of these or other metaphysical questions then that theory is more probably the right one.
A theory that does not allow for observed effects is less likely to be valid.
Lets start way out in left field (and yet the ideas are not disconnected)
Does either/any quantum theory allow for communication of physical events back or forth along a linear time line, thus explaining prophetic warnings or precognition? Does any theory explain how it may be possible for consciousness to move through the universe independent of its organic host? Thus allowing for esp., clairvoyance, remote viewing etc. Similarly, does any theory allow that consciousness may take a wave, or other, form which can be broadcast, or in another way, instantaneously spread through out the universe?
If yes to any of these or other metaphysical questions then that theory is more probably the right one.
Look up David Bohm's theory of the holographic model. It does actually allow for all these things you have mentioned.
QUOTE
If no then we need to keep looking til we find one that includes the observed facts (and somehow allows for the observer effect which personallly i dont see as such an insurmountable obstacle as others)We need to identify what it is about the nature and form of observation which creates an effect before we can even be really certain of a causal link
There are probably more mundane observations that could be made, and used to validate different theories, but if qt has no other practical use, it might as well be utilised to investigate what have long been seen as metaphysical/paranormal aspects of life. In a way, at the moment, Qt is more metaphysical than anything else.
There are probably more mundane observations that could be made, and used to validate different theories, but if qt has no other practical use, it might as well be utilised to investigate what have long been seen as metaphysical/paranormal aspects of life. In a way, at the moment, Qt is more metaphysical than anything else.
If quantum mechanics is more metaphysical than anything else then perhaps that is an indicator of what saints, shamans, sages and mystics have been saying all along. That we live in a very metaphysic universe.
Don Juan from Carlos Castaneda's books asks how we really know if the sky is blue? If from childhood they told us it was blue then maybe that is why we think it is. Interesting thought even if some of the more cold logical types will instantly tear it apart with talk of a spectrum it is something to think about for those with imagination.
QUOTE
Well from a point of view short from direct mystical experience we cannot prove either way that there is an objective world or that the mind creates it all. What science has discovered however is that all our perception is translated signals by the brain and that the brain itself is a translation of itself (whether it is an interpretation of the mind/soul or not comes to one's personal belief).
Also Awareness which cannot be detected in any shape or form is that which allows us to percieve our perceptions but is that which cannot be physically percieved (though some scientists believe they will eventually find it in the brain).
I believe the mind creates what it percieves. I cant prove this in the sense that most scientists would consider proof but in the end whether or not you believe you are seeing a physical objective world or one merely created by our mind and senses is an act of faith either way.
Every man's world picture is and always remains a construct of his mind, and cannot be proved to have any other existence. ---Erwin Schrodinger (Quantum physicist)
For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. Alemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a colour and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.
----B.Russel and L. Wittgeinstein
Look up David Bohm's theory of the holographic model. It does actually allow for all these things you have mentioned.
If quantum mechanics is more metaphysical than anything else then perhaps that is an indicator of what saints, shamans, sages and mystics have been saying all along. That we live in a very metaphysic universe.
Also Awareness which cannot be detected in any shape or form is that which allows us to percieve our perceptions but is that which cannot be physically percieved (though some scientists believe they will eventually find it in the brain).
I believe the mind creates what it percieves. I cant prove this in the sense that most scientists would consider proof but in the end whether or not you believe you are seeing a physical objective world or one merely created by our mind and senses is an act of faith either way.
Every man's world picture is and always remains a construct of his mind, and cannot be proved to have any other existence. ---Erwin Schrodinger (Quantum physicist)
For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. Alemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a colour and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.
----B.Russel and L. Wittgeinstein
Look up David Bohm's theory of the holographic model. It does actually allow for all these things you have mentioned.
If quantum mechanics is more metaphysical than anything else then perhaps that is an indicator of what saints, shamans, sages and mystics have been saying all along. That we live in a very metaphysic universe.
I agree that scientist will find all the answers one day. I am not sure about our mind creating the physical world but I do believe we can create reality but limiting or allowing ourself to do things. If we constantly believe we cannot do something then we will not but if we believe we can then the possibilities are endless. To paraphrase Deepak Chopra, I hope someone can correct me if I have the order wrong or skipped a part, but thoughts create desire, desire creates potential, potential creates action, and action creates reality. Thus from a single thought we can create our own reality. Our happiness, our success, our relationships, and even the realization of our dreams.
I definitely agree with you BNW that science will one day catch up to what 'saints, shamans, sages and mystics have been saying all along'. The idea makes me so excited lol
how could one prove or even say he is all seeing without any proof, where did this originate from?
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 16 2008, 07:30 PM)
Don Juan from Carlos Castaneda's books asks how we really know if the sky is blue? If from childhood they told us it was blue then maybe that is why we think it is. Interesting thought even if some of the more cold logical types will instantly tear it apart with talk of a spectrum it is something to think about for those with imagination.
I guess I'm one of those cold logical types, I don't understand what you mean.
Are you talking about perception? So for example I might look at the sky and see it one colour, what I've been taught to recognize as 'blue', but when you look at it you perceive the sky to be a different colour to me, e.g. what I might recognize as red?
If you are, that doesn't change the fact that the light is behaving in a particular way, irrespective of how we perceive it. We'd still be looking at the same light, and we'd both define the light with particular wavelengths as being the same thing.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ May 16 2008, 06:34 AM)
You also miss the implication that Bohm and others assert. The particles dont travel faster than the speed of light but actually also are part of a reality which is at the 'implicate level' in which all space is equal and therefore the particles are not separate but both different manifestations of the implicate order. This too is gaining more and more recognition.
I didn't miss it. I just think it's a desperate attempt to sneak local hidden variables in via the backdoor, via another Universe. They're local...just not in the Universe we can perceive. It's completely unfalsifiable and, therefore, bad science.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 17 2008, 06:52 PM)
I didn't miss it. I just think it's a desperate attempt to sneak local hidden variables in via the backdoor, via another Universe. They're local...just not in the Universe we can perceive. It's completely unfalsifiable and, therefore, bad science.
Maybe the solution lies in changing your signature a little, put God instead of Schroedinger's cat ... probably comes to the same.... and is about as interesting...
To Leo...great thread!
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 17 2008, 04:52 PM)
I didn't miss it. I just think it's a desperate attempt to sneak local hidden variables in via the backdoor, via another Universe. They're local...just not in the Universe we can perceive. It's completely unfalsifiable and, therefore, bad science.
So, Tiggs, you would rather we credit this seeming instantaneous 'bi-location' of information to an Intelligent Designer than pursue a line of sicentific enquiry (albeit this line of enquiry is - as you say - unfalsifiable at present)?
How is that 'good science'? Or should we concede that some Prime Mover was at work and simply give up on trying to discover more?
Also, a small and very pedantic point. It's not another Universe. There is only one 'Universe', the other dimensions hypothesised in various theories are components of that Universe, just not observable/testable with our current knowledge/level of technology.
I don't see how there can be another universe. Space is what was conceived to be expanding giving people the abstraction that there are seperate objecets. How then can there be a quantity outside the universe where there is no space? There can't be a quantity of universes existing because there is no space outside all the "universes" for quantity to exist.
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 18 2008, 12:52 AM)
I didn't miss it. I just think it's a desperate attempt to sneak local hidden variables in via the backdoor, via another Universe. They're local...just not in the Universe we can perceive. It's completely unfalsifiable and, therefore, bad science.
Oh ok fair enough. I myself think is a very logical reasonable explanation by David Bohm (I love him soooooo much!) which shows how the universe is interconnected. And I guess since Bell's theorem has been proven so far in experiments it is for me the most plausible explanation.
Also it isnt another universe but another layer, level or apsect of this universe. Abit of a Marco polo discovery physics style.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.