• 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.

Who do you side with on scientific 'Reality'?

  • Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Albert Einstein (Father of atheist scientist philosophy of 'Realism')

    Votes: 11 68.8%

  • Total voters
    16

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Hello Brickjectivity,
I do not demean scientific disciplines. It is the disciplines of Quantum Mechanics, which seem to oppose all classical physics which came before it. Do you know anything about the laws of Quantum Mechanics? Neils Bohr states, "If you are not in complete shock over Quantum Mechanics, then you simply do not understand it."

The fact that Classical Physics has limited explanation ability beyond the macro world, and the realm of the micro-world at the plank level is best explained by Quantum Mechanics, but they do not oppose each other.

Neils Bohr's quote is anecdotal, and in the actual science of Quantum Mechanics it has little or no meaning. It is obvious tha there are unanswered questions, but this is only an 'argument from ignorance' beyond this.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The poll result is very surprising, considering that posters here claim to be very scientific.

Any physicist will know that Einstein's local realism did not stand up against QM. A person of the calibre of Einstein, in association with (Rosen and Podlovsky), only could devise a thought experiment called EPR paradox.

How the EPR Paradox Describes Quantum Entanglement

John Stewart Bell, who was of the opinion that Einstein's local realism was correct devised a series of inequalities that could help to prove entanglement of distant particles (opposed to local realism).

Alain Aspect's experiment of 1982 and many experiments thereafter have shown that there is indeed spooky action at a distance, as if. The spooky action was hypothesised as an abnormal result flowing through QM in EPR thought experiment. Furthermore, wave form collapse due to observation is also well known through the double slit experiments.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-violation-bell-inequality-frequency-bin-entangled.html

True that Everett’s many-worlds interpretation posits no collapse. Instead, probabilities bifurcate at the moment of measurement into parallel universes — one in which Schrödinger’s cat is alive and another in which it’s dead. Although an infinite number of untestable universes seems unscientific to some, many physicists today view the theory as important.
...

Whether one accepts Everret's interpretation or not, most professional physicists will agree that entanglement is more or less proven, suggesting that at least on this point, Bohr was correct.

Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum stateof each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as is to be expected due to their entanglement. However, this behavior gives rise to seemingly paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.

Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.

Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally[5] in tests where the polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating Bell's inequality. In earlier tests it couldn't be absolutely ruled out that the test result at one point could have been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.[6] However so-called "loophole-free" Bell tests have been performed in which the locations were separated such that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements.[7][8]

According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.[9][10]

Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons,[11][12][13][14] neutrinos,[15] electrons,[16][

The fact of entanglement (spooky action at distance) is now in realm of practical applications.

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-quantum-involves-nonlocality.html
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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


Declaring something meaningless and declaring it non-existent are antithetical.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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 Copenhagen interpretation (from Bohr being a Dane) is becoming deprecated. I am actually surprised people still use it, to make a point about the importance of consciousness and the act of observing (even though even a bacterium could collapse the wave).

So, it looks like consciousness is not needed after all, and there is no real collapse of the wave function when observed. Which is good, since these mechanisms do not appear anywhere in the theory.

More modern interpretations tend to include the observer in the wave function, promoting her de-facto to being a quantistic object as well. By means of that, we achieve the same explanatory power with the bonus of not requiring mysterious interactions with conscious beings. Which was a silly idea to start with, anyway.

Ciao

- viole
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
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




I do not agree for a couple of reasons. When I am not observing something, someone or something else might be. Also, if a tree grows for hundreds of years, it doesn't appear then disappear then show up with rings from hundreds of years ago. Yes, I believe that we can affect things by viewing them. Everything is atoms and particles. We can view them and change their paths while viewing them but I think that we need to be specifically viewing a specific thing to change it's atomic arrangement. That doesn't mean that things don't exist if we don't view them. It just means that things can change when we view them. If a cat is put in a box with no poison for a short amount of time (it has enough oxygen), I guarantee that it will be alive unless it has a heart attack or other medical condition. People have been, unfortunately, locked in places and they were always found alive as long as they were given food, oxygen, etc.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
I would say blues.

Yeah. But do you go with the Mississippi Interpretation or the Chicago Interpretation ?
We prefer to hear notes which relate to the tonic as integer ratios. But that damned Pythagorean comma makes it impossible for harmonies to be correct when spanning multiple octaves.
You have to bend it.
Or settle for the ‘acceptable wrongness’ of the well tempered scale.
Or use the Indian sruti system.
Or a Kurzweil.

Whichever approach you take, some wrongness remains.
I’m betting the same is true for theoretical physics.
: )
 
Top