Is Quantum Physics an open book for theists?

[Wannabe Yogi]

"considering that existence without consciousness is meaningless"

Prove that existence WITH conciousness is meaningful.

Would you say that the life of Martin Luther King was meaningful ?

 

[madhatter85]

This reminds me of an example my old teacher used. If there were an erronous formula to prove 1 + 1 = 24, leading someone to believe that it actually was, and we can prove that equation wrong by clearly pointing out the faults in the math, why would someone still believe the answer is 24?

Unfortunately some people don't feel they know better than the evidences and try to prove the erroneous formula because it's all they know. (Any why would their parents ever be wrong!?)

Some people abandon the equation altogether (scripture, religion, etc.) and just focus on the 24.

which is foolish, If you do not understand the equation, what does the result matter?

 

[Commoner]

Yes, I conceptualize God is the energy, and the "logos" or pattern of behavior that the energy follows. And I would say that consciousness is a necessary part of that overall God expression.

Think of it as love. For love to be expressed, there must be both the lover and the beloved. If God is all that exists, then for God to be properly expressed, it must manifest itself in a multiplex of structures and relationships at least some of which would need to obtain consciousness. And sure enough, that exactly the universe we see. We see a universe designed to express the widest possible variety of energy structures, more or less equitably, with maximum relationships between.

Not true.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes yes "uncertain"

but I think this just means we need to find better ways to examine particles. Fifty years from now, even 10 years from now, maybe tomorrow, we could very well have a way to overcome the "uncertainty" principle, by using other methods of measurement. The "uncertainty" of the principle refers to OUR uncertainty, not the particle's.

We don't "KNOW" that particles reappear and dissapear into the "quantum vacuum", but that seems to be the case. A new way to exaimine this charactaristic may show that this is not the case.

Again... funny that.

 

[Commoner]

Would you say that the life of Martin Luther King was meaningful ?

Would you say that you could have used anyone as an example instead of MLK?

 

[Troublemane]

I think too much meaning is given to the idea of "uncertainty". It's uncertain because our expirements effect the particle itslef. We can't observe anything without affecting it. By measuring one aspect of the particle, we change another. We can say, "There's an electron," but we can't know what it's velocity was. We can say, "This is the direction it's going", but we'd have no idea where it is once we measured that, because we changed the direction(velocity) by doing so. We can't tell where, in an atom, the electron is, only where it has a certain chance of being. This doesn't mean we can't measure HOW MANY electrons there are, we know they are there, we just have no way to dermine EXACTLY where they are.

Just as a side note: this is not the case with the "slit experiment" using photons. A single photon will travel (seemingly) through both slits, and its only when it strikes the photographic plate that it "materializes" (seemingly) into a single photon again. The photon is actually, physically in two places at once and this has nothing to do with a measurement. The EPR experiment is another example, and Bells Inequality,.....

But...I dont think Quantum Physics itself is an open book for theists. At least, not if they know whats good for em! Its a physical theory, it cannot tell us anything about "god" or the "devil", good/bad, etc. I think if theists wanna try and use Quantum Theory to try and demon-strate the existence of God, they do so at their own peril. Science can change whenever theres a new discovery....if they wanna hang their theology on ideas which can be radically changed overnight (via, say new discoveries in string theory or something), then they run the risk of having the rug pulled from under them when the next paradigm shift in science occurs.

Besides, if they wanna claim they actually understand quantum theory better than a scientist, they certainly can try that too! Be big fun to watch!:angel2:

 

[Atheologian]

Unfortunately some people don't feel they know better than the evidences and try to prove the erroneous formula because it's all they know. (Any why would their parents ever be wrong!?)

which is foolish, If you do not understand the equation, what does the result matter?

I think, rather than the way my teacher put it, "God" is the erronous equation for the correct value we want. while 1 + 1 (God) does not equal 24, 12 + 12 does. So does 3(8) or 4 * 6, and we can "prove" all of these to be true. Equations that give us the correct value, we deem knowledge. Equations that don't, wind up as folklore and myth.

 

[Atheologian]

Just as a side note: this is not the case with the "slit experiment" using photons. A single photon will travel (seemingly) through both slits, and its only when it strikes the photographic plate that it "materializes" (seemingly) into a single photon again. The photon is actually, physically in two places at once and this has nothing to do with a measurement. The EPR experiment is another example, and Bells Inequality,.....

Thus the superposition state of a photon. In fact, all particles are represented by a wave when you do the math. That should not be confused with the particle "not actually being there" though. I think it's interesting when they slow that expirement down, and when single photons are emitted at a time, they still take the pattern of wave interference.

Also, Schroedinger's cat thought expirement is a way I think a theist could impress some notion of "other dimesnsions" and that "God" just might live in one. I've heard something kind of similar. I never knew what to really think about that expirement. If you ask me, the cat dying simply depends on a probability of the particle decaying, and the cat's either dead or alive before, and regardless if, you open the box. But, I do understand the issue here, because of the superposition of the particle. The whole notion of a cat in limbo until you open the box, and create another dimesion, is absurd. But, then again, so are most properties of quantum mechanics. They just don't behave like the world of the very large. Still, I find it hard to believe that ME opening the BOX collapses the wave function. I find it easier to believe that applying the expirement itself collapses the function by simply detecting or not detecting the radiation.

 

[Atheologian]

These types of expirements, that display the "uncertainty" of a particle, that particle/wave aspect, is what has believers hunting for this "God" particle. That and the crude notion that the particles pop in and out of empty space.

I'd like to see an expirement with the Hadron collider that can really help to pinpoint the nature of subatomic particles, but so far, they just seem to confirm the "weirdness" of the quantum world.

 

[PureX]

Besides, if they wanna claim they actually understand quantum theory better than a scientist, they certainly can try that too! Be big fun to watch!:angel2:

Are you aware of how much that sounds like something a religious fundamentalist would say? Not in those exact words, but with the same gusto for the humiliation of those who don't agree with their beliefs.

 

[Commoner]

Are you aware of how much that sounds like something a religious fundamentalist would say? Not in those exact words, but with the same gusto for the humiliation of those who don't agree with their beliefs.

No, it would be kind of like someone who did not study theology claiming he understands theology better than the theologians.

This is a very different claim. Can you tell the difference?

 

[madhatter85]

I think, rather than the way my teacher put it, "God" is the erronous equation for the correct value we want. while 1 + 1 (God) does not equal 24, 12 + 12 does. So does 3(8) or 4 * 6, and we can "prove" all of these to be true. Equations that give us the correct value, we deem knowledge. Equations that don't, wind up as folklore and myth.

I guess it's what comes down to what you consider proof and evidence. For me there is more than enough proof that God exists.

 

[PureX]

No, it would be kind of like someone who did not study theology claiming he understands theology better than the theologians.

This is a very different claim. Can you tell the difference?

I wasn't talking about the claim, but the attitude behind it. Fundamentalism (absolutism) is an illness that infects all sorts of ideology, even atheism.

 

[Commoner]

I wasn't talking about the claim, but the attitude behind it. Fundamentalism (absolutism) is an illness that infects all sorts of ideology, even atheism.

I was explaining to you that one is an assertion of knowing "how things are" better than others, with complete disregard for any other views (fundamentalist) and the other is an assertion of knowing what a theory says about "how things are" better than someone else. There's a BIG difference.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Would you say that you could have used anyone as an example instead of MLK?

Some people do live very meaningful lives. The thing is you must try. Feed the poor, think great thoughts, create amazing art. The reason it is so hard to find the meaning in life. Is you cant find it because life it self is the meaning.

 

[PureX]

I was explaining to you that one is an assertion of knowing "how things are" better than others, with complete disregard for any other views (fundamentalist) and the other is an assertion of knowing what a theory says about "how things are" better than someone else. There's a BIG difference.

It's the presuming to know "how things are" that opens the door to such absolutist thinking. And even an atheist can get addicted to the idea that logic and reason are the only true pathway to truth. Absolutism is really a disease of the ego, rather than an ideological flaw.

 

[Commoner]

It's the presuming to know "how things are" that opens the door to such absolutist thinking. And even an atheist can get addicted to the idea that logic and reason are the only true pathway to truth. Absolutism is really a disease of the ego, rather than an ideological flaw.

No, you woldn't want to mix in reason, that always causes problems.

 

[DarkSun]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what PureX is saying. :sarcastic

 

[DarkSun]

Besides, if they wanna claim they actually understand quantum theory better than a scientist, they certainly can try that too! Be big fun to watch!:angel2:

So... These Christmas holidays I'll be working in a lab, extracting DNA and doing up a spreadsheet on the data collected. And the last break I had I was working in a Glycomics lab, the only one of two in the world. I was doing this as part of a research scholarship. It was a lot of fun!

Are you saying that science is a realm of knowledge exclusively for atheists? If so, myself and a lot of other people I've met are living, breathing examples of how what you're saying is an erroneous load of tripe.

That is all. :angel2:

 

[Commoner]

Are you saying that science is a realm of knowledge exclusively for atheists? If so, myself and a lot of other people I've met are living, breathing examples of how what you're saying is an erroneous load of tripe.

That is all. :angel2:

I think he was just saying that science is the realm of scientists - and when someone, who is not even close to being a scientist tries to use ideas from quantum mechanics to come to conclusions that no scientists ever came to, while disregarding the ones they did come to, that's problematic (and funny).

But of course some scientists are theists and there are probably even more those that are deists. I don't think many of them go about using quantum mechanics to justify their god tho.