Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
nopeda

Trying to think realistically

85 posts in this topic

Not surely but it could have. If the universe is expanding and contracting beings who survive through the cycles and influence development during them could be considered gods imo. In order for them/God whatever to have significant impact he/they would have to be technologically advanced imo and that has to be developed, not all of a sudden just awakened to.

Certainly evolution must have a hand. But it's hard to visualize an eternity of evolution, which has almost surely occurred. Stretching into the infinit past, by sheer probability it would seem likely that a godlike/agragate conciousness being should exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God might not exist. That covers that. God might exist. That opens infinite possibilities. For years I've been trying to think realistically about how God could exist, and here is a list of basic ideas in an attempt to do so:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all

who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what

they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do

would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he

could not provide proof of his existence because doing

so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to

make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning

those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a

person has that God does not exist is what determines how

strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find

it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility

that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find

it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly

try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is

a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have

originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely

beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate

and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic

realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing

the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,

the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc

encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere

with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically

advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became

gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any

particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out

of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"

in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence

over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary

method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are

most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

Right there you say he must almost certainly have to be an alien because....we will never fully understand that God just is.I don't think God is an alien as much as i don't think nature is alien and nature is a reflection of God's identity,right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We meaning neither of us know that or could know it. We would be on something below the cellular level. Way below it, not that anyone tries to communicate with their cells anyway.

I do. There are several good meditations for this. Also, you do not communicate with a deaf mute with verbal words. You don't communicate with your aunt Sally on your phone with body language, and you don't communicate with your dog by writing him/her a letter.

A gods or higher spirits communication to us would be like trying to download a video from my iPhone to an old 486 computer. The difference in complexity and context of existence would be extreme. Even the hardware can be horribly inefficient at even containing the the message. and entire life may simply be a sentence.

It's funny because I just told this joke to my students recently, and I have been telling this same joke since I was 6 years old. ( my mother even askes me to tell it again occasionally)

Short version

This man asks god.

"God how much is an inch to you"

God says

"a million miles"

The man asks

" how much is a second to you"

God says

" a million years"

He asks

"how much Is a penny to you"

God says

"a million dollars"

Extremely excited, the man asks

" God, can I have a penny?!?!?"

God says

"just a second"

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The fish are thirsty in the water and when I hear this it makes me laugh' Kabir

Jeff Liebermann on TED

This univertse is amazing, but the fascinating thing is not understanding the universe but understanding that what powers the universe happens to be within us right now and we can experience it and when you do you are filled with Peace. P. Rawat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stretching into the infinit past, by sheer probability it would seem likely that a godlike/agragate conciousness being should exist.

I'm not quite following the reasoning here. Are you just saying that in any infinite amount of time we should expect everything conceivable (and inconceivable) to have actually existed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite following the reasoning here. Are you just saying that in any infinite amount of time we should expect everything conceivable (and inconceivable) to have actually existed?

No not anything conceivable only things that have a chance to exist. For example, a giant solid gold planet can physically exist in this universe but there is no probable process for it to arise. I suppose a super developed alian race could search the galaxy for all it's hold and create one.. But for what purpose?

This is an example of something that can exist but will never exist.

Other things however like intelligence, sentience, can and do exist. The benefit of sentience is that it's remarkably good at reproducing itself therefore selection will favor it. Intelligent sentience should at some point pervade the universe. Looking backwards, it's likely that it already has.

We can us AI as an example. If we ever manage to create AI worlds and universes, we then proove that it can be done. If we make multiples of them ( and we would) then we have a statistic. Let's say that 1% of all intelligent races create 100 ai universes.

Do you see what happens now? 99% of all sentient life and their environments should be a creation of another. There is no reason to assume our universe is the top of the food chain. In all likely hood we are within the 99%. All we have to do is accomplish created AI worlds ( and we are very close), then the odds of us being created jump way up. If you look at quantum mechanics some of the fundamental laws of nature behave very digital like.

In an infinit of existence anything that has a probability of happening will and already did. This would mean highly evolved sentience as well. Its really the only answer to the anthropic principal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I don't think anything will ever fill it. I think you have actually achieved something quite remarkable. The Empty Space. That is about as real as it can get from my perspective. :)

Starting from I do not know-- is as good as place as any regardless of the path one treks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not anything conceivable only things that have a chance to exist.

Good point, I agree that is more precise and correct. However we don't know which things that are conceivable don't have a chance to exist, and in the context of this discussion, we actually need to know that something has an exactly 0% chance to exist, otherwise given an eternity it will.

For example, a giant solid gold planet can physically exist in this universe but there is no probable process for it to arise. I suppose a super developed alian race could search the galaxy for all it's hold and create one.. But for what purpose?

This is an example of something that can exist but will never exist.

I'm not sure that I agree on this. The process by which a gold planet arises needs to not just be at the level of 'not probable', it has to be impossible, correct? Otherwise I'm not sure why, "In an infinity of existence anything that has a probability of happening will and already did.", wouldn't apply. (And thinking about it further, I don't know that I necessarily am sure that anything that can happen will happen given an infinity, it sounds logical, but infinity is tricky and I'm not a math/philosophy pro. An infinite set of numbers does not have to contain all possible numbers; it may just come down to how we're definining 'probability' in this sense.)

Other things however like intelligence, sentience, can and do exist. The benefit of sentience is that it's remarkably good at reproducing itself therefore selection will favor it. Intelligent sentience should at some point pervade the universe. Looking backwards, it's likely that it already has.

We can us AI as an example. If we ever manage to create AI worlds and universes, we then proove that it can be done. If we make multiples of them ( and we would) then we have a statistic. Let's say that 1% of all intelligent races create 100 ai universes.

Do you see what happens now? 99% of all sentient life and their environments should be a creation of another. There is no reason to assume our universe is the top of the food chain. In all likely hood we are within the 99%. All we have to do is accomplish created AI worlds ( and we are very close), then the odds of us being created jump way up. If you look at quantum mechanics some of the fundamental laws of nature behave very digital like.

Hmm, I guess 'AI' means something a little different to me, I'm not sure that AI as it's usually defined is typically referred to as 'sentient', if I'm following you correctly. Are you saying that the term 'AI' as you are using it covers humans also? If so, I don't think 'we are very close' to creating AI worlds populated with creatures that have sentience in the same way we do, but I may just be unclear on what you mean. Although what it would take to make a 'sentient' AI and how we'd know is a very interesting question, no doubt.

In an infinit of existence anything that has a probability of happening will and already did. This would mean highly evolved sentience as well. Its really the only answer to the anthropic principal.

But I think the question then gets moved to, 'what things are actually possible and how do we know they are?', under this framework, and we are kinda presuming that 'highly evolved sentience', to the god/aggregate consciousness level, is possible. Spider webs exist, and I can envision a scenario that due to selective pressures over an infinity of existence that spider webs may evolve to be unbreakable, it might be possible. But how do I know? It doesn't seem that just because intelligence (spider webs) exists doesn't really give us all the information we need to then say that god (unbreakable webs) will likely exist given an infinity. As far as the anthropic principle it's always seemed to me somewhat obvious and banal, although there is a lot of interesting discussion surrounding it. Thought provoking stuff regardless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if anyone has an opinion on this, i think its a nice idea that maybe god is simply a personification of the idea that everything constists of the same matter and the 'miracle' that is the universe is run by a series of rules and forces that regulate it allowing life to develop as well as the existence of some pretty beautiful and amazing things. although i don't agree with christains they have a good opinion, perhaps they just take it too literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can a god be alien in a universe that IT created? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God might not exist. That covers that. God might exist. That opens infinite possibilities. For years I've been trying to think realistically about how God could exist, and here is a list of basic ideas in an attempt to do so:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all

who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what

they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do

would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he

could not provide proof of his existence because doing

so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to

make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning

those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a

person has that God does not exist is what determines how

strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find

it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility

that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find

it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly

try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is

a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have

originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely

beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate

and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic

realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing

the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,

the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc

encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere

with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically

advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became

gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any

particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out

of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"

in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence

over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary

method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are

most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

6. is wrong. Lacking belief is not the same as believing in negation. Theists make their claim, and an atheist is unswayed by those arguments. If you don't believe in the tooth fairy (to use your example), I wouldn't say you are believer in the anti-tooth fairy religion. A believer incorporates the lessons, values, morals, etc of a belief. Not being convinced by someone's argument doesn't change my morals or ethics in the least. At any rate, if we call non-beliefs beliefs in the negation, then we are believer of an infinite amount of beliefs (i.e. it's meaningless).

9. In your quest to define a certain view of a god (most similar to Yahweh by your description), I don't understand why writing (6) or (9) is relevant. Ridicule is often used to illustrate a point. Believing in one thing without evidence wholeheartedly is the same as believing anything else without evidence. A belief in any of the ridiculous things you mentioned is as valid as Yahweh, Ra, or any other human created notion of a god. There's an infinite amount of possibilities for what a god or gods be. Just look at Karmanaut or imagine this universe is a program running in a computer simulation. There can be many gods, no gods, one god, trillions of gods, etc. Any possibility outside or our realm is as possible as anything else. The Giant Spaghetti Moster is as likely as Yahweh since there is no concrete evidence for either. Who knows, the Spaghetti monster could have presented to us by divine inspiration.

I like the overall premise though. Keep the anti-atheist agenda out of it.

1. Of course Yahweh would be an alien - he wasn't born on Earth.

14. You are alluding to Yahweh. He is male and made man in his image (we're supposed to look like him). In the realm of the un-provable (i.e. fantasy) that's not a bad thing. Again imagine this universe exists as a simulation in a supercomputer somewhere. People accessing the program could look like us and skewed evolution in the simulation to create beings that look like them. Maybe even added some special code to us once we look like them to make us extra special.

17. Of course his powers would come to him naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can a god be alien in a universe that IT created? I don't get it.

If he created Earth, he wasn't born in it (i.e. he's an alien - he comes from another world or universe or realm of existence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, I agree that is more precise and correct. However we don't know which things that are conceivable don't have a chance to exist, and in the context of this discussion, we actually need to know that something has an exactly 0% chance to exist, otherwise given an eternity it will.

I'm not sure that I agree on this. The process by which a gold planet arises needs to not just be at the level of 'not probable', it has to be impossible, correct? Otherwise I'm not sure why, "In an infinity of existence anything that has a probability of happening will and already did.", wouldn't apply. (And thinking about it further, I don't know that I necessarily am sure that anything that can happen will happen given an infinity, it sounds logical, but infinity is tricky and I'm not a math/philosophy pro. An infinite set of numbers does not have to contain all possible numbers; it may just come down to how we're definining 'probability' in this sense.)

Hmm, I guess 'AI' means something a little different to me, I'm not sure that AI as it's usually defined is typically referred to as 'sentient', if I'm following you correctly. Are you saying that the term 'AI' as you are using it covers humans also? If so, I don't think 'we are very close' to creating AI worlds populated with creatures that have sentience in the same way we do, but I may just be unclear on what you mean. Although what it would take to make a 'sentient' AI and how we'd know is a very interesting question, no doubt.

But I think the question then gets moved to, 'what things are actually possible and how do we know they are?', under this framework, and we are kinda presuming that 'highly evolved sentience', to the god/aggregate consciousness level, is possible. Spider webs exist, and I can envision a scenario that due to selective pressures over an infinity of existence that spider webs may evolve to be unbreakable, it might be possible. But how do I know? It doesn't seem that just because intelligence (spider webs) exists doesn't really give us all the information we need to then say that god (unbreakable webs) will likely exist given an infinity. As far as the anthropic principle it's always seemed to me somewhat obvious and banal, although there is a lot of interesting discussion surrounding it. Thought provoking stuff regardless!

Yeah. I don't know much about set theory either. But there can only be a certain amount of combinations for any set. But those sets can then form even larger sets. Evenchually it must be able spell out the library of congress. Some times I sit and stare at mandlbrot sets in awe of the potential... I even have an app. It's called "Julia danceing"

The other problem that we are dealing with here is the numbers can can only aproximate nature. I feel like we may be missing something trying to understand the universe only through math. It's obviously effective, but what if the universe ultimately simply dosnt follow mathematical principals. Quantum mechanics shows us that fundamental reality Is far from logical and numbers are the ultimate expression of logic.

You might be interested in the documentary "transcendence man"

I understand what you mean by the spider web. The spider web is from the spider. The spider should at some point evolve to not need webs.

This brings up the usefulness of intelligent sentience. Human beings are only 200,000 years old and we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves with the literal press of a button, we are causing the earths fifth mass extinction, we are out if sync with the rythems of nature and god knows what else. It may turn out that sentience is actually an evolutionary dead end for a species

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem that we are dealing with here is the numbers can can only aproximate nature. I feel like we may be missing something trying to understand the universe only through math. It's obviously effective, but what if the universe ultimately simply dosnt follow mathematical principals. Quantum mechanics shows us that fundamental reality Is far from logical and numbers are the ultimate expression of logic.

I agree in that it might require us to move away from pure equations to find greater answers, but in that other mathematical methods might need to be applied. The underlying workings might be so complex that we might never come up with a master formula for how it works. However, we may be able to come up with an analytical solution to the problem. There are many applications that use analytical systems, rather than formulas, to simulate physical events (specially dealing with fluids).

Quantum mechanics has been so misunderstood. Schrodinger's analogy was a huge disservice. The original notion was simply that it is impossible to know a particle's position and velocity simultaneously. Basically because anything we threw at particles to find out their position or velocity would alter it. It's not even true in all cases. Other aspects of particles came to light and were incorporated into the field, though nothing 'magical' (electron positions not being discrete, particles escaping from nuclei, etc). At any rate, the field deals with probabilities rather than neat equations because of this. Basically anything probabilistic rather than discrete which is about everything at the subatomic level..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in that it might require us to move away from pure equations to find greater answers, but in that other mathematical methods might need to be applied. The underlying workings might be so complex that we might never come up with a master formula for how it works. However, we may be able to come up with an analytical solution to the problem. There are many applications that use analytical systems, rather than formulas, to simulate physical events (specially dealing with fluids).

Quantum mechanics has been so misunderstood. Schrodinger's analogy was a huge disservice. The original notion was simply that it is impossible to know a particle's position and velocity simultaneously. Basically because anything we threw at particles to find out their position or velocity would alter it. It's not even true in all cases. Other aspects of particles came to light and were incorporated into the field, though nothing 'magical' (electron positions not being discrete, particles escaping from nuclei, etc). At any rate, the field deals with probabilities rather than neat equations because of this. Basically anything probabilistic rather than discrete which is about everything at the subatomic level..

Quantum 'fuzziness' is not simply a detection problem from particles altering each other. Quantum tunneling proves this. Uncertainty does not make it look 'fuzzy' it ACTUALLY is fuzzy. The quantum eraser also shows is that it is not a detection particle that interfears causing the collapse of a wave function. It's simply that the information can be known. The collapse of the wave function can be initiated anytime or anywhere... Even the future. It's not a physical process it's an information process not bound by space nor time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum 'fuzziness' is not simply a detection problem from particles altering each other. Quantum tunneling proves this. Uncertainty does not make it look 'fuzzy' it ACTUALLY is fuzzy. The quantum eraser also shows is that it is not a detection particle that interfears causing the collapse of a wave function. It's simply that the information can be known. The collapse of the wave function can be initiated anytime or anywhere... Even the future. It's not a physical process it's an information process not bound by space nor time.

I don't want to get into a big QM discussion here, but after studying it, I don't see anything magical in it, as implied by many new-age hippies (these hippies include some college professors but mostly pseudo-scientists).

I do agree that the search for deeper formulas might hit a wall and we might need a different mathematical/analytical approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum 'fuzziness' is not simply a detection problem from particles altering each other. Quantum tunneling proves this. Uncertainty does not make it look 'fuzzy' it ACTUALLY is fuzzy. The quantum eraser also shows is that it is not a detection particle that interfears causing the collapse of a wave function. It's simply that the information can be known. The collapse of the wave function can be initiated anytime or anywhere... Even the future. It's not a physical process it's an information process not bound by space nor time.

And it has already been pointed out to you before the "information" is the physical path of the photon. The path gets modified, it affects the photons. It's therefore physical. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it has already been pointed out to you before the "information" is the physical path of the photon. The path gets modified, it affects the photons. It's therefore physical.

There is no path of the photon. It's a probability function until detection. It literally is in both places and none. That's what a wave function is. As has been explained to you, there is no photon particle until an action has been taken to detect it. If this were not true there would be no such thing as quantum tunneling and real effects like the josephson junction would not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into a big QM discussion here, but after studying it, I don't see anything magical in it, as implied by many new-age hippies (these hippies include some college professors but mostly pseudo-scientists).

I do agree that the search for deeper formulas might hit a wall and we might need a different mathematical/analytical approach.

Nothing 'magical 'hippie' like was implied. I guess because Somone is a hippie, they are unable to come to solid conclusions?

Quantum tunneling and 'fuzziness' of QM indeed acts like magic or at least is very counter intuitive. Retrocausality, instantaneous reaction, teleportation. That's all my point was. These things obviously play an important role in fundamental reality. You don't have to burn incense and prey to the universal quantum mind while balancing on your head in the lotus position, but to dismiss the potentiality of our discoveries because it sounds 'hippie' like and disagrees with physical fundamentalism and materialist philosophy is simply being closed minded and engaging in dogma. The truth of the matter is that we do not and Mabey cannot understand fundamental reality and since everything is built from fundamental reality, we don't really understand precived reality. It's the difference between a "Jackass" and a "foolish jackass" ( Dan Millman ----"The way of the peaceful Warrior")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are alternatives to the traditional Christian perspective, i.e. pantheism & transcendentalism. Native American spirituality & the West African tradition, Ifa, also have something to offer. Sometimes information from outside sources helps to clarify the issue, as it brings us new information and lets us think outside the box instead of trying to organize what's already in the box so that it makes some sort of sense to us. There's a lot of wisdom in the world with no access barriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no path of the photon. It's a probability function until detection. It literally is in both places and none. That's what a wave function is. As has been explained to you, there is no photon particle until an action has been taken to detect it. If this were not true there would be no such thing as quantum tunneling and real effects like the josephson junction would not work.

Not this crap again. The experiment describes the path of the photon, if you ever bothered to read it.

And it has been pointed out to you the research at CERN is finding particle behavior that occured in the early universe. Clearly you're more interested in making up BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking of the possibility of a god, I often get led to an indifferent, intelligent Deistic one. I prefer to use the term 'creator' or 'creative force'. I don't think I'll ever buy into religion; I did once but it wasn't for me but I often think about and contemplate a deistic creator. The universe is very complex for sure, (The Cosmological argument) but of course, complexity does not mean design but it may just be that it does, none of us can say for sure.

I think that if there is a god then I often compare them to someone throwing seeds into a field and then leaving them to the rain and the weather to grow and sprout (evolve) but otherwise being indifferent to it an not caring about such things as who I sleep with and what gender they are, what I eat and on what days; whether I have a foreskin or not and what I think about etc. I just don't see how such trivial nonsense that takes place on a little rock in the cosmos could bother some really intelligent and powerful being that exists outside of time and space but who can easily manipulate it should it please.

I've noticed one thing about all major religions: They place us and our planet at the center of the universe (metaphorically speaking; of course it was once believed to be so by the catholic church) and are written as if the entire fate and existence of this universe is for us alone but we all know that we're just a speck and compared to the universe - nothing. Cling to your words of wisdom if it makes you feel good and less small...but I feel big knowing that I am part of the universe, literally, and don't need an elusive and widely interpreted book to tell me that.

I'm still open to the idea of a god...it's damned interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not this crap again. The experiment describes the path of the photon, if you ever bothered to read it.

And it has been pointed out to you the research at CERN is finding particle behavior that occured in the early universe. Clearly you're more interested in making up BS.

.....sigh......

The experiment describes what the path of the particle AFTER It was detected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....sigh......

The experiment describes what the path of the particle AFTER It was detected.

This doesn't support what you just said about the particles not existing until detected. The experiment makes clear the particles are emitted prior to detection.

You're still assuming the wave behavior of a particle means the particle doesn't exist even though the effects are observed.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't support what you just said about the particles not existing until detected. The experiment makes clear the particles are emitted prior to detection.

You're still assuming the wave behavior of a particle means the particle doesn't exist even though the effects are observed.

Once they enter a state of superposition they no longer are particles. There is no literal particle traveling through space. A wave function expands throughout the entire universe with probabilities of the particle manifesting anywhere. The bulk of the probability where the emitter is directing the beam.

This is why if you direct the beam at a barrier some of the particles will manifest on the other side of it. Note. The particles DID NOT GO THROUGH the barrier. A significant portion of the wave function extended through the barrier so the particle has a significant probability of manifesting there. The barrier IS NOT DISTURBED IN ANY WAY. The particle, while in superposition, is not in spacetime as we define it. Things that do not exist in spacetime cannot be considered as part of this particular universe. That's quantum tunneling for you. If the particle were traveling THROUGH space time quantum tunneling would not happen. There would be no way for a particle to simply apear on the other side of a barrier without ever haveing traveled through the barrier itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.