Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
Zombrex I would have a discussion with you if it was on even ground.
But your starting the good old cunning and baffling technique I often seen you engage with other forum members. ....
Telling me im not answering your question and saying you explained such and such, and then telling me that I ignored what you said....
You are tactical and if you were s barrister I would definitely recommend you ;-)
You see im aware of your techniques of debating and turning it all back on the other side, and you also have an ability to sound much more intelligent and interesting than a layman like myself....
So why not outsmart him by answering the questions ? If you believe your arguments have merit will they not withstand the scrutiny ?0 -
Maybe there were wires crossed somewhere but I don't see any harm in someone living a simple religious or spiritual lifestyle...ok there are instances of hazardous belief's etc
Not everyone who are religious or spiritual are intense or obsessed about it all, just like atheists and agnostics not giving a toss....
Spirituality, Atheism and Religion might be more of a cognitive thing rather than a choice....
Im not an Atheist so cognitively I can't identify with the concept.
I could identify with an Atheist who likes fishing, surfing, gardening, coffee reading,I can't identify with one who sees the harm in the old lady down the road who lives a simple life and goes to mass every day.
Its her choice and no matter what you say about her religious lifestyle, more than likely she will get insulted rather than enlightened.
She's not handing her children's inheritance over to the church or all her pension into the collection box every day.
But sure maybe im tying myself in knots here but ill accept for today I can't follow on in this discussion.
Maybe you see the harm in it becomes you're aware of all the pitfalls and hazards of Religion I can see that too.
If my mum was being taken for a ride by the church or any religious organisation id be up in arms and angry. ..
Ok im probably looking at this from on alacart religious point of view...0 -
Maybe there were wires crossed somewhere but I don't see any harm in someone living a simple religious or spiritual lifestyle...ok there are instances of hazardous belief's etc
Not everyone who are religious or spiritual are intense or obsessed about it all, just like atheists and agnostics not giving a toss....
Spirituality, Atheism and Religion might be more of a cognitive thing rather than a choice....
Im not an Atheist so cognitively I can't identify with the concept.
I could identify with an Atheist who likes fishing, surfing, gardening, coffee reading,I can't identify with one who sees the harm in the old lady down the road who lives a simple life and goes to mass every day.
Its her choice and no matter what you say about her religious lifestyle, more than likely she will get insulted rather than enlightened.
She's not handing her children's inheritance over to the church or all her pension into the collection box every day.
But sure maybe im tying myself in knots here but ill accept for today I can't follow on in this discussion.
Maybe you see the harm in it becomes you're aware of all the pitfalls and hazards of Religion I can see that too.
If my mum was being taken for a ride by the church or any religious organisation id be up in arms and angry. ..
Ok im probably looking at this from on alacart religious point of view...
I don't think anyone has a problem with this , and in the same way I presume you have no problem with an atheist living their lives in exactly the same way.
The problem arises when any group tries to enshrine their beliefs in law. And that is what most of the kerfuffle is about.
How do you feel about that ?0 -
She's not handing her children's inheritance over to the church or all her pension into the collection box every day.
You are setting up a straw man.
You say you cannot see the harm in a person living a spiritual/religious life where that doesn't result in any harm to themselves.
Well obviously. The point is that it probably will result in harm to themselves because that is how humans works. The whole attraction of religious faith is a sense of security in the system you adopt and a sense that it will make sense to he problems you face in the world. This leads to you putting your trust in an untested system rather than alternatives.
Your argument is basically you don't see the harm in people paying lip service to religious faith because you know that when push comes to shove they will abandon that faith and return to trust in established systems.
But they often don't precisely because of the appeal of religious faith. The more someone genuinely believes the more likely they are to put faith in these systems rather than ones that have been shown to work.
Relying on the reality that most people aren't actually that religious as a reason not to attack religious faith is paradoxical.0 -
I don't agree with any religious or spiritual group who tries to enshrine their beliefs in any law or societies etc0
-
Advertisement
-
I don't agree with any religious or spiritual group who tries to enshrine their beliefs in any law or societies etc
How about the catholic lobby though for example on our topic du jour - abortion legislation ?
While there are those who opt for a pro-choice view, those who apt for a pro-life view, its quite possible that the issue is swung towards the pro-life side by the 3rd grouping who have no view of their own, but are pro-life because their religion tells them they are.
Is that not a religious grouping, in this case catholics, trying to enshrine their beliefs in law?
(Just picking an example to illustrate, and not wanting to get into the abortion debate itsef.)0 -
I know it's paradoxical sure im more than likely a walking paradox and hypocritical at times...
I probably sit on the fence too much, happy out in my comfort zone...
Im aware of the hazards of belief and putting one's faith in something that can't be quantified.
And the results can be dangerous. ..
Maybe some day ill settle for one or the other, sure im learning a lot from these discussions.0 -
How about the catholic lobby though for example on our topic du jour - abortion legislation ?
While there are those who opt for a pro-choice view, those who apt for a pro-life view, its quite possible that the issue is swung towards the pro-life side by the 3rd grouping who have no view of their own, but are pro-life because their religion tells them they are.
Is that not a religious grouping, in this case catholics, trying to enshrine their beliefs in law?
(Just picking an example to illustrate, and not wanting to get into the abortion debate itsef.)
I think its up to the Irish people in general, we live in a democracy and there's a lot at stake.
If the 3rd party get their way it's then unfortunate for the pro choice people and a sign of the times.
Maybe if they decide to vote every 4 years it will move towards the pro choice side eventually.
Whatever way it goes there's going to be people put out.
Democracy rules. ..0 -
I think its up to the Irish people in general, we live in a democracy and there's a lot at stake.
If the 3rd party get their way it's then unfortunate for the pro choice people and a sign of the times.
Maybe if they decide to vote every 4 years it will move towards the pro choice side eventually.
Whatever way it goes there's going to be people put out.
Democracy rules. ..
So you would disagree with those promoting whatever view for the drafting of legislation if it comes from religious doctrine ?0 -
I don't agree with any religious or spiritual group who tries to enshrine their beliefs in any law or societies etc
So basically you're against every religious group ever created.
One of the main reasons for religions in the first place is that they are a means to gaining power, up until recently massive power. They all try to force their views onto everybody else.0 -
Advertisement
-
So you would disagree with those promoting whatever view for the drafting of legislation if it comes from religious doctrine ?
Of course, sure we have a mixed society.
There's probably a lot of red tape involved too, so that's a headache if it's suggested to change legislation and drafts etc0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Why not? You are, in fact, asking us to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and for which there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting its non existence..
I'm not asking you to accept anything. I did put forward the reasons as to why I have a belief. You are free to accept or reject the reasons for that belief as you wish.Brian Shanahan wrote: »Actually if you gave proof I would accept the existence of god*. For example while in college I was pretty much a climate change denier, but upon reading the scientific literature and evidence (as distilled for me by Sci. Am.) I changed my views and accepted that climate change was indeed happening, and is likely to be catastrophic.
* Belief is taking a thing to be true sans evidence. If you have proof, there is no belief position.
The evidence is provided by those whose claims are contained in the Bible.
Whether that evidence is sufficient to persuade you is immaterial to me quite frankly.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Why not? You are, in fact, asking us to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and for which there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting its non existence. Actually if you gave proof I would accept the existence of god*.
* Belief is taking a thing to be true sans evidence. If you have proof, there is no belief position.
Belief can also be based on evidence, concluding something to be true from the current evidence, which later turns out to be false. That is the beauty of science which continues to unfold and teach us new fascinating aspects of our reality and overturn previous ideas. For many hundreds of years the accepted belief was that the sun rotated around the earth, based on observed evidence. It turned out to be false. The Milky Way was believed to be the entire universe, that was false, and on and on..
At its core, leaving aside the theist vs atheist argument regarding personal Gods, the belief in a benevolent creator is a belief based on evidence. The evidence is the fact that there is a universe and it is perfectly tuned for life, or as the strong anthropic principle implies "the universe knew we were coming" (Freeman Dyson). Although this idea gets ridiculed by non-scientists, scientists are generally in agreement that unless an infinite number of universes exist (the multiverse), then you might have to have a fine tuner. As the cosmologist Bernard Carr said "If you don't want God, you better have a multiverse". The attached Discover Magazine article explores the whole concept of the "fine tuned" universe versus the multiverse, with some profound and honest inputs from leading scientists.
While we are on the subject of belief and evidence, there is zero observed evidence for a multiverse and zero observed evidence for string theory which might confirm a multiverse. There is absolutely nothing else that we know of that can even attempt to explain the universe we observe, so at present it is multiverse or a fine-tuner, take your pick.
The problem that scientists face with the God issue is that the scientific community is predominantly an atheist community, and mention of God gets ridiculed. In addition, scientists who veer into metaphysics get labeled as "new age" cranks. The best example of this is the subject of consciousness, where the current neuroscience belief that consciousness is an emergent "epiphenomenon" of the brain is held by most scientists and increasing by non-scientists. This view is not however shared by some leading theoretical physicists; Andrei Linde believes that consciousness is a fundamental component of the universe, and that space, time and consciousness emerged simultaneously.
"Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead" or put another way the universe does not exist without consciousness, which is as fundamental as everything else we observe and call space-time. This is not Deepak talking, this guy is a Professor of Physics at Stanford.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator#.UL-j24Vr4ck0 -
"Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead"
How very post post-modern.
This is an idea explored by Neil Gaiman in several of his works most notably 1602.
It's not proof of anything though, just a convincing argument for a 'watcher'. Realistically this is never going to be proven or disproved by science, its the realm of philosophy or metaphysics, possibly even religion
. Which leaves up in the same place, non believers wont accept those arguments and believers won't need them. 0 -
"Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead" or put another way the universe does not exist without consciousness
Er no. You are equating dead with non-existence. That wasn't what Linde was talking about (dead things after all still exist)
Linde was talking about the evolution of the universe and the paradox that if you apply the calculations for a wave function to the universe as a whole then time becomes irrelevant and you cannot therefore have a changing universe, ie a universe that moves from different states. The paradox may possibly be resolved by changing the question from why does the universe evolve to why does the universe appear to evolve to an observer in the universe. With the introduction of this observer you have a changing universe as observed by the observer in the universe (and again observer does not require conscious observer)
A correct fix of your post would be this
"Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead" or put another way the universe does not appear to change/grow without an observer inside it
Also Andrei Linde is well known for his wacky musing on various new age spirituality topics, from consciousness to reincarnation. I imagine he would find you and other new age followers taking what he says so seriously with great amusement. Half the time he seems to be just seeing who he can wind up.0 -
I think what he means is "if we are dead our interpretation of the universe doesn't exist"
Not that the universe as a whole ceases to exist.0 -
Er no. You are equating dead with non-existence. That wasn't what Linde was talking about (dead things after all still exist)
Linde was talking about the evolution of the universe and the paradox that if you apply the calculations for a wave function to the universe as a whole then time becomes irrelevant and you cannot therefore have a changing universe, ie a universe that moves from different states. The paradox may possibly be resolved by changing the question from why does the universe evolve to why does the universe appear to evolve to an observer in the universe. With the introduction of this observer you have a changing universe as observed by the observer in the universe (and again observer does not require conscious observer)
I am not a New Age follower, so debate honestly and less of the ad hominem please.
Have a listen to the following (short) interview with Linde where he explains in non-wacky detail what you are trying to say above. The last bit is interesting, he said he was advised by his book editor to delete any reference to consciousness as he would "lose the respect of his colleagues". His response is "if I remove it I would lose my own self respect".
What Linde means by "dead" is that the universe "as we observe it" according to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation does non exist.
The paradox Linde is referring to as you say is that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the wave function of the universe implies that the universe cannot evolve in time without an observer. However, you cannot remove the conscious observer as Linde explains. You can set up a camera which is an inanimate observer, but a conscious observer still has to observe what the camera records. The paradox is why do "we" see the universe evolve in a certain way in time when what the Wheeler-DeWitt equation tells us is the universe does not evolve in time. It's quite the paradox, and you simply cannot remove consciousness from the question as Linde explains.
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/8740 -
-
-
Please summarise in your own words Linde's explanation for why that is the case.
Certainly.
Linde in the interview, displaying none of the wackiness you implied, references three of the most baffling problems in all of science; 1) the time problem of quantum cosmology, 2) the measurement problem in QM, and 3) the hard problem of consciousness. To people working in these individual fields, these questions may be unrelated (a neuroscientist for example would likely spend little time thinking about the measurement problem in QM, even though it may ultimately answer the hard question of consciousness), but to some scientists they are very related.
To focus on the time problem, as there is intersection there with the other two. Linde references the DeWitt paper from 1967 where it was demonstrated that the wave function for the universe summed to zero i.e. the positive energy of all matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. In addition, there is no time evolution as the other side of the Schrodinger equation has to match, so the universe does not change with time. The resolution to this according to DeWitt is that we are not actually measuring the wave function of the universe, we are measuring the wave function of the universe minus ourselves, the observer. We could use some type of camera say, as the measurement device. According to Linde this still does not resolve the problem as the camera becomes part of the "rest of the universe" that is separate from us observing it.
This is analogous to the measurement problem in QM, as yes you get the same observed wave function collapse (or not, depending on interpretation) if you use a mechanical measurement device as using a conscious observer, but you still cannot separate the conscious observer from the experiment. This is proven conclusively in the Wheeler delayed choice thought experiment (later confirmed by actual experiment), where if you do anything to learn the behavior of say a photon after the fact, it changes the outcome of the experiment that has already been done. You simply have to either include consciousness in your interpretation of QM or ignore it as many physicists do.
The upshot of all of this is that without participants, we have a dead universe that does not evolve with time, in other words the universe that we observe as having a past, present and future does not exist. The only way to think about an "alive" universe is to think of it as a subjective observer and the rest of the objective universe, and not just any observer, a conscious observer. This last bit will undoubtedly sound new age woo to you, but the evidence suggests many leading scientists now accept this view. Why do you think Anton Zeilinger, who sits in the chair formerly occupied by Schrodinger, and other leading physicists and cosmologists held several meetings with the Dalai Lama to discuss the interface of cosmology, QM and Buddhism? Why would they do this if they think the consciousness connection is woo? They did it because Buddhists understand consciousness to a level that science is just starting to uncover.0 -
Advertisement
-
and not just any observer, a conscious observer.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. What is Linde's explanation for specifically that.
The standard notion of observation in QM is simply interaction with other particles. It makes no statement about the mental abilities of the observer. What is the explanation/evidence for the idea that the observer has to be a conscious being in order to have the effect?0 -
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. What is Linde's explanation for specifically that.
The standard notion of observation in QM is simply interaction with other particles. It makes no statement about the mental abilities of the observer. What is the explanation/evidence for the idea that the observer has to be a conscious being in order to have the effect?
You either didn't read my above post or didn't understand it as it is explained clearly there.
It has nothing to do with the "mental abilities of the observer". Linde is talking about quantum cosmology and DeWitt's calculation of the wave function for the universe. The challenge with the calculation is you have the "rest of the universe" and the subjective observer (in this case DeWitt). DeWitt himself said you can get around this by using an inanimate device to do the measuring (just like any experiment in QM). Linde is pointing out that this is still a problem as now you have the "rest of the universe including the inanimate device" and the subjective observer.
The point is you cannot truly exclude the conscious observer in any QM or quantum cosmology experiment. In general most physicists ignore this and carry on with their experiments, however more than of the QM interpretations include consciousness as a factor (Wheeler/Wigner, Stapp, and the more recent quantum information interpretations), and more and more theoretical physicists are exploring the role of consciousness (Zeilinger for example). There appears to be growing acceptance that measurements in QM represent constructed states by the observer and are not an objective property of the system. Linde also states it is possible that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and evolved from the big bang just like matter and space. I accept that is speculative (as does he) but all ideas about the beginning of the universe are highly speculative.
Read up on the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiment, and no I don't have time right now to summarize them.0 -
You either didn't read my above post or didn't understand it as it is explained clearly there.
It has nothing to do with the "mental abilities of the observer". Linde is talking about quantum cosmology and DeWitt's calculation of the wave function for the universe. The challenge with the calculation is you have the "rest of the universe" and the subjective observer (in this case DeWitt). DeWitt himself said you can get around this by using an inanimate device to do the measuring (just like any experiment in QM). Linde is pointing out that this is still a problem as now you have the "rest of the universe including the inanimate device" and the subjective observer.
The point is you cannot truly exclude the conscious observer in any QM or quantum cosmology experiment. In general most physicists ignore this and carry on with their experiments, however more than of the QM interpretations include consciousness as a factor (Wheeler/Wigner, Stapp, and the more recent quantum information interpretations), and more and more theoretical physicists are exploring the role of consciousness (Zeilinger for example). There appears to be growing acceptance that measurements in QM represent constructed states by the observer and are not an objective property of the system. Linde also states it is possible that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and evolved from the big bang just like matter and space. I accept that is speculative (as does he) but all ideas about the beginning of the universe are highly speculative.
Read up on the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiment, and no I don't have time right now to summarize them.
What do you mean it is speculative?
You said that you cannot remove the conscious observer and said that Linde explains why that is. You said the observer has to be a conscious observer.
Why does the observer have to possess consciousness and how do we know this to be the case? I am aware of no QM theory that requires consciousness in the observer.0 -
What do you mean it is speculative?
You said that you cannot remove the conscious observer and said that Linde explains why that is. You said the observer has to be a conscious observer.
Why does the observer have to possess consciousness and how do we know this to be the case? I am aware of no QM theory that requires consciousness in the observer.
I'm sorry, life is too short, I have answered the same question now twice and you continue to repeat the question.
For the third time: The idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and evolved in much the same way as matter and space is speculative.
The theories of Wheeler, von Neumann/Wigner, Stapp and the variety of quantum information theories of QM all involve a conscious observer. All fit the data. You simply cannot exclude the conscious observer imo, we have no means of observation other than conscious observation or extensions of our conscious observation. You either accept that we cannot exclude consciousness or you have to ignore it.0 -
Part of the attached discussion on www.physicsforums.com is what convinced me at least about the role of consciousness in QM. The poster Ken G is being bashed about for the first 20 posts or so as is typical when someone mentions the words consciousness and QM together. He then starts to slowly turn the tide and eventually convinces the other debaters of the validity of his position. The key posts are from #27 to #65.
The "aha" moment for me was understanding that there is two stages to a wave function collapse, an initial decoherence stage from a pure state to a mixed state which occurs at the measurement device, and then a subsequent outcome when a conscious observer enters the picture. The first stage is fully understood, tested and verified by QM theory, the second stage is not understood at all which is why we have at least 12 interpretations of QM, none of which can really be tested because we cannot separate our consciousness from the experiment. The "measurement problem" in QM is not the measurement device, it is the observer. The exception is the many worlds interpretation which gets around this problem by saying there is no wave function collapse, we just experience one outcome but all other outcomes also exist (Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead).
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5071540 -
At its core, leaving aside the theist vs atheist argument regarding personal Gods, the belief in a benevolent creator is a belief based on evidence. The evidence is the fact that there is a universe and it is perfectly tuned for life, or as the strong anthropic principle implies "the universe knew we were coming" (Freeman Dyson). Although this idea gets ridiculed by non-scientists, scientists are generally in agreement that unless an infinite number of universes exist (the multiverse), then you might have to have a fine tuner.
Scientists say the standard model of particle physics is highly sensitive to the values of constants which cannot be derived a priori, and must instead be set by observation. No ontological claim is made about the "tunability" of these constants. They are descriptive tools only.
Thus, the question at the core of the fine-tuning argument is "Why is there a universe that permits life, as opposed to a universe that does not?" or, more fundamentally, "Why is there a universe at all?". I could pose a similar question for theologians: "Why is there a God that permits life as opposed to a God that doesn't, or no God at all?"While we are on the subject of belief and evidence, there is zero observed evidence for a multiverse and zero observed evidence for string theory which might confirm a multiverse. There is absolutely nothing else that we know of that can even attempt to explain the universe we observe, so at present it is multiverse or a fine-tuner, take your pick.
Leaving aside the issue of evidence for the multiverse, the above would mean that, as long as a multiverse is possible, we cannot infer a fine tuner from our observation of a physical environment favourable to some forms of life.It has nothing to do with the "mental abilities of the observer". Linde is talking about quantum cosmology and DeWitt's calculation of the wave function for the universe. The challenge with the calculation is you have the "rest of the universe" and the subjective observer (in this case DeWitt). DeWitt himself said you can get around this by using an inanimate device to do the measuring (just like any experiment in QM). Linde is pointing out that this is still a problem as now you have the "rest of the universe including the inanimate device" and the subjective observer.
The point is you cannot truly exclude the conscious observer in any QM or quantum cosmology experiment. In general most physicists ignore this and carry on with their experiments, however more than of the QM interpretations include consciousness as a factor (Wheeler/Wigner, Stapp, and the more recent quantum information interpretations), and more and more theoretical physicists are exploring the role of consciousness (Zeilinger for example). There appears to be growing acceptance that measurements in QM represent constructed states by the observer and are not an objective property of the system. Linde also states it is possible that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and evolved from the big bang just like matter and space. I accept that is speculative (as does he) but all ideas about the beginning of the universe are highly speculative.
You cannot exclude the system doing the measurement from the system being measured, but the system doing the measurement does not have to be conscious, nor does the existence of the system rely on the existence of measurement apparatus or consciousness.Part of the attached discussion on www.physicsforums.com is what convinced me at least about the role of consciousness in QM. The poster Ken G is being bashed about for the first 20 posts or so as is typical when someone mentions the words consciousness and QM together. He then starts to slowly turn the tide and eventually convinces the other debaters of the validity of his position. The key posts are from #27 to #65.
The "aha" moment for me was understanding that there is two stages to a wave function collapse, an initial decoherence stage from a pure state to a mixed state which occurs at the measurement device, and then a subsequent outcome when a conscious observer enters the picture. The first stage is fully understood, tested and verified by QM theory, the second stage is not understood at all which is why we have at least 12 interpretations of QM, none of which can really be tested because we cannot separate our consciousness from the experiment. The "measurement problem" in QM is not the measurement device, it is the observer. The exception is the many worlds interpretation which gets around this problem by saying there is no wave function collapse, we just experience one outcome but all other outcomes also exist (Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead).
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507154
Consciousness, in the context of the above debate, can be materialistic. They are debating what it means to register a measurement, which is unrelated to your claim that, without consciousness, the universe doesn't exist.0 -
Consciousness, in the context of the above debate, can be materialistic. They are debating what it means to register a measurement, which is unrelated to your claim that, without consciousness, the universe doesn't exist.
Hi Morbert, thanks for commenting, I always enjoy your inputs.
In fairness to me I clarified later in the tread what I meant by "without consciousness, the universe does not exist". I meant (as does Linde I believe) the "universe that we observe", which is what people generally mean when they say universe, does not exist without conscious observers making observations. I think most physicists are in agreement that what we observe is a small subset of total reality, and we simply don't know what reality is without us observing it. I suspect its a lot different to what we observe, based on the time problem of cosmology and the measurement problem in QM, and that what we call the "universe" is largely a construct of our brains.
Whether consciousness is material or not I think is an unknown at this time. Material in the sense of comprised of matter that we ourselves observe or can observe. It could be based on some form of field that we have not yet been able to measure, or perhaps can't measure, in much the same way as EMF was unknown to us until the mid 19th century.0 -
I'm sorry, life is too short, I have answered the same question now twice and you continue to repeat the question.
For the third time: The idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and evolved in much the same way as matter and space is speculative.
The theories of Wheeler, von Neumann/Wigner, Stapp and the variety of quantum information theories of QM all involve a conscious observer. All fit the data. You simply cannot exclude the conscious observer imo, we have no means of observation other than conscious observation or extensions of our conscious observation. You either accept that we cannot exclude consciousness or you have to ignore it.
You cannot exclude the conscious observer from any science as all since is is humans doing stuff.
You said that the observer that collaspes the wave function of the universe must be a conscious observer and you claimed Linde explained why that is the case. Because it isn't the assertion of most of physics, where the observation is simply an interaction and the universe appears to have got on just fine in a collapsed state before we started observing it.
You seem to be desperately back tracking now by saying this huge assertion is merely "speculative".
Can you back up the assertion that the observer must be conscious with anything other than musings about the personal feelings of some scientists?0 -
You cannot exclude the conscious observer from any science as all since is is humans doing stuff.
You said that the observer that collaspes the wave function of the universe must be a conscious observer and you claimed Linde explained why that is the case. Because it isn't the assertion of most of physics, where the observation is simply an interaction and the universe appears to have got on just fine in a collapsed state before we started observing it.
You seem to be desperately back tracking now by saying this huge assertion is merely "speculative".
Can you back up the assertion that the observer must be conscious with anything other than musings about the personal feelings of some scientists?
You are confusing two separate claims. The claim that a conscious observer is required to get the "outcome" of the experiment is a scientific claim (von Neumann, Wheeler, Stapp in that order). The claim that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe is a speculative claim made by Linde in the interview that started this discussion.
How could we possibly know how the universe got on before we started observing it? "Before" is an arrow of time concept, constructed in our brains, which does not appear to exist at all in reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi Morbert, thanks for commenting, I always enjoy your inputs.
In fairness to me I clarified later in the tread what I meant by "without consciousness, the universe does not exist". I meant (as does Linde I believe) the "universe that we observe", which is what people generally mean when they say universe, does not exist without conscious observers making observations. I think most physicists are in agreement that what we observe is a small subset of total reality, and we simply don't know what reality is without us observing it. I suspect its a lot different to what we observe, based on the time problem of cosmology and the measurement problem in QM, and that what we call the "universe" is largely a construct of our brains.
Whether consciousness is material or not I think is an unknown at this time. Material in the sense of comprised of matter that we ourselves observe or can observe. It could be based on some form of field that we have not yet been able to measure, or perhaps can't measure, in much the same way as EMF was unknown to us until the mid 19th century.
While there is plenty to discuss about QM, I don't see how any of it would pertain to the issue of atheism.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement