It is interesting how theist try to use scientific experiments and scientific findings as a crutch. Most Christians latch on the incredible findings in quantum mechanics as evidence that a God exits.
You were treading on thin ice and lucky that the caller focussed on the wrong side of the problem. The real question would be about the nature of the observer. Quantum mechanics describes the observed universe. It however does *not* apply to the observer. It just states that an observer is necessary for the collapse of the probability wave, and hence is necessary for the event coming into existence.
Now this is basically the Copenhagen's interpretation of QM, but it leads to a more fundamental problem. We both agree that the observer undoubtfully is part of the universe, actually the complementary part to the observed universe, and time line developments only happen in interaction and relation between these two parts of the universe, while the universe in toto is timeless, unchangable and eternal (as e.g. pointed out by Andrei Linde), because there is no instance that could observe the complete universe from somewhere outside.
Now 'timeless' and 'eternal' already sounds quite familiar, does it ? - but the point is - if you want to avoid it you find yourself deep within dualistic paradigms where also scepticists have to believe, because the only evidence we have falls back to nasty solipsism.
Putting it all together, here is the bullet you have to bite: Quantum mechanics applies to the object (= the observed universe) only, not to the subject (= the observer). There is no prove an object exists.outside yourself, hence you can assign every divine attribute you want to the subject, OR you have to believe without prove that an object exists outside yourself.
You just played semantics and applied linguistic acrobatics to explain something you have insufficient knowledge of. I don't think you deserve a reply.
Thanks for you reply, anyway *ggg*. I wanted to point out that the only prove you have is solipsism. Everything else is consideration.
So, when you're asked, where is the moon you might point up into the night sky and say - look, over there.
Wrong. The only place where the moon exists is inside your head. This is where the probability wave collapses. You are the observer. You have a very special, very unique view to the universe. that cannot be shared. Did you ever experience the universe 'through the eyes' of another person? No (assuming you're not a lunatic). Do you think this is possible? Not really. So why not? If QM would apply to you as observer, there would be no reason for this limitation. If photons can be superpositioned (as in the double slit experiment), then your mind as well.
But it can't, of course. There is a new approach in QM interpretation (QBism) published in Scientific American's recent June issue that tries to solve the dilemma by stating that QM does not describe reality but the expectation of the observer into reality (H.C. von Baeyer). It's like turning the Copenhagen interpretation upside down.
So, as you can see, even we physicists are dealing with 'reality' and 'existence' in a very strange manner. Asking 'Does god exist?' is like asking 'Does a second exist?' It's pointless.
The "particle" is the fundamental entity of Classical Mechanics theory, it is a well localized, point-like, object that obeys the Classical Mechanics laws. The "classical field" is the fundamental entity of the Classical Field theory, it is not a well localized object (this means that its positions is not well-defined, it permeates all space) which dynamics obeys the Classical Fields laws and the wave is simply a pertubation of this field propagating through space or a material body (e.g. ripples in a lake). Both of these are classical concepts and therefore insufficient to fully explain the behavior of, for example, an electron since it belongs to the quantum world.
The electron does not know anything. As a fundamental entity of Quantum theory, a “quantum object” if you will, the electron is in what we call a quantum superposition of possible states, before the measurement is made. Sometimes this resembles the behavior of a classical wave. When the measurement is performed it inevitable destroy the original superposition of states, forcing the electron to assume one of them that is compactible with the resulting measure. And after this, sometimes, its behavior resembles of a classical particle.
Fundamental objects do not have consciousness. :)
P.s. Daniel Wilson, you are completely right about cyana h posts, cya.
You were treading on thin ice and lucky that the caller focussed on the wrong side of the problem. The real question would be about the nature of the observer. Quantum mechanics describes the observed universe. It however does *not* apply to the observer. It just states that an observer is necessary for the collapse of the probability wave, and hence is necessary for the event coming into existence.
ReplyDeleteNow this is basically the Copenhagen's interpretation of QM, but it leads to a more fundamental problem. We both agree that the observer undoubtfully is part of the universe, actually the complementary part to the observed universe, and time line developments only happen in interaction and relation between these two parts of the universe, while the universe in toto is timeless, unchangable and eternal (as e.g. pointed out by Andrei Linde), because there is no instance that could observe the complete universe from somewhere outside.
Now 'timeless' and 'eternal' already sounds quite familiar, does it ? - but the point is - if you want to avoid it you find yourself deep within dualistic paradigms where also scepticists have to believe, because the only evidence we have falls back to nasty solipsism.
Putting it all together, here is the bullet you have to bite: Quantum mechanics applies to the object (= the observed universe) only, not to the subject (= the observer). There is no prove an object exists.outside yourself, hence you can assign every divine attribute you want to the subject, OR you have to believe without prove that an object exists outside yourself.
greetings from the advocatus diaboli ;)
You just played semantics and applied linguistic acrobatics to explain something you have insufficient knowledge of. I don't think you deserve a reply.
DeleteThanks for you reply, anyway *ggg*. I wanted to point out that the only prove you have is solipsism. Everything else is consideration.
ReplyDeleteSo, when you're asked, where is the moon you might point up into the night sky and say - look, over there.
Wrong. The only place where the moon exists is inside your head. This is where the probability wave collapses. You are the observer. You have a very special, very unique view to the universe. that cannot be shared. Did you ever experience the universe 'through the eyes' of another person?
No (assuming you're not a lunatic).
Do you think this is possible?
Not really.
So why not? If QM would apply to you as observer, there would be no reason for this limitation. If photons can be superpositioned (as in the double slit experiment), then your mind as well.
But it can't, of course. There is a new approach in QM interpretation (QBism) published in Scientific American's recent June issue that tries to solve the dilemma by stating that QM does not describe reality but the expectation of the observer into reality (H.C. von Baeyer). It's like turning the Copenhagen interpretation upside down.
So, as you can see, even we physicists are dealing with 'reality' and 'existence' in a very strange manner. Asking 'Does god exist?' is like asking 'Does a second exist?' It's pointless.
greetings
cyana
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "particle" is the fundamental entity of Classical Mechanics theory, it is a well localized, point-like, object that obeys the Classical Mechanics laws. The "classical field" is the fundamental entity of the Classical Field theory, it is not a well localized object (this means that its positions is not well-defined, it permeates all space) which dynamics obeys the Classical Fields laws and the wave is simply a pertubation of this field propagating through space or a material body (e.g. ripples in a lake). Both of these are classical concepts and therefore insufficient to fully explain the behavior of, for example, an electron since it belongs to the quantum world.
ReplyDeleteThe electron does not know anything. As a fundamental entity of Quantum theory, a “quantum object” if you will, the electron is in what we call a quantum superposition of possible states, before the measurement is made. Sometimes this resembles the behavior of a classical wave. When the measurement is performed it inevitable destroy the original superposition of states, forcing the electron to assume one of them that is compactible with the resulting measure. And after this, sometimes, its behavior resembles of a classical particle.
Fundamental objects do not have consciousness. :)
P.s. Daniel Wilson, you are completely right about cyana h posts, cya.