Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.

[atanu]

Your ability to travel in time, forward or back, is limited by the speed of light. All of history will be contained in the light cone.

Thank you for the video.

The speed of light limit is as per Special Theory of Relativity. But as per many paired photon experiments, information between paired photons separated by many miles seem to travel instantaneously.

These experiments have shown that QM is correct and Einstein ‘s local realism and hidden variable idea was wrong. Instantaneous information passage is proven.

Aspect's experiment - Wikipedia

Similarly, double slit experiments show that observations do collapse quantum states. Currently, however, scientists do not believe that human consciousness causes collapse. Rather it is understood that observation involves ‘information generation’, which causes collapse.

To me, information generation and that causing collapse of quantum states is another way of saying consciousness causes collapse, which Bohr meant, imo.

I have voted for Bohr. But OP is misguided.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not being sarcastic. Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr were extremely serious about whether or not we had a reality without conscious man to observe the universe and they spent a tremendous amount of valuable, great minds, thinking and debating on the issue.

Regardless these views expressed are philosophical views beyond the purview of science.

Nonetheless describing people as the 'smartest' is unnecessary hyper-sarcasm.

Being esteemed scientists give no weight to their philosophy, which is not grounded in science.


It makes no sense that philosophical views prove anything in science, especially since it is not science and science does not prove anything.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The speed of light limit is as per Special Theory of Relativity. But as per many paired photon experiments, information between paired photons separated by many miles seem to travel instantaneously.

These experiments have shown that QM is correct and Einstein ‘s local realism and hidden variable idea was wrong.

Instantaneous information passage is proven.

Similarly, double slit experiments show that observations do collapse quantum states. Currently, however, scientists do not believe that human consciousness causes collapse. Rather it is understood that observation involves ‘information generation’, which causes collapse.

To me, information generation and that causing collapse of quantum states is another way of saying consciousness causes collapse, which Bohr meant, imo.

You are speaking here of quantum entanglement.

The Real Reasons Quantum Entanglement Doesn't Allow Faster-Than-Light Communication

 

[atanu]

You are speaking here of quantum entanglement.

The Real Reasons Quantum Entanglement Doesn't Allow Faster-Than-Light Communication

Ha ha. Correct. That is the limit on how humans compare results.

But Einstein’s local realism was proven wrong through testing of Bell’s inequality.

Aspect's experiment - Wikipedia

 

[atanu]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

The idea of drawing support for religion/theology/god from science is misplaced, imo.

I voted for Bohr. But that does not mean that your conclusions are supported.

 

[Steven Merten]

Does everyone agree that to believe that there is no universe without conscious man, Adam, to observe it, is a scientifically credible, if not mainstream, scientific view to hold? Even if you do not believe it, you still respect and give dignity to the scientific people who do hold this scientific view. Are we all respectful of people who believe in Quantum Theory and Neil's Bohr's, No universe without conscious man to observe it?

If six day Creationists believe that God miraculously caused six days of creation before conscious man opened his eyes and the universe came into existence, we can allow them the dignity to believe in this miracle from God, as well. Correct?

 

[BSM1]

Well, duh! This is a no-brainer. BTW, anybody seen my cat?

 

[Martin]

Luckily, we don't live in the quantum realm.

Indeed, we live in the realm of Newton Ian mechanics, rather than quantum mechanics. It's a matter of scale.

 

[Steven Merten]

The idea of drawing support for religion/theology/god from science is misplaced, imo.

I voted for Bohr. But that does not mean that your conclusions are supported.

Hello atanu,
I am not trying to prove religion using proven science. I am simply showing that proven science does not disprove religion. Screaming atheist Stephen Hawking mocks God of having no Power of Creation, due to Hawking's selected 'scientific proofs'. Hawking never proved Neils Bohr's, 'There is no universe without man to observe it', wrong. Albert Einstein could not do so either. Neils Bohr continues to win the scientific debate on what Reality is, through continued proven scientific experiments, to this day.

 

[Martin]

Hello atanu,
I am not trying to prove religion using proven science. I am simply showing that proven science does not disprove religion. Screaming atheist Stephen Hawking mocks God of having no Power of Creation, due to Hawking's selected 'scientific proofs'. Hawking never proved Neils Bohr's, 'There is no universe without man to observe it', wrong. Albert Einstein could not do so either. Neils Bohr continues to win the scientific debate on what Reality is, through continued proven scientific experiments, to this day.

It's certainly possible that there's a connection between QM and consciousness, but I'm pretty sure there is no consensus on the detail of this so far. So I don't accept your OP claim of "proven science".
And as Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand QM, then you don't understand it.

By the way, could you provide a reference for your Neils Bohr quote above, I couldn't find it. When did he say "There is no universe without man to observe it", and in what context?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does everyone agree that an electron changes its course of past travel, when conscious man observes it? How did an electron 'evolve' to know when man is looking at it, and thus go back in physical time to change its path of travel?

You do not understand the science that you refer to.

To "see" an electron one has to bounce something off of it to see where it is. The mere act of doing so will change the electrons course. "Looking" is not the passive action that many think that it is.

 

[Martin]

Most physicists seem to believe that ‘quantum measurement’ causing collapse does not involve consciousness (of the mental-human kind) but involves information generation.

Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia

“The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6]apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.”
...

Now, what is information generation? And how do the waves collapse after reading the information?

It's a complicated question, but I'm pretty sure it's not saying that my settee temporarily disappears while I'm not looking at it, or that the universe only popped into existence when the the first animals appeared, or whatever.

Behaviour at the quantum level is certainly weird, but I think it's a lot more predictable at the human scale, which is subject to Newtonian mechanics .

 

[sealchan]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

Does Bohr distinguish between quantum theory and the common sense view that existence is only "a thing" for a being capable of registering whether something exists or not?

I find the scientific argument in this area to be "entangled" with this more common sense view and, perhaps, not important for that reason. I suspect that the scientific definition of what constitutes observation will be refined eventually to something more specific than "human observation".

 

[Samael_Khan]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

If man cannot observe something that can only be proven when man is not observing it, and scientific claims are based on observation, how can it be proven science when the conclusion falls out of the realms of science?

 

[ChristineM]

Does everyone agree that Albert Einstein, the smartest man ever, spent a great deal of his valuable thinking time, decades of his life, trying to come up with a way to prove the universe exists even when conscious man is not looking at it?

Are people who think they are scientifically smart today, thinking this was a waste of Albert Einstein's valuable thought, time?

Einstein was not the smartest man ever, it is estimated that the IQ of William James Sidis was between 50 and 100 points higher.

Einstein spent a great deal of time thinking about many things. The fact he would not accept quantum mechanics seems to make your argument about quantum mechanics moot.

 

[Cooky]

If humans are the only observers capable of triggering wave function collapse, this implies the universe didn't exist as Reality until the first human observed it, and then "bam": it suddenly appeared (as all wavefunctions from 14.5 billion years collapsed for the first time).

Thus the big bang occurred when humans appeared and became conscious. But how could biology occur without prior wavefunction collapse?

Also: this implies that only upon seeing a phenomena for the first time triggers wavefunction collapse for the entire past history of the particles in question. This makes no sense. The universe doesn't need human observation to function.

What if you take time out of the equation? Because time is measured in *human* terms comparable only to our lifespans... Time, for a bacteria, may be a totally different rule of measure. Perhaps the big bang would have just occured a moment ago from another perspective, outside of human abstract thinking.

...So if time is merely a human abstraction. What else is?

 

[SugarOcean]

It's important to consider the implications of the stories that we tell ourselves. What are the implications? Especially if you are not a man and are not a Christian?

Please, Christianity is still a story we tell ourselves.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

How do I know you exist? I don’t see you.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What if you take time out of the equation? Because time is measured in *human* terms comparable only to our lifespans... Time, for a bacteria, may be a totally different rule of measure. Perhaps the big bang would have just occured a moment ago from another perspective, outside of human abstract thinking.

...So if time is merely a human abstraction. What else is?

I think that time ultimately has to be defined as the series of events caused by increasing entropy across the universe.

 

[Revoltingest]

This thread reminds me of...

Spoiler:

He can only become invisible when no one is watching.