-
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
It is nature of science. I see no 'deprecation'. The view on various aspects of QM is far from unanimous and far from a shut case as you tend to make out.
Well, between two interpretations:
1) requires mechanisms (sudden collapse of the wave function) that are nowhere to be seen in the theoretical framework
2) does not require 1) while having the same explanatory power
Which one would a rational person choose?
Ciao
- viole
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I love dad's "GET OFF MY LAWN!!" style of debate.
The OP is about Einstein’s realism.
QM has no unanimous voice. As of now, however, entanglement, collapse, apparent faster than light communication etc. suggest that EPR paradox is well explained by QM. So, to that extent Bohr seems to have won.
But, local realism in form of Pilot Wave may make a comeback and declare Einstein a winner. Broglie, Einstein, Bell, Bohm, et al would then win.
Who knows?
Last edited:
The OP is about the not existence of the Universe without consciousness. Now, since there are better interpretations of QM that do not require any consciousness, that claim might be very premature.
Ciao
- viole
But instead of OP, you seemed to attack Bohr’ view itself.
What is wrong in Bohr’s saying "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"?
Last edited:
Steven Merten
Active Member
A quantum experiment suggests
there’s no such thing as objective reality
there’s no such thing as objective reality
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
I have not seen any scientific comments on this new experiment (a couple months ago) at MIT. They are claiming two have produced two different realities in the lab.A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
It is interesting that the two different scientist, observing two different realities, cannot discuss with one another as to what they see. It seems that if they do this, then this will change the past, and they will now both be looking at only one reality, which only now is the only reality that ever existed. In other words, when two scientist look at the same reality, only now does a common reality exist, where before there were multiple realities.
In the article, they are very concerned because the scientific process itself relies on scientists all looking at the same thing. If this process itself actually distorts what scientists are looking at, then the scientific process itself is deeply flawed.
"Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?"
Quoted from the article
Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?"
Quoted from the article
I am not attacking anybody. I am just saying that his interpretation, requiring a conscious observation to collapse the wave, is losing popularity, in favor of better ones who necessitate less assumptions.
It is normal in science that old views are replaced with better ones.
Ciao
- viole
It’s an excellent analogy that a creation must have a creator and a painting a painter.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is a very foolish one. You are assuming that this universe is a "creation". That makes your argument circular.
No it isn’t. The universe functions according to a specific set of laws which presupposes a LawGiver.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
It’s not about semantics but facts. Darkness is the absence of light and proof light exists for without light darkness could not be imagined. So too imperfection is proof perfection exists for without perfection imperfection could not be imagined.
Ignorance is proof of knowledge so too creation is proof of a creator. The most complex laws govern the universe that function according to a system they cannot deviate a hairbreadth.
There is I am convinced a much higher intelligent Being than human beings for we did not design the human body which functions with perfect regularity.
If I place all the materials for a house on the ground and wait for a thousand centuries a house will not appear without a builder.
I believe it’s pure superstition to believe that life just appeared and organised itself into intelligent beings without a maker. But if you want to think that I can’t stop you but it’s not only irrational but pure fantasy that life was not engineered and constructed by a very intelligent Being. Just because we don’t understand that Being doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Audie
Veteran Member
Not me A minute or two of a three yr old jumping
up and down is more than plenty for me.
Audie
Veteran Member
You've a weird idea of proof.
"Perfection" is just a word to describe
an ideal.
"Utopia" is a word for a perfect state.
That hardly proves it exists somewhere.
Your bit about who is superstitious is too
precious to comment on, other than to note
that of course you believe that.
It is what "believers" do; singers sing, believers
believe.
And it seems to hardly matter if they make
something up themselves. or let someone
else to it for them. Believers believe.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
G
Now you are making a God of the Gaps argument. It is a variation on an argument from ignorance where God gets pigeonholed into ever shrinking boxes. It amounts to "You don't know, therefore God". Another logical fallacy.
Also your understanding of what a superstition is needs some work. As does your understanding of evolution and abiogenesis. There is no sign that a creator is needed it is superstition to believe in one.
Audie
Veteran Member
You are too kind.
The original paper is linked below:
Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world
The following Wikipedia page deals with the subject of Einstein Bohr debate:
Bohr–Einstein debates - Wikipedia
The last para is reproduced below.
In his last writing on the topic[citation needed], Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics).[9][10]
...
Based on current situation I voted for Bohr. Future may however prove Broglie, Einstein, Bohm correct. Who knows.
Bohr–Einstein debates - Wikipedia
The last para is reproduced below.
In his last writing on the topic[citation needed], Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics).[9][10]
...
Based on current situation I voted for Bohr. Future may however prove Broglie, Einstein, Bohm correct. Who knows.