To our interchange? No.ashai said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence ... ?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Thanks JerryL, I understood that the first time. The mode (scientific method) as described by you and Jay is not something I doubt or that I am arguing of it's success. That would be rather foolish of me to do. What I do highly doubt is that it's the only genuine cognitive access to reality. This is more then likely derailing the topic further then intended and hopefully we can go into this further.JerryL said:
linwood
Well-Known Member
I believe this is false.
You make the mistake of using the mathmatical tenets of quantum theory and applying them as is to the world.
If what you`ve stated is true then a tree that falls in the forest when noone is around makes no sound.
This is obviously false as it must make a sound.
The point of quantum theory stating this is merely to show that it doesn`t really make a difference if the tree makes a sound or not since no one is there to hear it.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Thats a shame.Victor said:
Why not discuss this?
I`d argue that rational intuition doesn`t exist by definition.
Religious experience may or may not fall into naturalist methodology.
Innate ideas are another concept that I don`t believe exists.
Systematic coherence would also fall into naturalistic methodology.
Ushta Cynic
You say:
From what I understand, that might be the conscious experience of emotions. However, there are physiological occurrences that occur during an emotional experience, which can be observed and measured, for example through an fMRI. If certain areas of the brain that are associated with emotions are ablated, such as the limbic system, it would seriously affect an emotional response. Ablation of the amygdala in mice during scientifical studies, have removed their capability to fear. Emotion can be studied through neurological disfunctions, among other things.
Cynic, the effects of emotions on the brain, is not the same thing as the emotion, moreover the inability of a damaged brain, to show the effects of an emotion , has nothing to do with an emotion's existence. Take the mice, if their brain's are damaged so that they do not show the effect of fear that they would normally would,is that because the mice have no fear or because now they are not capable of displaying the physical effects of fear?
In other words, the emotional response and the emotion itself are not necessarily the same.
Ushta Te
Ashai
You say:
From what I understand, that might be the conscious experience of emotions. However, there are physiological occurrences that occur during an emotional experience, which can be observed and measured, for example through an fMRI. If certain areas of the brain that are associated with emotions are ablated, such as the limbic system, it would seriously affect an emotional response. Ablation of the amygdala in mice during scientifical studies, have removed their capability to fear. Emotion can be studied through neurological disfunctions, among other things.
Cynic, the effects of emotions on the brain, is not the same thing as the emotion, moreover the inability of a damaged brain, to show the effects of an emotion , has nothing to do with an emotion's existence. Take the mice, if their brain's are damaged so that they do not show the effect of fear that they would normally would,is that because the mice have no fear or because now they are not capable of displaying the physical effects of fear?
In other words, the emotional response and the emotion itself are not necessarily the same.
Ushta Te
Ashai
Cynic
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, emotion is a response, one that exists on a physical level and has evolved for millions of years. Your claim is an old philosophical idealogy, which has little to absolutely no support, because there is no evidence to support it.ashai said:
"Emotion, in its most general definition, is a neural impulse that moves an organism to action, prompting automatic reactive behavior that has been adapted through evolution as a survival mechanism to meet a survival need." -www.wikipedia.org
If your last sentence is a question, the answer would be that the amygdala in the brain is responible for detecting hostilities in the environment, among other things, it is involved in the activation of a fight or flight response. Removal of the amygdala in mice removed their capability to fear. For example, they didn't respond with fear like they previously would when approached by cats. This highly suggests that emotions are physical signals, and many researchers know this as fact. The only real distinction, if any, is the difference between emotion as a physical signal, and emotion as a conscious experience. Physiological changes of the brain which occur simultaniously during an emotional experience, are not the aftermath effects of emotion on the brain. Emotion is itself a process, which is a response to an external or perhaps internal stimulai. Any damage to specific areas of the brain responsible for, or somewhat invovled in the process of an emotional response, can significantly alter emotional experience. For example, damage to the pituitary can result in highly erratic emotions, loss of labido, depression, etc; which again suggests that emotions are physical.
This has gotten off topic, but has some relation to evidence, in which there is none to support your claim.
What amazes me is the lack of logic in some people's reasoning. They might believe that x=y because someone said so. Or, they'll immediately assume that x=y with utmost certainty, ignore any objective evidense suggesting this is not so, and thus form an irrational conclusion that leads to the cultivation of an impoverished map of reality.
Ushta Lynwood
No it has very little to do with the mathematics of Quantum
The fact is that it wqsw discovered ealy in the 20th Century thqt Electrons and other atomic particles were not where they were supposed to be according to Newtownian physics. Upon further tests it was discovered that the perception of an observer actually determimed the position , velocity etc of any particle. Tgis is the centr stone of Quantum Pysics and has made possible te fabrication of super conductors etc
You can just run a Gogle and find out . In have personally invetigateds over 100 books an articles , If you wish, I will add some links I am not at my home PC right now but can do it perhaps tomorrow, let me know
Ushta te
Ashai
No it has very little to do with the mathematics of Quantum
The fact is that it wqsw discovered ealy in the 20th Century thqt Electrons and other atomic particles were not where they were supposed to be according to Newtownian physics. Upon further tests it was discovered that the perception of an observer actually determimed the position , velocity etc of any particle. Tgis is the centr stone of Quantum Pysics and has made possible te fabrication of super conductors etc
You can just run a Gogle and find out . In have personally invetigateds over 100 books an articles , If you wish, I will add some links I am not at my home PC right now but can do it perhaps tomorrow, let me know
Ushta te
Ashai
Ushta Lynwood
You do not have to take my word fopr it. A Google will give yp you tons of evidence. Persona;lly I have investigated over 100 bools an articles and I am sure that what I presented is the consensus of Quantum Physiscists. If you wish me to I will give oiut some links, I will do it right now but I am away from my ho,me PC
Let me know
ushta Te
Ashai
You do not have to take my word fopr it. A Google will give yp you tons of evidence. Persona;lly I have investigated over 100 bools an articles and I am sure that what I presented is the consensus of Quantum Physiscists. If you wish me to I will give oiut some links, I will do it right now but I am away from my ho,me PC
Let me know
ushta Te
Ashai
Ushta Cynic
Your defimnition of emotion is that of epiphenomalists. They, you or any one can define emotions in such a way that they are strictly responses to wjat you perceive as physical events. But such definitions azre disingenuos at best. mTo make thre point, I can define matter as that which is solid , and then lambaste all materialists everytime that they use liquid gas or plasma as examples of materiality.
As to wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia written by arucles of surfers , I will advide you that tomorrow I can go in there and change the definition Also you apparently define evidence as to what is physical and can be absolutely proven and that is demonstrably as flawed standard,
Ushta te
Ashai
Your defimnition of emotion is that of epiphenomalists. They, you or any one can define emotions in such a way that they are strictly responses to wjat you perceive as physical events. But such definitions azre disingenuos at best. mTo make thre point, I can define matter as that which is solid , and then lambaste all materialists everytime that they use liquid gas or plasma as examples of materiality.
As to wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia written by arucles of surfers , I will advide you that tomorrow I can go in there and change the definition Also you apparently define evidence as to what is physical and can be absolutely proven and that is demonstrably as flawed standard,
Ushta te
Ashai
linwood
Well-Known Member
I`m familiar with the foundations of Quantum Theory, it seems to me you misinterpret the results.ashai said:
You state that Quantumn Theory "proves" something.
It does not have any "proof" and is mostly supported by mathematical algorythm.
Many physisicts themselves argue about the validity of the constants used within these algorythms.
Don`t misunderstand me quantum physics is a wonderful valid science that has shown us much in short time.
It just that at this point it seems to me that it`s foundations need to be focused more narrowly in order to obtain anything that resembles "truth" from them.
It will happen, it just hasn`t yet.
I further advise you that if you do change a Wiki definition arbitrarily your changes will most likely be editted out and you will be at least temporarily banned from the site.
Your statement that "evidence" is not constrained to physical reality is testament to your lack of knowledge of scientific method.
Science doesn`t deal with spirituality my friend.
What you are doing is akin to updating your PC with a Mac processor.
It`s going to crash if it even gets booted to begin with.
Even when science does bring forth life through abiogenesis it will still speak nothing of spirituality.
It will not concern supernatural creation an iota.
Ushta Lynwood
I am not misinterpreting any results I am basically paraphrasing Quantum Scientists , but since you insist I will , some time during this coming week, give out the evidences they give, their statements with quotes and references point by point as to what I have stated so far.
Mind you, I am not saying, and I have made this clear before, that Quantum Physics proves Theism. It just disproves some of the assumptions many materialists (of the monist perusasion) make and use to discredit the validity of theism its evidence etc.
As to Quantum proof. I will also furnish specific details of experiments conducted that prove the basic quantum assumptions. Some areas, like String Theory, are still theoretical although they do have plenty of evidence. But the basics of Quantum have been proven
As to Wikipedia, you must first define 'arbitrarily' a change to a definition supported by evidence , is not arbitrary. Indeed, just to give you an example that some scientists diagree with monistic materialists on the definition of matter, String Theory, defines matter as solid energy and makes energy different from matter , in the sense monists imply, by definition . They also make energy and not matter, under their definition, the real ground of being.
As to Science not dealing with spirituality. That statement is meaningless in the context of our little discussion, because I have never claimed that science deals with spirituality. However, if. there is a different aspect of reality out there I do expect science to 'discover' it even as it tries to redefine it to fit the materialistic paradigm that, at present, it supports.
What I am doing, is stating the obvious, non-locality of the energy transfer needed for the collapse of the wave aspect, means that there is another plane or dimension that we cannot perceive , whether that is another parallel reality or simply a different aspect of this one no one knows, at present. But what is known because , regardless of your disbelief Quantum has proven it, is that the transfer of energy is instanteneous and thus breaks the assummed laws of Newtonian Physiscs, and also, that it occurs outside what we can perceive with or without instruments.
Furthermore the fact that the location velocity and very perceptability of atomic particles depend on a choice by an aware observer has also been proven, empirically, by experiment. This means that at ground level what we see as real depends on an observer.
It also means, as has been proven by the Uncertainty Principle, and again experiments bear it out, that what we see as real, is but one of many possibilities inherent in the choice of the observer. It also has been determine , and this a factor of the underlying and invisble wave factor or aspect, that things can be at more than one place at the same time. To all these I will supply sources for verification.
Now , none of this proves Theism, spirituality, religion etc. However any Theist worth his or her salt, would be able to see that:
1. Non-locality can be equated to transcendence
2. That the very existence of non-locality affirms the existence of another reality or aspect thereof
3. That relativity itself ,(which shows that any object accelerated beyond the speed of light , here in this reality or plane there of, would become more massive that this universe) hints at the conclusion of this transcendence.
4. That an invisible aspect of reality ( the wave aspect) equates to the possibility of a spiritual dimension as does the transcendent reality or aspect there of.
5. That the observer determines the very nature of matter ( particle as opposed to wave) that manifests, meaning that it is the observer or rather his, or her, awareness and his, or her, choice that is the true ground for reality and not matter since, without the observer, matter would be in the invisible wave aspect.
All these things do not prove anything, but then, we already know that it is impossible to prove what is not physical, but they do prove that many ideas of theism, in regards with reality, are rather possible and cannot be excluded. So from my vantage point what is going to crash, indeed what has already crashed, its materialistic dogmatism and its edifice of definitions which are construed so that arguments against it or for theism appear to be without evidence.
For how can unbiased persons, disqualify outright:
1 Omnipresence , when Quantum shows its real?
2. Transcendence when Quantum shows its real?
3. Another reality or aspect thereof ( like the theist's spiritual realm) when Quantum shows its real?
$. How can we reject circumstantial/anecdotal evidences when its only the choice of an observer that manifests any of many different possibilities of reality?
Mind you, I do not need, even, Quantum telling me that what I believe its possible, but its nice nevertheless. I do not question the existence of the spiritual or of the Creator, I am convinced experientially as well as intellectually , but the fact that science proves that it is possible , is just another notch in the gun of my conviction.
As to abiogenesis, if science could (not when but if) bring about life through abiogenesis, it still would not, as you say, concern creation. Now supernatural its an adjective of your choice because you subscribe to a definition of natural that makes the existence of a creator, Super Natural, when in reality the most natural of things is a Creator.
But I am not arguing that Science's failure, so far, to mimick the Creator in the field of Creation of life from inert matter, disproves science, atheism etc. No, rather, I believe with Qunatum that anything is possible; its just that some things are so improbable that they are represented by fractions in the zillionth range and more.
Ushta Te
Ashai
I am not misinterpreting any results I am basically paraphrasing Quantum Scientists , but since you insist I will , some time during this coming week, give out the evidences they give, their statements with quotes and references point by point as to what I have stated so far.
Mind you, I am not saying, and I have made this clear before, that Quantum Physics proves Theism. It just disproves some of the assumptions many materialists (of the monist perusasion) make and use to discredit the validity of theism its evidence etc.
As to Quantum proof. I will also furnish specific details of experiments conducted that prove the basic quantum assumptions. Some areas, like String Theory, are still theoretical although they do have plenty of evidence. But the basics of Quantum have been proven
As to Wikipedia, you must first define 'arbitrarily' a change to a definition supported by evidence , is not arbitrary. Indeed, just to give you an example that some scientists diagree with monistic materialists on the definition of matter, String Theory, defines matter as solid energy and makes energy different from matter , in the sense monists imply, by definition . They also make energy and not matter, under their definition, the real ground of being.
As to Science not dealing with spirituality. That statement is meaningless in the context of our little discussion, because I have never claimed that science deals with spirituality. However, if. there is a different aspect of reality out there I do expect science to 'discover' it even as it tries to redefine it to fit the materialistic paradigm that, at present, it supports.
What I am doing, is stating the obvious, non-locality of the energy transfer needed for the collapse of the wave aspect, means that there is another plane or dimension that we cannot perceive , whether that is another parallel reality or simply a different aspect of this one no one knows, at present. But what is known because , regardless of your disbelief Quantum has proven it, is that the transfer of energy is instanteneous and thus breaks the assummed laws of Newtonian Physiscs, and also, that it occurs outside what we can perceive with or without instruments.
Furthermore the fact that the location velocity and very perceptability of atomic particles depend on a choice by an aware observer has also been proven, empirically, by experiment. This means that at ground level what we see as real depends on an observer.
It also means, as has been proven by the Uncertainty Principle, and again experiments bear it out, that what we see as real, is but one of many possibilities inherent in the choice of the observer. It also has been determine , and this a factor of the underlying and invisble wave factor or aspect, that things can be at more than one place at the same time. To all these I will supply sources for verification.
Now , none of this proves Theism, spirituality, religion etc. However any Theist worth his or her salt, would be able to see that:
1. Non-locality can be equated to transcendence
2. That the very existence of non-locality affirms the existence of another reality or aspect thereof
3. That relativity itself ,(which shows that any object accelerated beyond the speed of light , here in this reality or plane there of, would become more massive that this universe) hints at the conclusion of this transcendence.
4. That an invisible aspect of reality ( the wave aspect) equates to the possibility of a spiritual dimension as does the transcendent reality or aspect there of.
5. That the observer determines the very nature of matter ( particle as opposed to wave) that manifests, meaning that it is the observer or rather his, or her, awareness and his, or her, choice that is the true ground for reality and not matter since, without the observer, matter would be in the invisible wave aspect.
All these things do not prove anything, but then, we already know that it is impossible to prove what is not physical, but they do prove that many ideas of theism, in regards with reality, are rather possible and cannot be excluded. So from my vantage point what is going to crash, indeed what has already crashed, its materialistic dogmatism and its edifice of definitions which are construed so that arguments against it or for theism appear to be without evidence.
For how can unbiased persons, disqualify outright:
1 Omnipresence , when Quantum shows its real?
2. Transcendence when Quantum shows its real?
3. Another reality or aspect thereof ( like the theist's spiritual realm) when Quantum shows its real?
$. How can we reject circumstantial/anecdotal evidences when its only the choice of an observer that manifests any of many different possibilities of reality?
Mind you, I do not need, even, Quantum telling me that what I believe its possible, but its nice nevertheless. I do not question the existence of the spiritual or of the Creator, I am convinced experientially as well as intellectually , but the fact that science proves that it is possible , is just another notch in the gun of my conviction.
As to abiogenesis, if science could (not when but if) bring about life through abiogenesis, it still would not, as you say, concern creation. Now supernatural its an adjective of your choice because you subscribe to a definition of natural that makes the existence of a creator, Super Natural, when in reality the most natural of things is a Creator.
But I am not arguing that Science's failure, so far, to mimick the Creator in the field of Creation of life from inert matter, disproves science, atheism etc. No, rather, I believe with Qunatum that anything is possible; its just that some things are so improbable that they are represented by fractions in the zillionth range and more.
Ushta Te
Ashai
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Hi ashai,
I'd like to respond to a couple of your comments. I think you are misunderstanding a couple of things about modern physics, and you are extrapolating things you do understand in a dubious way. However, I do admire and respect your apparent appreciation of physics.
This is an assumption, of course, as it is impossible to know what's happening to a system we aren't observing...but it's a reasonable assumption, I think.
I'd like to respond to a couple of your comments. I think you are misunderstanding a couple of things about modern physics, and you are extrapolating things you do understand in a dubious way. However, I do admire and respect your apparent appreciation of physics.
I think you're referring to the type of nonlocality found in split beam experiments, where taking a measurement of one of the split beams affects the other beam instantaneously (or, at least, faster than the speed of light). You are also correct that quantum mechanics violates classical (Newtonian) mechanics.ashai said:
Most physicists would reject this idea. An "observer" is generally thought of as anything which interacts with a particle--it doesn't have to be conscious. In other words, if electromagnetic waves (light) strike a metal, the waves collapse into particles and eject electrons via the photoelectric effect whether or not a conscious observer is watching it happen. In this case, the metal is the "observer" because it is interacting with the electromagnetic waves.ashai said:
This is an assumption, of course, as it is impossible to know what's happening to a system we aren't observing...but it's a reasonable assumption, I think.
What we see as real--e.g., where a photon of light ends up after passing through a slit--is one of many possibilities, some of which are more probable than others; but it doesn't have to do with the choice of any observer.ashai said:
As unbelievable as it seems, ashai is absolutely right. The idea of "superposition" in fact is the basis of a whole new arena of computing called Quantum Computing, and it has the potential to completely blow away the computing power possible.ashai said:
Other dimensions perhaps, but a "spiritual" dimension? I'm not so sure.
No, the observer is not the ground for reality, the observer is simply an integral part of the reality he/she is measuring. It isn't that the observer brings the reality into his/her chosen existence, it's that the act of observation constitutes an interaction which affects the very thing being observed. The thing measured may not be the same as it was before it was measured, but we assume it was in fact there (in whatever form). We assume reality is there whether an observer interacts with it or not.achai said:
Quantum mechanics is supported by many many observations and experiments.linwood said:
Direct observation is about as close to "truth" as any scientist can get. Wave-particle duality, quantum randomness, nonlocality, etc. have all been directly observed.linwood said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think perhaps all three should constitute evidence, just not necessarily compelling evidence.Jayhawker Soule said:
Ushta Mr. Spinkles
Nice hearing from you!:bounce Yes I am referring to the non-locality that has been corroborated by split beam experiments. However, what these experiments also do, is give evidencethat thetransfer of energy necessary for the collapse of the wave aspect occurs elsewhere and at a speed higher than light. Indeed while some say its instantenous others claimis 1.7 of the speed of light. This 1.7, of course, is very close if not equal to Tau/Phi, * The Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion which is widely seen in nature and which provides, perhaps, one of the best examples of specified complexity.
You are very right , in that Quantum Physicists, defines an observer not only as a being but also as his/her instruments. However, who observes the observations of an instrument? I submit that, eventually, all observation is that of an aware observer, i.e. on Earth a Human ( without venturing the supposition that an Immanent Creator, may also be an observer)
As to what we see being a conscious choice by an observer. What we see requires awareness. If the observer is not aware of something the wave aspect does not collapse, at least, we cannot perceive it collapsing which basically amounts to the same thing. You might posit an instrument and of course the instrument is not conscious, as we understand consciousnees. But, like I said above, the instrument's observation to be meaningful must itself be observed, that is why I have said above that, eventually, all observers end up as conscious and aware ones.
That there is a choice is obvious, because, what we see is, according to Heisenberg"'s Uncertainty Principle, the result of non-determination, as demonstrated by Max Born, who showed that the precise measurements of a particle's velocity and position were impossible (i/e they were 'hidden' in the wave aspect.) Thus there is only a set of probabilities, contingencies that a certain observer, and or, observation will collapse the wave and detemine location and or velocity.
Heisenberg in his Principle of Uncertainty paper (1927) states that: " ... the existence of the 'classical path', i.e. the reality perceived (in sub atomic and macro atomic particles of matter) by the use of 'classical' or Newtonian physics, ... comes only when we observe it"
The equations worked out by Heisenberg, Born, Schrodinger and others have been proved by practical applications in applied science and engineering These have resulted in Super Conductors, improvements in computers, transistors, metallurgy, lasers etc. It has made possible Particle Accelerators. It has made-possible better and more complete understanding of chemicals. Thousand of Scientists use these equations everyday in the most advanced fields of Science with excellent results.
Indeed, certain observable facts of reality such as snow flakes, fluorescents lights etc; cannot be fully explained without these Quantum principles. Most Quantum Scientistz, if not all, have come to believe that the observer collapse is indeed the 'manifestation' of 'reality' as we see it. Indeed, many talk in terms of a conscious universe, an intelligent reality etc. While most of these , properly in my view, do not posit a God, neither do they deny Him/Her/It. Indeed most Quantum Scientists , but not all, have become Pantheists and Monists ( many were Materialistic Monists before) and openly speak of mysticism, and or, spirituality.
These developments are good news to most Theists, except those wed to unyielding dogmas , because while they of themselves do not give proof or evidence for Theism, they do provide a framework of reality in which Theistic interpretations are more probably valid and true.
As to other dimensions/spiritual dimension. You must understand that the concept of spirit which incidentally neither I nor most of my co-religionists endorse, is an ancient pre-scientific concept that indicates precisely the same things that Quantum is indicating as real: Multiple dimensions, omnipresence, etc. Now a different dimension, which is the language that I would use normally, its still however pregnant with the inference of another aspect of reality which to a Theist, of the spirit as real persuasion, sounds exactly like a spiritual dimension or plane.
As to the observer as the ground of reality. Notice that Isaid or " ... rather his ... awareness ... and choice ... " I know that you do not see the observer as an aware conscious entity, however, I must point out that many, if not most, Quantum Scientists certainly see the observer as us , eventually. Besides, being that there are different possibilities or contingencies with different degrees of probability the manifester i.e the observer has to make a choice. We can argue whether or not the choice is a conscious one (It certainly must be an aware one) but I can't see how can we argue whether or not a choice is made between the different contingencies , even if this choice is somewhat limited by probability. In fact some Quantum physiscists are paraphrasing Descartes by saying: I choose therefore I am.
To close out, like I said, Quantum , like all Science, is theologically neutral. Its interpretations, like those of other Scientific theories and fields, can be used pro or con. But it has, simply put, given room to state that there is, at least, some hard evidence that points out that certain theistic concepts are possible, and thus valid assumptions, not that I need any more evidence , but its nice to have it.
As to my love of Physics. One of the names of the Aspects of the Most Wise Lord, is Asha which is the Order of Laws of the Cosmos. We believe that the Creator works only through these and does not break them. Moreover we are to seek it for it is, also, the standard of righteousness and truth and our goal is to harmonize our thoughts, words and actions to it. Indeed, Zarathushtra did not receive a revelation a la Abrahamic religions, he discovered the Most Wise Creator in the message of nature and only then did he commune with the All Good.
We are not afraid of Science and we seek knowledge of the physical To us in describing ther way things work. how they mighty have come into being. etc; we are attempting to know the God that is in creation and transcends it, as well.
Its been a pleasure to chat with you ,
Ushta Te
Ashaii
Nice hearing from you!:bounce Yes I am referring to the non-locality that has been corroborated by split beam experiments. However, what these experiments also do, is give evidencethat thetransfer of energy necessary for the collapse of the wave aspect occurs elsewhere and at a speed higher than light. Indeed while some say its instantenous others claimis 1.7 of the speed of light. This 1.7, of course, is very close if not equal to Tau/Phi, * The Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion which is widely seen in nature and which provides, perhaps, one of the best examples of specified complexity.
You are very right , in that Quantum Physicists, defines an observer not only as a being but also as his/her instruments. However, who observes the observations of an instrument? I submit that, eventually, all observation is that of an aware observer, i.e. on Earth a Human ( without venturing the supposition that an Immanent Creator, may also be an observer)
As to what we see being a conscious choice by an observer. What we see requires awareness. If the observer is not aware of something the wave aspect does not collapse, at least, we cannot perceive it collapsing which basically amounts to the same thing. You might posit an instrument and of course the instrument is not conscious, as we understand consciousnees. But, like I said above, the instrument's observation to be meaningful must itself be observed, that is why I have said above that, eventually, all observers end up as conscious and aware ones.
That there is a choice is obvious, because, what we see is, according to Heisenberg"'s Uncertainty Principle, the result of non-determination, as demonstrated by Max Born, who showed that the precise measurements of a particle's velocity and position were impossible (i/e they were 'hidden' in the wave aspect.) Thus there is only a set of probabilities, contingencies that a certain observer, and or, observation will collapse the wave and detemine location and or velocity.
Heisenberg in his Principle of Uncertainty paper (1927) states that: " ... the existence of the 'classical path', i.e. the reality perceived (in sub atomic and macro atomic particles of matter) by the use of 'classical' or Newtonian physics, ... comes only when we observe it"
The equations worked out by Heisenberg, Born, Schrodinger and others have been proved by practical applications in applied science and engineering These have resulted in Super Conductors, improvements in computers, transistors, metallurgy, lasers etc. It has made possible Particle Accelerators. It has made-possible better and more complete understanding of chemicals. Thousand of Scientists use these equations everyday in the most advanced fields of Science with excellent results.
Indeed, certain observable facts of reality such as snow flakes, fluorescents lights etc; cannot be fully explained without these Quantum principles. Most Quantum Scientistz, if not all, have come to believe that the observer collapse is indeed the 'manifestation' of 'reality' as we see it. Indeed, many talk in terms of a conscious universe, an intelligent reality etc. While most of these , properly in my view, do not posit a God, neither do they deny Him/Her/It. Indeed most Quantum Scientists , but not all, have become Pantheists and Monists ( many were Materialistic Monists before) and openly speak of mysticism, and or, spirituality.
These developments are good news to most Theists, except those wed to unyielding dogmas , because while they of themselves do not give proof or evidence for Theism, they do provide a framework of reality in which Theistic interpretations are more probably valid and true.
As to other dimensions/spiritual dimension. You must understand that the concept of spirit which incidentally neither I nor most of my co-religionists endorse, is an ancient pre-scientific concept that indicates precisely the same things that Quantum is indicating as real: Multiple dimensions, omnipresence, etc. Now a different dimension, which is the language that I would use normally, its still however pregnant with the inference of another aspect of reality which to a Theist, of the spirit as real persuasion, sounds exactly like a spiritual dimension or plane.
As to the observer as the ground of reality. Notice that Isaid or " ... rather his ... awareness ... and choice ... " I know that you do not see the observer as an aware conscious entity, however, I must point out that many, if not most, Quantum Scientists certainly see the observer as us , eventually. Besides, being that there are different possibilities or contingencies with different degrees of probability the manifester i.e the observer has to make a choice. We can argue whether or not the choice is a conscious one (It certainly must be an aware one) but I can't see how can we argue whether or not a choice is made between the different contingencies , even if this choice is somewhat limited by probability. In fact some Quantum physiscists are paraphrasing Descartes by saying: I choose therefore I am.
To close out, like I said, Quantum , like all Science, is theologically neutral. Its interpretations, like those of other Scientific theories and fields, can be used pro or con. But it has, simply put, given room to state that there is, at least, some hard evidence that points out that certain theistic concepts are possible, and thus valid assumptions, not that I need any more evidence , but its nice to have it.
As to my love of Physics. One of the names of the Aspects of the Most Wise Lord, is Asha which is the Order of Laws of the Cosmos. We believe that the Creator works only through these and does not break them. Moreover we are to seek it for it is, also, the standard of righteousness and truth and our goal is to harmonize our thoughts, words and actions to it. Indeed, Zarathushtra did not receive a revelation a la Abrahamic religions, he discovered the Most Wise Creator in the message of nature and only then did he commune with the All Good.
We are not afraid of Science and we seek knowledge of the physical To us in describing ther way things work. how they mighty have come into being. etc; we are attempting to know the God that is in creation and transcends it, as well.
Its been a pleasure to chat with you ,
Ushta Te
Ashaii
Ushta
For Lynwood and all those other interested
Quantum physics is not a theory but, mostly, a proven aspect of science. It uses empirical modalities as well as mathematical formulations which are then tested empirically following the Scientific Method. It comes out of relativity and some inconsistencies found mathematically at first by Plank in the 1910's it has been verified by a myriad of experiments, in most of his facets, ( String Theory , is still theoretical in some of its aspects)
It involves a number of Laws or Principles: Wave collapse anfd its invidibility, manifestation of wave pearticle by an observer. Uncertainty Principle, Non Locality, object present simulataneous in more than one location at the same time. Denial of determinism. Establishing of probability as the ground of manifestation through the observation and choice of an aware observer.
It establishes the existence of a transcendental I.E Non-local aspect of reality All these things and more can easily be garnered from a perusal of the available literature and web sites
Books on Quantum
God and the New Physics Paul Davis Penguin 1983
Appearance and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics. Pe3ter Kosso, Oxford University Press 1998
Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations Tim Maudlin. Blackwell 1994
Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality Alastair Rae Cambridge University Press 1986
Incompleteness, Non-Locality and Realism. Michael Redhead Clarendon Press 1989
Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Paul Davies. The New Physics Abner Shimony Cambridge University Press1989
Philosophy of Physics. Lawrence Sklar. Oxford University Press 1992
Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics Werner Heisenberg (Its available at Amazon) Also by him Physics and Beyond and Physics and Philosophy. The Revolution in Modern Science
By Nick Herbert Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. Anchor Books 1987 ISBN 0-385-23569-0
Elemental Mind: Human Consciousness and the New Physics ( I Believe Amazon still has it
( These two atAmazon) The Ghost in the Atom Canto
The Elegant Universe: Super Strings, Hiddeem Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Brian Greene
In Search ofSchrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality Jon Gribbin ISBN 0-533-34253-3\The Great Beyond: Higher Dimensions, Parallel Universes ISBN 0-471-46595-x
Web sites
www.aip.org
plato.stanford.edu
www.hinduism.co.za/newpage1.htm
dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Quantum_Mechanics/Interpretations
www.newdualism.org/quantum.htm
www.imtegralscience.org/psyche-physis.html
khouse.org/articles/1988/62
theory.ipm.ac.ir/Foundational_Physics.html
www.quantumconciousness.org/view/QuantumMindAndSocialScience.html
www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2002/entries/qt-uncertainty
www.geocities.com/roquanta
www.thebigview.com/spacetime
www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/112/112transcript.html
There is, of course, a lot more, but these will do for an intro.
Ushta ve
Ashai
For Lynwood and all those other interested
Quantum physics is not a theory but, mostly, a proven aspect of science. It uses empirical modalities as well as mathematical formulations which are then tested empirically following the Scientific Method. It comes out of relativity and some inconsistencies found mathematically at first by Plank in the 1910's it has been verified by a myriad of experiments, in most of his facets, ( String Theory , is still theoretical in some of its aspects)
It involves a number of Laws or Principles: Wave collapse anfd its invidibility, manifestation of wave pearticle by an observer. Uncertainty Principle, Non Locality, object present simulataneous in more than one location at the same time. Denial of determinism. Establishing of probability as the ground of manifestation through the observation and choice of an aware observer.
It establishes the existence of a transcendental I.E Non-local aspect of reality All these things and more can easily be garnered from a perusal of the available literature and web sites
Books on Quantum
God and the New Physics Paul Davis Penguin 1983
Appearance and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics. Pe3ter Kosso, Oxford University Press 1998
Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations Tim Maudlin. Blackwell 1994
Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality Alastair Rae Cambridge University Press 1986
Incompleteness, Non-Locality and Realism. Michael Redhead Clarendon Press 1989
Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Paul Davies. The New Physics Abner Shimony Cambridge University Press1989
Philosophy of Physics. Lawrence Sklar. Oxford University Press 1992
Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics Werner Heisenberg (Its available at Amazon) Also by him Physics and Beyond and Physics and Philosophy. The Revolution in Modern Science
By Nick Herbert Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. Anchor Books 1987 ISBN 0-385-23569-0
Elemental Mind: Human Consciousness and the New Physics ( I Believe Amazon still has it
( These two atAmazon) The Ghost in the Atom Canto
The Elegant Universe: Super Strings, Hiddeem Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Brian Greene
In Search ofSchrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality Jon Gribbin ISBN 0-533-34253-3\The Great Beyond: Higher Dimensions, Parallel Universes ISBN 0-471-46595-x
Web sites
www.aip.org
plato.stanford.edu
www.hinduism.co.za/newpage1.htm
dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Quantum_Mechanics/Interpretations
www.newdualism.org/quantum.htm
www.imtegralscience.org/psyche-physis.html
khouse.org/articles/1988/62
theory.ipm.ac.ir/Foundational_Physics.html
www.quantumconciousness.org/view/QuantumMindAndSocialScience.html
www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2002/entries/qt-uncertainty
www.geocities.com/roquanta
www.thebigview.com/spacetime
www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/112/112transcript.html
There is, of course, a lot more, but these will do for an intro.
Ushta ve
Ashai