Mathematical Proof of God?

[RestlessSoul]

Strawman. I didn't say Bells theorem doesn't say either non-locality or realism are false? I didn't say entanglement isn't a mystery. What I remarked on is that consciousness affects the measurement. That specifically is what is considered quantum woo.





I have read plenty of pop-sci physics. Heinz Pagels, almost all of Paul Davies books, some of them several times (About Time) and around 20 individual authors like F. A. Wolf, João Magueijo, even Quantum Enigma by 2 Phds who explore the measurement problem.
It's weird that you are telling me to read poop-sci when I linked to physicsforums where in order to get certain credentials you have to show you are a professor with a degree?
That part of the measurement problem is considered woo. I see that pop-sci is big on selling these concepts. Unfortunately when I went to physics forums and tried to learn further information I found that it's not supported in physics. In other words, I did some further research.
But since it doesn't match what you believe to be true you assumed I just googled it? That would be cognative bias. Here is a thought, make a username and ask some physicists/advisors on the forum your question and see how it goes. The "advisors" have to show a degree and a teaching job.


The need for a "conscious observer"

"With the exception of the Wigner interpretation (for which even Wigner himself eventually withdrew support), a conscious observer plays absolutely no role in any of quantum mechanics. Collapse of the wave function (assuming an interpretation that posits it) is unrelated to consciousness, else the universe could never have evolved a conscious observer."

Reference: The need for a "conscious observer""


It's often explained by decoherance:
"It's been observed in experiments, so it's a fact. See, for example, this review article by Schlosshauer: Quantum Decoherence"

Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"


"For all practical purposes, you can substitute a measuring device for a conscious observer. You can program a robot to write "The particle was measured to have spin-up" just like a human observer. The Rules of Quantum Mechanics would work just as well for the robot. Sure, you can take a skeptical stance and say that the robot doesn't actually know that the spin was up, you need a human to read what it wrote and interpret it. But you can apply the same skepticism to other humans---maybe only your observations collapse the wave function? Anyway, the Rules of Quantum Mechanics say, roughly, that: When a measurement is made, the result will be an eigenvalue of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. Some people interpret the measurement to be made when a conscious observer learns the result. But if you instead, you interpret it as: the measurement is made when there is a persistent, irreversible record of the result, you get a variant of quantum mechanics that is experimentally indistinguishable from the first interpretation."

Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"


Does unitarity of the evolution of wavefunction get rid of the need for a "conscious observer", and does collapse in contrast demand a "conscious observer"?

Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"
are in principle answered. If all chain links in a von Neumann measurement chain are treated as pure physical systems – up to the end, one ends up - when basing oneself on the physical formalism of quantum theory and the Schrödinger dynamics in particular - with nothing but an entangled state. If the object of interest which is measured is, for example, represented by a superposition state a|+>+b|−>, the last chain link of von Neumann’s measurement chain ends also in a superposition state a|+,A+,E+,Me+>+b|−,A−,E−,Me−> where A+,E+,Me+ and A−,E−,Me− represent the state of the apparatus, the environment and the “observing” sytem at the end of the chain. That's the "physics"! There is - when all chain links are considered as pure physical systems - nothing which reduces the superposition of two possibilities to one unique actuality. As Euan J. Squires puts it (see reference in post #10): “So, where is the problem, and what has all this got to do with consciousness? The complete description of the “physics” in orthodox quantum theory is the state displayed above, which contains both terms, i.e. both “results”. The unique result of which I am aware does not exist in physics - but only in consciousness. The Born rule does not have anything to say about physics - it says something about consciousness.”

Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"


Conscious observers obey the same quantum theory as the rest of the universe. Conscious observers are irrelevant. Not to put too fine a point on it, but conscious observers are the ones who define "conscious," and aside from the inherent bias in that, there is no consensus to what that even means. Why would "conscious observers" be special aside from the desire of some conscious observers to think they are special and not subject to the same laws of physics that applies to the rest of the universe?

Reference: The need for a "conscious observer"



In fact I had to go to the "ask anything" section of the forum because questions related to nonsense are not allowed in the regular forums.

Yeah, you’ve completely misunderstood. You are the one attacking a straw man. Where did I mention consciousness in relation to the observer? I was referring to the double slit experiment indicating that an observed particle behaves differently to unobserved particles, in regard to wave function interference after passing through the slit. Please read posts properly before cutting and pasting your counter-argument

In any case several reputable physicists including Arthur Eddington, Roger Penrose etc have written persuasively about the role of consciousness in creating reality. One of the inferences of the QBist interpretation of QM is that agents (observers) collectively gather information by which models of reality are created,

 

[joelr]

Wouldn't it be more apt to ask if omnipresence is an infinity?

I don't think so.
Omnipresence is a Platonic concept that he used for "The One" which later Aquinas took that (and basically all of the Platonic theology) and used it for his God, Yahweh.

So this is all made up stuff, re-used onto another made-up deity. If there is some simple, basic substance behind all reality that cannot be divided any further and it's the most basic substance, adding that it's also conscious and all that does not make sense at all. It's more like working from top down, taking a concept of a deity and attempting to fit it into being the base of reality.

 

[joelr]

Consider....what does undefined really mean?

Well in this case you brought in math. So it means it doesn't have a value to assign to it.

 

[joelr]

Yeah, you’ve completely misunderstood. You are the one attacking a straw man. Where did I mention consciousness in relation to the observer? I was referring to the double slit experiment indicating that an observed particle behaves differently to unobserved particles, in regard to wave function interference after passing through the slit. Please read posts properly before cutting and pasting your counter-argument

To your statement - "the 'measurement problem'in QM which implies that the act of observation affects the behavior of the particle being observed."

I answered with reasons why a conscious observer is not needed or that consciousness is not considered to play a role in this. Like I said that is the woo. But I didn't say anything about entanglement or Bell.

In any case several reputable physicists including Arthur Eddington, Roger Penrose etc have written persuasively about the role of consciousness in creating reality. One of the inferences of the QBist interpretation of QM is that agents (observers) collectively gather information by which models of reality are created,

So it is what you are saying then? So I was correct anyways? Eddington may have subscribed to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I don't remember. I didn't see anything about consciousness in Road to Reality or Cycles of Time. Penrose doesn't think consciousness creates reality. He thinks it might be a quantum phenomenon, he has written about that. Again, consciousness creating reality is woo.
It creates our interpretation of what reality is.

 

[ChristineM]

I've already mentioned one recognized hypothesis. The God hypothesis. I've already shown a miniscule sampling of the consideration of a God concept in scientists thinking. The God hypothesis addresses troubling questions that have arose in cosmological observations.

Making up a story and calling it a hypothesis is not a hypothesis, its wishful thinking.

So the troubling questions of "I don't know" must be concluded by "therefore god"

Therefore god without falsifiable evidence is just as accepted in science as therefore invisible pink unicorns.

This is what I mean by a militaristic opposition to some concepts.

Science deals with observation and experiment. If that is what you consider militaristic then so be it.

I think you may be mistaking cosmological fine tuning for perfection in the universe?

Nope

Chaotic events taking place within a system which contains those events does not preclude the fine tuning which allows for such chaos.

Ahh apologetics, ok

I think so.

I think not.you continually use the typical use of theory (guess) while refering to a scientific theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

That's pretty darn presumptuous and arrogant. The few scientists I mentioned including the ones you mentioned

Considered and rejected...

What do you mean they don't have any standing? Einstein considered it and didn't dismiss the possibility. Is he without standing? Oppenheimer, Tesla, you'd be hard pressed to find a scientists who hasn't at least considered the proposition.

Considered and rejected

What do you even mean by to "include gods"?

There are no valid, recognised hypothesis that say "god did it" i am sure you realise this

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Baha'i faith is just another religion, sowing division and trying to win converts just like the rest.


And I can't fathom your perspective, but I remember the Philip K. Dick quote: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away."

Regardless, you can be completely convinced of God while still recognizing that the argument in the OP is a horrible argument for God.

That’s a typical atheist response but you fail to acknowledge the facts that the Baha’is have been able to unite people from all faiths, races and nationalities which is a credit to any fair and unbiased observer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s a typical atheist response but you fail to acknowledge the facts that the Baha’is have been able to unite people from all faiths, races and nationalities which is a credit to any fair and unbiased observer.

The Baha'i faith is just one more small religious faction in a broad spectrum of religious factions. Its existence increases division; this works against world unity.

... but you think you're a unifying force because you'll proselytize to anyone any you believe you'll be the world's one religion? That's true of most monotheistic religions. The Baha'i faith is no more of a force for "unity" than the LDS Church is.

Do you really think that other religions - including ones you probably see as divisive - don't also have "people from all faiths, races and nationalities"? They still promote factionalism, just as your religion does.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Baha'i faith is just one more small religious faction in a broad spectrum of religious factions. Its existence increases division; this works against world unity.

... but you think you're a unifying force because you'll proselytize to anyone any you believe you'll be the world's one religion? That's true of most monotheistic religions. The Baha'i faith is no more of a force for "unity" than the LDS Church is.

Do you really think that other religions - including ones you probably see as divisive - don't also have "people from all faiths, races and nationalities"? They still promote factionalism, just as your religion does.

So you don’t think it’s good for the differing races, religions and nationalities to reconcile their differences and work together for the betterment of humanity because that’s the aim and purpose of Baha’u’llah. It’s all about inclusiveness and acceptance of all humanity as one family.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you don’t think it’s good for the differing races, religions and nationalities to reconcile their differences and work together for the betterment of humanity because that’s the aim and purpose of Baha’u’llah. It’s all about inclusiveness and acceptance of all humanity as one family.

I can tell that this wasn't Baha'u'llah's purpose because people who are trying to end factionalism don't foster new factionalism, such as by founding a new religion.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Because of the existence of your religion, there's marginally more division in the world. Your religion is small and irrelevant enough that its contribution to worldwide division is also small, but your religion certainly isn't a force for unity.

You create new differences for people to reconcile, and I'm not sure how I could consider your OP to have anything to do with "working together for the betterment of humanity."

 

[shunyadragon]

I must have really upset you for you to have such childish tantrums. I won't be replying to you anymore, i am concerned for you health

I must have really upset you for you to have such childish tantrums. I won't be replying to you anymore, i am concerned for you health.

It is far past ti,e you stopped replying with your vindictive sarcastic name calling foolishness,

Your treatment of others like @setarcos is not much better,

 

[ChristineM]

I must have really upset you for you to have such childish tantrums. I won't be replying to you anymore, i am concerned for you health.

It is far past ti,e you stopped replying with your vindictive sarcastic name calling foolishness,

Your treatment of others like @setarcos is not much better,

So sad when all you have left is parrot

 

[shunyadragon]

So sad when all you have left is parrot

Well ah . . . this is about the third time you have said you are not going to make vindictive sarcastic childish name-calling posts.

Actually, this type of behavior is indicative of health problems.

 

[ChristineM]

Well ah . . . this is about the third time you have said you are not going to make vindictive sarcastic childish name-calling posts.

Actually, this type of behavior is indicative of health problems.

Nope, its about the 3rd time ive said goodbye, the vindictive comments are yours, to which i responded in kind. And you keep coming back for more.

And yes, as I've said, i am concerned for your health.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, its about the 3rd time ive said goodbye, the vindictive comments are yours, to which i responded in kind. And you keep coming back for more.

The need to keep repeating yourself may be signs of memory problems due to aging. work at a memory care facility in Durham North Carolina.

And yes, as I've said, i am concerned for your health.[/QUOTE]

have no significant health problems other than being 76.

And yes, as I've said, i am concerned for your health, because of your vindictive, sarcastic and childish use of name calling. These are symptoms of health problems

 

[loverofhumanity]

I can tell that this wasn't Baha'u'llah's purpose because people who are trying to end factionalism don't foster new factionalism, such as by founding a new religion.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Because of the existence of your religion, there's marginally more division in the world. Your religion is small and irrelevant enough that its contribution to worldwide division is also small, but your religion certainly isn't a force for unity.

You create new differences for people to reconcile, and I'm not sure how I could consider your OP to have anything to do with "working together for the betterment of humanity."

So you’re saying a belief in our common humanity is factionalism? A widening of our vision to include all instead of just our race, religion and nationality a cause of disunity? So ending racism by accepting all races as equal is not creating unity between races? And an end to wars is not a noble ideal?

So you are against the embracing of all human beings as equals?

 

[ChristineM]

The need to keep repeating yourself may be signs of memory problems due to aging. work at a memory care facility in Durham North Carolina.

And yes, as I've said, i am concerned for your health.

have no significant health problems other than being 76.

And yes, as I've said, i am concerned for your health, because of your vindictive, sarcastic and childish use of name calling. These are symptoms of health problems[/QUOTE]

Age it telling.

 

[setarcos]

Well in this case you brought in math. So it means it doesn't have a value to assign to it.

I don't think I brought in the math...I travel pretty light.
So, what doesn't have a value to assign to it? Well, that which is undefined of course. Which is what? Lol

 

[setarcos]

Omnipresence is a Platonic concept that he used for "The One" which later Aquinas took that (and basically all of the Platonic theology) and used it for his God, Yahweh.

I don't see the relevance of this.

So this is all made up stuff, re-used onto another made-up deity.

I'm not sure what you mean by made up? Seems the concept is a logical progression of the consequences of inflating familiar concepts.
Do you consider the entirety of philosophic thought "made up"? Consider that even in science we "make up" models to mimic reality. Yet we are not creating reality in doing so. Or are we?

If there is some simple, basic substance behind all reality that cannot be divided any further and it's the most basic substance, adding that it's also conscious and all that does not make sense at all.

Neither does quantum mechanics according to the scientists that study it.

It's more like working from top down, taking a concept of a deity and attempting to fit it into being the base of reality.

What are you saying....humans started with the conception of an undefined deity and then worked to define it as the basis of reality? So humans started with an unrealistic conception and worked to make it realistic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you’re saying a belief in our common humanity is factionalism?

No, I'm saying that your carving out another religion is factionalism, and your belief in our common humanity is hypocrisy.

A widening of our vision to include all instead of just our race, religion and nationality a cause of disunity? So ending racism by accepting all races as equal is not creating unity between races? And an end to wars is not a noble ideal?

None of that needs to have anything to do with religion.

So you are against the embracing of all human beings as equals?

No, I'm against religions trying to be the gatekeepers of equality.

Edit: religions claiming to be "universal" are a dime a dozen (especially when we recognize that "catholic" just means "universal"). So are religions that try to foster "unity" by trying to convert anyone who doesn't already belong.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, I'm saying that your carving out another religion is factionalism, and your belief in our common humanity is hypocrisy.


None of that needs to have anything to do with religion.


No, I'm against religions trying to be the gatekeepers of equality.

Edit: religions claiming to be "universal" are a dime a dozen (especially when we recognize that "catholic" just means "universal"). So are religions that try to foster "unity" by trying to convert anyone who doesn't already belong.

I don’t know if you noticed it, but humanity is sinking more and more into chaos and anarchy with the UN unable to quench the hostilities arising everywhere from China to Russia, Ukraine, Syria and Burma. These are not religious conflicts.

Baha’u’llah suggested humanity reconstruct a social order based on justice because only a just order can end these wars. This is why it is so important for humanity to unite so they can unitedly crush the oppressor and establish peace. So long as we are divided into ‘us and thems’ dictators play us off against one another but if we were all only on the side (one humanity family) of humanity we could solve these problems.