Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex · 12-07-2013 5:59pm

nagirrac wrote: »

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).

Let me be more blunt.

There is zero evidence for the bit I just highlighted. You claimed you would present evidence for it, you haven't. You have just stalled.

No one apart from a few fringe scientists who cannot support this claim other than be completely speculative, think consciousness is a require property of the observer in order to collapse the wave function.

nagirrac wrote: »

How could we possibly know how the universe got on before we started observing it?

What?

You don't think any theory in physics models what the universe was doing before we started observing it?

Zombrex · 12-07-2013 6:00pm

Morbert wrote: »

While there is plenty to discuss about QM, I don't see how any of it would pertain to the issue of atheism.

Apparently the universe requires a conscious observer (ie God) in order to not be in a wave function form.

Science has proven the existence of God*. Let us all rejoice.

* speculative :rolleyes:

nagirrac · 12-07-2013 6:37pm

Zombrex wrote: »

There is zero evidence for the bit I just highlighted. You claimed you would present evidence for it, you haven't. You have just stalled.

No one apart from a few fringe scientists who cannot support this claim other than be completely speculative, think consciousness is a require property of the observer in order to collapse the wave function.

There is zero evidence to state that the collapse of a wave function of any system under study from its pure state to its mixed state has anything to do with a conscious observer. There is zero conclusive evidence of how we get from the mixed state to the final outcome state, but in any consideration of this step you cannot exclude the conscious observer. This is the reason why there are >12 theories trying to explain this step but no compelling evidence to support one over the other.

You clearly don't understand this two stage aspect of the wave function collapse. I have provided a lengthy detailed discussion from physicsforum on this topic for you to read and discuss, but in typical fashion you refuse to actually look at it but would prefer to ridicule.

Are you seriously calling John von Neumann, John Wheeler and Henry Stapp fringe scientists? A complete argument from ignorance. You should really go for a walk in the fresh air and think about what you are saying.

nagirrac · 12-07-2013 7:00pm

Morbert wrote: »

While there is plenty to discuss about QM, I don't see how any of it would pertain to the issue of atheism.

The thread is about the existence of God, which is hardly a discussion only relevant to atheism, although many atheists seem to have a fascination for the subject

.

nagirrac · 12-07-2013 7:13pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Apparently the universe requires a conscious observer (ie God) in order to not be in a wave function form.

Science has proven the existence of God*. Let us all rejoice.

* speculative :rolleyes:

This snide comment just confirms your complete ignorance of what I am bringing to the discussion. QM does not provide any direct evidence for God, nor have I ever claimed it has. QM however challenges materialism which is the primary intellectual argument against the idea of God.

If you accept that the mathematics of QM are correct, as every physicist that I know of does, and you also claim that materialism is the correct view of reality, then you have to accept the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM. Alternatively you can go back and try and understand what von Neumann, Wheeler, Wigner, and Stapp have theorized. Doesn't sound like you have much interest in the latter, but would prefer to call these imminent scientists, some of whom are Nobel prize winners, fringe scientists.

If you are interested in pursuing the discussion, debate honestly and leave the snide comments out.

Zombrex · 13-07-2013 12:11am

nagirrac wrote: »

Alternatively you can go back and try and understand what von Neumann, Wheeler, Wigner, and Stapp have theorized.

This is the way every discussion with you goes nagirrac, you make some out there claim, like saying the observer in QM must have consciousness, you are pressed to support evidence of this at which point you just start making appeals to authority (oh this scientist say it is), and when you are pressed further to provide evidence that that scientist presents for this you just retreat to saying it is all "speculative".

Do you admit that there is absolutely nothing in QM anywhere that we know scientifically requires a conscious observer for anything, and that any suggestions that the conscious observer might be required is pure speculation and musing on the part of the scientists involved?

If not please point out in your own words specifically what area of QM has been shown to actually require a conscious observer and how that was shown experimentally or mathematically.

nagirrac · 13-07-2013 1:10am

Zombrex wrote: »

This is the way every discussion with you goes nagirrac, you make some out there claim, like saying the observer in QM must have consciousness, you are pressed to support evidence of this at which point you just start making appeals to authority (oh this scientist say it is), and when you are pressed further to provide evidence that that scientist presents for this you just retreat to saying it is all "speculative".

Another complete misrepresentation of my position, same old ad hominem when you are out of your depth. You clearly do not understand the subject matter and I have no further interest in wasting more of my time trying to educate you.

Don't bother replying, you are on ignore.

lmaopml · 13-07-2013 1:20am

nagirrac wrote: »

Another complete misrepresentation of my position, same old ad hominem when you are out of your depth. You clearly do not understand the subject matter and I have no further interest in wasting more of my time trying to educate you.

Don't bother replying, you are on ignore.

There is such a thing as the 'measurement problem' - this is true, and there is no point in denying it, it takes a person with 'intent' to measure. 'Get on with the Math' the CI seems to say by all means, but theoretical physics is part and parcel of exploration - which is pretty cool.

Actually, some interpretations such as many worlds etc. almost invoke as a sideline the idea that to 'measure' is quite literally a human thing, to 'look' at and find a 'result' of an experiment is part and parcel of being a human being who explores - and the results of experiments require somebody who 'measures' by any means as the first step and interprets the information as a second one. Even if they are way off....which some will admit and others won't.

The measurement problem is not a 'new' one in fairness to Nagirrac, it has always been there in every interpretation of the weird world of QM. It's not always regarded as a conscious observer in theory, but sometimes put aside as something that is not yet known. It's counter intuitive when the maths predict that it should work backwards quite as well as forwards and predicts both realities let's face it.

Morbert · 13-07-2013 1:03pm

nagirrac wrote: »

QM however challenges materialism which is the primary intellectual argument against the idea of God.

If you accept that the mathematics of QM are correct, as every physicist that I know of does, and you also claim that materialism is the correct view of reality, then you have to accept the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM.

QM does not challenge materialism. Both the physical theory, and the various interpretations of the theory (including the less popular consciousness-focused ones), are compatible with materialism.

Also, there are interpretations which do not posit multiple universe, and do not posit consciousness as important.

lmaopml · 14-07-2013 12:26am

Morbert wrote: »

QM does not challenge materialism. Both the physical theory, and the various interpretations of the theory (including the less popular consciousness-focused ones), are compatible with materialism.

Also, there are interpretations which do not posit multiple universe, and do not posit consciousness as important.

Morbert, which interpretation is most solid in your opinion?

I think you are involved in a fascinating world -

nagirrac · 14-07-2013 1:37am

Morbert wrote: »

QM does not challenge materialism. Both the physical theory, and the various interpretations of the theory (including the less popular consciousness-focused ones), are compatible with materialism.

Also, there are interpretations which do not posit multiple universe, and do not posit consciousness as important.

At least you agree there are consciousness-focused interpretations:)

When I said challenge morbert, I meant that materialism is no longer the only plausible explanation for our reality. There are many philosophical definitions of the word "materialism", the one I have in mind is the 19th century view that (for example) atoms consist of solid balls. The materialism that Einstein tried to defend in the EPR experiment and was rejected by Bell's theorem and later experiments by Aspect and others. If by materialism we mean everything that exists then I agree with you, as even idealists become materialists under that definition.

Do you dismiss the informational interpretations of QM?, that the universe at its core could be informational (digital physics) in nature and not matter based? Do you not consider that the laws of physics, which are conceptual in nature, and without which the universe we observe would not exist, are most likely explained by a mind as this is the only thing we know of that can come up with concepts? At the very least is it not impossible to dismiss this view in much the same way we cannot dismiss the multiverse.

Morbert · 14-07-2013 1:59am

nagirrac wrote: »

At least you agree there are consciousness-focused interpretations:)

When I said challenge morbert, I meant that materialism is no longer the only plausible explanation for our reality. There are many philosophical definitions of the word "materialism", the one I have in mind is the 19th century view that (for example) atoms consist of solid balls. The materialism that Einstein tried to defend in the EPR experiment and was rejected by Bell's theorem and later experiments by Aspect and others. If by materialism we mean everything that exists then I agree with you, as even idealists become materialists under that definition.

By materialism I mean physicalism and naturalism. Quantum mechanics is compatible with both.

Do you dismiss the informational interpretations of QM?, that the universe at its core could be informational (digital physics) in nature and not matter based? Do you not consider that the laws of physics, which are conceptual in nature, and without which the universe we observe would not exist, are most likely explained by a mind as this is the only thing we know of that can come up with concepts? At the very least is it not impossible to dismiss this view in much the same way we cannot dismiss the multiverse.

I don't dismiss it. Digital physics specifically refers to the computability of the universe, and says nothing about God. In fact, I would wager most theists would reject the notion that God is a Turing machine, and would argue that, even if the universe wasn't computable, God still could have created it.

Morbert · 14-07-2013 2:09am

lmaopml wrote: »

Morbert, which interpretation is most solid in your opinion?

I think you are involved in a fascinating world -

I wouldn't place any bets on a specific interpretation being true, though I would say that I prefer those interpretations which don't posit any wave function collapse, and I would say that the many-worlds interpretation is the interpretation that can be directly related to the mathematics.

In short, I take the cop-out approach and say that most interpretations are an attempt to understand a non-classical phenomenon with classical language, which could be a fruitless as trying to teach a monkey algebra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y

nagirrac · 14-07-2013 2:11am

Morbert wrote: »

I don't dismiss it. Digital physics specifically refers to the computability of the universe, and says nothing about God. In fact, I would wager most theists would reject the notion that God is a Turing machine, and would argue that, even if the universe wasn't computable, God still could have created it.

I agree, in my view humans/theists create Gods based on their cultural image of what a God should look like. If the universe is based on information rather than matter (Wheeler's it from bit), doesn't that imply a simulation, and doesn't a simulation imply a simulator?

lmaopml · 14-07-2013 2:15am

Morbert wrote: »

I wouldn't place any bets on a specific interpretation being true, though I would say that I prefer those interpretations which don't posit any wave function collapse, and I would say that the many-worlds interpretation is the interpretation that can be directly related to the mathematics.

In short, I take the cop-out approach and say that most interpretations are an attempt to understand a non-classical phenomenon with classical language, which could be a fruitless as trying to teach a monkey algebra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y

So you are just 'getting on with the math'

That's okay...

nagirrac · 14-07-2013 2:23am

You have to follow the math, as every QM calculation, no matter how absurd the result may appear, is always confirmed by experiment. It is as if the math is producing the universe we observe.

lmaopml · 14-07-2013 2:37am

nagirrac wrote: »

You have to follow the math, as every QM calculation, no matter how absurd the result may appear, is always confirmed by experiment. It is as if the math is producing the universe we observe.

Not necessarily - Math is a language that describes a phenomena in a unique way, it's very beautiful too - but then you also have how to interpret it properly into everyday language and it doesn't always convert properly - Math is really cool - Albeit very friggin weird in QM.

It's tied up in how exactly we as humans use language to describe the results of an experiment imo. I don't think we will leave the language barrier or the 'testing' barrier behind any day soon - but nonetheless it is very exciting to explore. Even if the math is lovely but kind of bizarre. It's always good to explore.

nagirrac · 14-07-2013 3:02am

lmaopml wrote: »

Not necessarily - Math is a language that describes a phenomena in a unique way, it's very beautiful too - but then you also have how to interpret it properly into everyday language and it doesn't always convert properly - Math is really cool - Albeit very friggin weird in QM.

..or it's God's language and we are just beginning to discover its beauty..

Zombrex · 14-07-2013 10:16am

nagirrac wrote: »

Another complete misrepresentation of my position, same old ad hominem when you are out of your depth. You clearly do not understand the subject matter and I have no further interest in wasting more of my time trying to educate you.

Don't bother replying, you are on ignore.

Well that is one way to completely avoid answering the question :rolleyes:

Anytime you want to explain what theory in QM has been show to require a conscious observer, a claim you have made numerous times, we are all ears.

lmaopml · 14-07-2013 6:11pm

nagirrac wrote: »

..or it's God's language and we are just beginning to discover its beauty..

Well sure, I think that when you look at how things 'work' or even why things work at all and also how lovely and exciting it is to be here and how incredibly beautiful the world is....I think for some people this speaks to them of God. However, I'm a Catholic - so I guess that goes with the territory for me Nagirrac:) Would you describe yourself as a deist ?

Actually, speaking of 'Many Worlds'....just thinking of a book I picked up recently by Dean Koontz called, 'From of the corner of his eye' - it's a good read if you like thriller mixed with sci fi and good characters etc. One for the holidays....I only found Koontz recently.

Terrlock · 15-07-2013 12:32am

Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

nagirrac · 15-07-2013 4:57am

lmaopml wrote: »

Nagirrac:) Would you describe yourself as a deist ?

Yes, an agnostic deist. I believe God, however likely, is also unknowable, at least according to our current state of knowledge.

tommy2bad · 15-07-2013 7:13am

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, an agnostic deist. I believe God, however likely, is also unknowable, at least according to our current state of knowledge.

Not an unusual position, in fact it's one that early Christians would have taken as obvious. I think the idea of a God who could be codified and explained came long after Christianity became a state religion. Something about power needing to control God.

tdv123 · 16-07-2013 10:00pm

Terrlock wrote: »

Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

So exactly like it is now then?

Sonics2k · 17-07-2013 12:28am

Terrlock wrote: »

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

This sounds exactly like the modern world!

That and every other single day, decade, century and millennium before it. Quite literally, all of them.

That's a very large amount of last days to be honest.

Lantus · 17-07-2013 2:25am

Terrlock wrote: »

Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

very hard to be 'good' in a world where humans use money as a control mechanism which naturally encourages abhorent behaviour by default.

I could be a good person but if I own a factory its in my interest to make goods cheaper and quicker and better than my competitor which could put them out of business. How can you be 'good' when you need to make people suffer just to feed yourself and your family?

Most of the abhorent behaviour we experience today such as greed and theft is due to deliberate inequality of an extreme nature encouraged through money. If we used our technology to change the environment and educated ourselves towards a resource based economy this behaviour would disappear. Choldren would ask how we could of been so stupid to of not seen the inherent problems of the monetary system.

sephir0th · 17-07-2013 8:29am

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, an agnostic deist. I believe God, however likely, is also unknowable, at least according to our current state of knowledge.

Do you mind me asking why you are a deist?

nagirrac · 17-07-2013 7:55pm

sephir0th wrote: »

Do you mind me asking why you are a deist?

Because it makes the most sense to me. I believe that the universe we observe runs like a computer (an analogy), is intelligent and purposeful, and is pre-programmed. This strongly suggests a simulated universe, and a simulation needs a simulator or programmer. Nothing else comes close to explaining the origin of the universe and the origin of life to me at least. By definition, the programmer and the purpose of the simulation most likely are unknowable, as both concepts are outside the observed universe. We can try and deduce what the mind of God is like, or try and deduce what purpose our universe has, but ultimately we may be just guessing.

Religion to me is attempting to do just that, although I also accept that religion is based on mental states that are not well understood, and cannot simply be discounted as "unreal", especially in the computerized reality model. For all we know the altered states reported by mystics and astral travelers may be just as "real" as the "reality" we normally observe.

Almaviva · 17-07-2013 10:45pm

Lantus wrote: »

if I own a factory its in my interest to make goods cheaper and quicker and better than my competitor which could put them out of business. How can you be 'good' when you need to make people suffer just to feed yourself and your family?

Because it is good for the many people who can enjoy the goods you produce at a lower price, or those who can now afford to enjoy it for the first time. Those who are now out of business will go on to do something more productive, further benefitting all those for whom they produce something else. And so on and so on. Everyone wins.

Geomy · 18-07-2013 12:44am

Almaviva wrote: »

Because it is good for the many people who can enjoy the goods you produce at a lower price, or those who can now afford to enjoy it for the first time. Those who are now out of business will go on to do something more productive, further benefitting all those for whom they produce something else. And so on and so on. Everyone wins.

Are you serious ?

There's only one winner in that scenario and that's the guy's on top.

I also knew a born again Christian who was a right slave driver. ...

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments