No, the problem of Thursdayism involves the nature of our physical existence.
-
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!
Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.
- Thread starter Steven Merten
- Start date
No, the problem of Thursdayism involves the nature of our physical existence.
ecco
Veteran Member
Why is that a problem? Do you want to discuss this or do you want to stick with: I have tired of this useless swim in peanut butter.
gnostic
The Lost One
I do admire Einstein's contribution to physics, but like Wandering Monk said, he has made some errors:
The problems with what Einstein had with Quantum Mechanics was that he tried to get QM to work together with General Relativity, and when he couldn't, he simply just gave up on QM, and continued to focus on GR.
The other thing he was wrong his cosmology of the Static Universe. He postulated in his hypothesis that the universe was eternal and eternally unchanging, meaning the universe doesn't expand or contract, galaxies doesn't move, sort of like the universe was in eternal bubble. He challenged the expanding universe model of the 1920s (later called the Big Bang cosmology), introduced independently by 3 physicists:
- Alexander Friedmann (1922),
- Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25),
- Georges Lemaître (1927)
One of the predictions made by both Robertson and Lemaître, independently, that astronomical objects (galaxies) viewed as "redshifted" in EM spectrum, would indicate galaxies are moving away from each other, hence the universe is expanding, while "blue-shifted" would indicate galaxies moving towards each other, hence the universe is contracting.
The prediction of Redshift was discovered by Hubble's observation in 1929, was the first important evidence for the Big Bang theory, and since then more galaxies were discovered in the decades to follow, verifying the redshift prediction. That 1929's discovery, a few years later (some times in the 1930s), essentially made Einstein realized he was wrong not only about his Static Universe hypothesis (which he gave up), but his Cosmological Constant was also wrong.
Einstein later wrote that the Cosmological Constant was his biggest blunder in his physics career.
My problem is with your OP. You quoted two physicists, and yet you bring up evolution, which is biology. Neither Einstein, nor Bohr are biologists, so why bring them up at all? Do you really want to talk about biology or physics?
Last edited:
No. What is bohr was speaking of god in a symbolic sense. There's nothing said about randomness relating to an actual god. They were debating about science, not the existence of god. What's also obvious here is, you trying to make things fit your beliefs.
BTW, your belief of god as suggested above is more aligned with Einstein.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello gnostic,
Did you watch the PBS video? The video leans towards Bohr, and his 'Peek a Boo' universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it, being right.
So how could evolution have happened, in a 'Peek A Boo' universe, where there is no universe when man is not looking at it? You cannot have evolution, without a universe for evolution to take place in, right?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
No sure about man being necessary to observe at all
Rather suggests that aliens have been around a long time , perhaps even before the big bang.
Rather suggests that aliens have been around a long time , perhaps even before the big bang.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sorry if I'm repeating some things - I haven't read through the entire thread, but...
Firstly, there is no such thing as "proven science" as anybody with a passing familiarity with the scientific method would know.
Secondly, the debate about QM has come a long way since Einstein and Bohr - and frankly the involvement of consciousness has always been a minority view. The question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still open.
Thirdly, even those who insist on conscious involvement, tend not to question evolution. That's really simplistic nonsense. Even if consciousness is involved in QM, one needs to explain how the history of the universe, for which we have copious evidence, came about.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "proven science" as anybody with a passing familiarity with the scientific method would know.
Secondly, the debate about QM has come a long way since Einstein and Bohr - and frankly the involvement of consciousness has always been a minority view. The question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still open.
Thirdly, even those who insist on conscious involvement, tend not to question evolution. That's really simplistic nonsense. Even if consciousness is involved in QM, one needs to explain how the history of the universe, for which we have copious evidence, came about.
gnostic
The Lost One
Going by that sort of logic, then without man seeing “god” or “heaven”, then neither “god”, nor “heaven” could possibly exist.
Is that true, if you follow Bohr’s way of thinking?
ecco
Veteran Member
Would it count if dead people had seen god or heaven? I wonder what Bohr would have to say about that?
Steven Merten
Active Member
Both Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr accept the scientific results of the 'double slit' experiment. In the double slit experiment, electrons behave like a wave, when man is not measuring/observing them, and, electrons behave like a physical particle, when man is measuring/observing them.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There is no evidence that an "observation" in this sense has anything to do with "man" (human consciousness). In fact there are many interpretations that are all consistent with the evidence and few serious scientists think it has anything to do with consciousness.
The film this clip is taken from has received a great deal of criticism for misrepresenting the situation.
It doesn't require a conscious observer to produce that phenomenon. It requires a *measurement* of the electron that can discern which slit it 'goes through'.
It is not so simple as you always try to make it. What does ‘discern’ ultimately mean? Ultimately it is conscious beings have to discern. Machines record. They do not discern.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Maybe that's what "Omega" stands for. God as the last observer in the infinite future, making the whole universe superposition collapse to our reality, and in so doing, also produced the process of evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, we discern what the machines record. The point is that it does not matter if we look at the recorded results or not. The action of measuring is what causes this behavior. Not the action of "discerning".
Not true. Computers discern things about the real world all the time. the functioning of most modern cars relies on it. They get input, make a choice between options based on input, and then carry out that choice.
In the case of the double slit experiment, the detector has to perform differently depending on which slit the electron goes through. That is all the 'discernment' that is required.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I agree.....and Albert did say so....
start a thread......My Greatest Blunder
see you there
Thief
Rogue Theologian
there are those among us that insist......some things are NOT predictable
so much for repeatable experiment
Even a child knows that humans have programmed the car. So, it is human intelligence functioning in the background.
Whose discernment is working here? How do the particles know whether a measurement is being made or not?
Do not fool the unsuspecting readers that physical equations incorporate this aspect of discernment and the final knowledge is already at hand. Be a little more truthful.