The Debate of God.

[Sgloom]

The issue isn't measurement. The reason quantum indeterminacy is often referred to in proximity to talk of "measuring" is because one of the most revolutionary concepts which grew out of quantum physics was the idea that there is an absolute limit to the human capacity to predict the evolution of systems.

In the heyday of classical mechanics, many believed that sooner or later humans would know all the laws which governed the physical world and therefore, as long as they understood all the initial conditions of a system, they could completely determine it's outcome.

The problem the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle posed to this optimisim was one of observation. In order for scientists to understand the initial conditions of a system completely, they need to know everything concerning its initial state, which includes the position particles. However, the observation of particles requires light, or photons, and these will alter the paths of the partciles. Therefore, by trying to determine the initial state, the scientiests inevitably alter it. As a result, complete determinicy is impossible for humans, and the evolution of systems is limited to probability.

In other words, there are particles so small that even light affects their behavior. So to answer your question, the particle doesn't have "know" it is being measured nor does it require someone to "measure" it. When one says "particles are affected by observation" it refers to the fact that observation requires information to go from the sender to the object and back, such as light. If any such information will affect the object (as is the case with absolutely small particles), then there does not exist a method to observe the particle without altering its behavior.

thanks for that explanation as well, that makes sense to me. it sounds less strange now

 

[apophenia]

The issue isn't measurement. The reason quantum indeterminacy is often referred to in proximity to talk of "measuring" is because one of the most revolutionary concepts which grew out of quantum physics was the idea that there is an absolute limit to the human capacity to predict the evolution of systems.

In the heyday of classical mechanics, many believed that sooner or later humans would know all the laws which governed the physical world and therefore, as long as they understood all the initial conditions of a system, they could completely determine it's outcome.

The problem the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle posed to this optimisim was one of observation. In order for scientists to understand the initial conditions of a system completely, they need to know everything concerning its initial state, which includes the position particles. However, the observation of particles requires light, or photons, and these will alter the paths of the partciles. Therefore, by trying to determine the initial state, the scientiests inevitably alter it. As a result, complete determinicy is impossible for humans, and the evolution of systems is limited to probability.

In other words, there are particles so small that even light affects their behavior. So to answer your question, the particle doesn't have "know" it is being measured nor does it require someone to "measure" it. When one says "particles are affected by observation" it refers to the fact that observation requires information to go from the sender to the object and back, such as light. If any such information will affect the object (as is the case with absolutely small particles), then there does not exist a method to observe the particle without altering its behavior.

Thank you very much.

Very concise and comprehendable.

So it has no bearing on this discussion, whereas my misunderstanding of it years ago (through the chinese whispers of public discussion) made it seem that way.

 

[Daviso452]

You totally missed the point.

Try and follow this, it's really not that hard ...

Daviso and I were discussing whether or not there was any means other than science to obtain valuable and reliable knowledge about the world.

I suggested that there is, and that our innate wisdom is valid.

Whilst making that point I gave examples of notable behaviours in nature which clearly demonstrate highly developed capacities.

I used these examples to show that the innate intelligence of animals and insects equals or exceeds what science has so far delivered (though I can see that the capacities mentioned could possibly eventually be simulated).

The fact that those capacities can be scientifically explained does not contradict or refute the point that those capacities were not the products of science. In other words, we (organic life) already possess intelligence beyond the scope of current science and technology, whether or not science may someday explain it all.

Get it now ? Probably not.

I believe I got a little too passionate in my response, and I apologize.

But I get it now. And you're right. They aren't products of science. They are products of evolution. Science didn't cause it; science just explained how it worked.

But none of this is knowledge or intelligence. This is instinct and the senses at work. Instinct created by evolution. In order to find their chicks, the mothers evolved to identify their voice more easily. Platypus, like you said, through the beaks. Not sure about the butterflies though.

But it isn't knowledge. It's instincts and senses. Are you saying none of these animals has never been wrong in these? The butterflies have never veered off path? The mothers never misidentify their children?

It is instinct that drives these things. Instinct caused by evolution. Instinct yields no truth, Apophenia. No knowledge. Only results. The butterflies don't "know" that they are heading toward a specific place. They just do. Because otherwise they will die. It is an instinct with no knowledge involved.

Do you agree with this?

Forer effect, my friend. You have fallen victim to it. You see these animals as having innate knowledge to do these things. As if that is the only logical explanation. However, I have presented a logical argument different from yours. Broaden your mind, my friend. Things are never so black and white. However, I agree it is possible that you are right.

So, we agree that both of these are possibilities. Perhaps it is knowledge, and perhaps it is instinct. How do we distinguish one as fact and one as false? That is where science comes in. We investigate and we find out which is true.


P.S. I'm Glad you're finally becoming light-hearted! That discussion was getting too serious

P.P.S. Scientism is the belief that science is the only process that can accurately distinguish what is fact.

 

[idav]

The issue isn't measurement. The reason quantum indeterminacy is often referred to in proximity to talk of "measuring" is because one of the most revolutionary concepts which grew out of quantum physics was the idea that there is an absolute limit to the human capacity to predict the evolution of systems.

In the heyday of classical mechanics, many believed that sooner or later humans would know all the laws which governed the physical world and therefore, as long as they understood all the initial conditions of a system, they could completely determine it's outcome.

The problem the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle posed to this optimisim was one of observation. In order for scientists to understand the initial conditions of a system completely, they need to know everything concerning its initial state, which includes the position particles. However, the observation of particles requires light, or photons, and these will alter the paths of the partciles. Therefore, by trying to determine the initial state, the scientiests inevitably alter it. As a result, complete determinicy is impossible for humans, and the evolution of systems is limited to probability.

In other words, there are particles so small that even light affects their behavior. So to answer your question, the particle doesn't have "know" it is being measured nor does it require someone to "measure" it. When one says "particles are affected by observation" it refers to the fact that observation requires information to go from the sender to the object and back, such as light. If any such information will affect the object (as is the case with absolutely small particles), then there does not exist a method to observe the particle without altering its behavior.

That is quite the issue. We are trying to observe the wave pattern but can't measure it without collapsing it to a deterministic state. Hope we find a way around that. Thanks for the additional info.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We are trying to observe the wave pattern but can't measure it without collapsing it to a deterministic state. Hope we find a way around that. .

I'm not sure I follow. The whole point is that observation results in indeterminism. What do you mean by "collapsing it to a deterministic state?"

 

[idav]

I'm not sure I follow. The whole point is that observation results in indeterminism. What do you mean by "collapsing it to a deterministic state?"

The wavefunction shows to be probabalistic. When we observe it it collapses the wavefunction to being deterministic which would allow us to use classical physics to predict it but that isn't what we are trying to observe. We are trying to observe the indeterministic state but it won't let us. That is how I understand the experiment.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The wavefunction shows to be probabalistic.

Probabilistic means indeterministic. In classical mechanics, the idea was that one could determine exactly the state of a system. In quantum mechanics, exact determinism is impossible, and we are left instead with "probable" future states.

In classical mechanics light was considered just another "wave" because of certain behaviors it exhibits (interference). However, other aspects of light couldn't be explained by waves as they were understood.

When we observe it it collapses the wavefunction to being deterministic which would allow us to use classical physics to predict it but that isn't what we are trying to observe.

You can't really observe a wavefunction. It's a mathematical entity used to give us the probability of photons in space (or rather a region of space). But the important thing here is that a wavefunction simply describes a probability. There's nothing deterministic about what it describes.

We are trying to observe the indeterministic state but it won't let us. That is how I understand the experiment.

The term "indeterministic state" means you can't observe it. A system which is deterministic is one in which future states can be known. For example, if put a bunch of marbles on a flat table, and roll one marble at the center with a known amount of speed, as long as I have a certain amount of information (the mass of all the marbles, their exact locations, the exact path of the marble I am rolling, etc.) I can determine exactly what's going to happen when the marble I roll hits other marbles and they hit each other and so on, such that I can know how the marbles will be organized in space (on the table) after they stop rolling.

At the quantum level, there is no way to do this. A wavefunction allows us to know probable states, in that it is related to the probability of finding a photon in a particular region of space, but probable is the best we can do. We can't know. Hence, we have indeterminism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That is quite the issue. We are trying to observe the wave pattern but can't measure it without collapsing it to a deterministic state. Hope we find a way around that.

I think I might understand what you're saying now. By "collapse" you are referring to the "collapse" of the superposition state of photons?

 

[idav]

I think I might understand what you're saying now. By "collapse" you are referring to the "collapse" of the superposition state of photons?

Right, due to the measurement it goes from multiple possibilities to a single possibility.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Right, due to the measurement it goes from multiple possibilities to a single possibility.

Ok, I guess there was just a misunderstanding due to terminology. I wouldn't say that it collapses into a "deterministic state." The state is "determined." Deterministic state usually refers to a state which can be (not necessarly is) determined. In other words, "measuring" or "observation" doesn't create a "deterministic state" so much as it does determine the state in this case.

Deterministic/indeterministic systems/states tend to have fairly specific meanings in physics and mathematics. If I were you, rather than

The wavefunction shows to be probabalistic. When we observe it it collapses the wavefunction to being deterministic which would allow us to use classical physics to predict it but that isn't what we are trying to observe. We are trying to observe the indeterministic state but it won't let us.

I would simply say that the act of observation changes what is observed at the quantum level. If you want to use the example of light and "collapse" then you might want to give some background. A problem with the classical conception of light as a wave was what happens when a beam of light is "split" in a device which allows one to measure the photons after they are split. They hit one of two locations, and you get interference. However, the interference is not that of a classical "wave" and Einstein's famous solution was that the result was due to the fact that light isn't a "wave" but composed of photons. What is perhaps even more interesting is that you get interference even with a single photon. This is because the photon actually exists in to states at once (or two places at once) or a superposition state. However, when you use a very sensitive photodetector to measure the photon right after or as it is "split" in one direction you don't get half a photon or half of the photons you shoot into your splitting device, you either get a whole photon or no photon (no photon because the photon goes in the other direction). The act of trying to detect the photon has caused it to go from its superpositional state into it's normal state. This is because photons are so small that any obervation changes them.

 

[idav]

Ok, I guess there was just a misunderstanding due to terminology. I wouldn't say that it collapses into a "deterministic state." The state is "determined." Deterministic state usually refers to a state which can be (not necessarly is) determined. In other words, "measuring" or "observation" doesn't create a "deterministic state" so much as it does determine the state in this case.

Deterministic/indeterministic systems/states tend to have fairly specific meanings in physics and mathematics. If I were you, rather than


I would simply say that the act of observation changes what is observed at the quantum level. If you want to use the example of light and "collapse" then you might want to give some background. A problem with the classical conception of light as a wave was what happens when a beam of light is "split" in a device which allows one to measure the photons after they are split. They hit one of two locations, and you get interference. However, the interference is not that of a classical "wave" and Einstein's famous solution was that the result was due to the fact that light isn't a "wave" but composed of photons. What is perhaps even more interesting is that you get interference even with a single photon. This is because the photon actually exists in to states at once (or two places at once) or a superposition state. However, when you use a very sensitive photodetector to measure the photon right after or as it is "split" in one direction you don't get half a photon or half of the photons you shoot into your splitting device, you either get a whole photon or no photon (no photon because the photon goes in the other direction). The act of trying to detect the photon has caused it to go from its superpositional state into it's normal state. This is because photons are so small that any obervation changes them.

Ah I see. Like someone else had said earlier this stuff is pretty trippy.

 

[Daviso452]

Well, it looks like Apophenia either agreed with me and didn't want to admit it, or felt i was being too close-minded to even bother debating with anymore. Either way, does anyone wish to discuss why they believe in God? Preferably not Martin?

 

[apophenia]

Well, it looks like Apophenia either agreed with me and didn't want to admit it, or felt i was being too close-minded to even bother debating with anymore.

Neither. I just read this and went back and found your last post. I don' think you're being too closed-minded. I'll get back to you later, if I think of a better way to express my view.

 

[Daviso452]

Hooray! I love debates. I often worry that this lust for debate has clouded my judgement. It makes me glad that someone who has argued against me for so long still does not consider me close-minded! Please, take your time. Like I said, the last thing I want is sloppy argument

 

[apophenia]

I often worry that this lust for debate has clouded my judgement. It makes me glad that someone who has argued against me for so long still does not consider me close-minded!

Not at all. I have considered enough questions in my own mind to know that there is not a singular 'I' with a singular opinion about each subject.

I am a being in flux. Since I do not observe absolute consistency or final certainty in my opinions, I could hardly hold it against you for not agreeing with me !

I really have run out of ways to express my view on the subject of awareness. I would just be repeating myself to post again right now. I will freely admit though that I do consider awareness (as I have attempted to define it) to be outside the current purview of science. For me, that is no challenge to the validity of the scientific models of evolved behaviour which various debaters here including yourself have presented. Nor is it an argument for god, as some folk seem to interpret me.

My direct experience tells me that awareness is not the same as the behaviours of which I am aware. But my direct experience is not a scientific argument, and so is invalid in the protocol of scientism. I get that.

I do find it ironic that some folk, sometimes perhaps yourself, seem to consider my position anti-science. That is absolutely not the case. I consider it more valuable to scientific thought to question easy assumptions like "oh that ? knowing you're alive ? that's just emergent behaviour", especially if my experience of myself simply does not confirm such a statement to me. But that does not mean I disregard science, it means I don't assume science 'will eventually explain' something in the manner which suits my current preferred model.

 

[idav]

I was talking about the monkey mirror test.

(That is generally only applied to animals BTW)

I am saying that it is a currently trivial application to use pattern recognition, an example being 'smile recognition' on your camera.

Since an inanimate object like a digital camera can do facial recognition, how can that prove self-awareness ?

Hence, "if an inanimate machine can do it, how does that prove self-awareness ?"

And AI is only an extension of the same kind of technology now used in inanimate processes, so I can't accept your statement ' Not self-awareness, you would need ai for that.'

I don't know if you missed that I said it was the mark test in post 564. The mark test is more valid than just looking in a mirror because. What they do is they first get the chimp used to the mirror. Then you want to know if they know it's them so they put the chimp to sleep, paint some substance on their face then wake the chimp up. The chimp looks in the mirror and procedes to wipe the mark and then tries to sniff it to see what it is. That is indication of not just awareness but self awareness. If a machine could do that it would be an indication of self awareness. I understand your issue as there is no test for simple awareness other than reaction to stimuli but as I pointed out we can test other animals and see the emergence of self awareness from simpler forms throughout the evolutionary process. Obviously you will not accept reaction to stimuli as simple awareness in a machine and I can certainly understand why. However when we are already building life like metal cells, we are certainly in the brink of creating machine like life. We are even creating neural networks that emulate animal functionality. All this shows that we can emulate life through machines so it is only matter of time until our technology evolves to the point of self awareness, since we don't have enough evidence, though it is a lot of evidence, to prove awareness in machines to the hardcore skeptics.

 

[Daviso452]

My direct experience tells me that awareness is not the same as the behaviours of which I am aware. But my direct experience is not a scientific argument, and so is invalid in the protocol of scientism. I get that.

I do find it ironic that some folk, sometimes perhaps yourself, seem to consider my position anti-science. That is absolutely not the case. I consider it more valuable to scientific thought to question easy assumptions like "oh that ? knowing you're alive ? that's just emergent behaviour", especially if my experience of myself simply does not confirm such a statement to me. But that does not mean I disregard science, it means I don't assume science 'will eventually explain' something in the manner which suits my current preferred model.

I see now. Thank you. This is what I was looking for. You admit that what you experience was not scientific, and so it cannot considered for scientific fact. That's the distinction I've been trying to make this whole time. Now that you have openly admitted it, I feel we have come to an agreement and this discussion can finally come to a close.

I see the point you are making about science "not being able to." I actually will admit that all the claims I made were pretty sketchy. It doesn't seem to be clear whether science has explained awareness or not. Some sources have said that awareness is this; others say say that awareness is still being researched. It's very difficult to tell, and I was trying to take one side or the other which I now feel was a bad idea.

But I still have no problem with what you believe. I still think you may be looking at awareness the wrong way, but I do not know quite how and have nothing to truly back it up, so I'll just leave it at that and hope you will consider it.

Thank you, Apophenia. This has been incredibly fun

 

[Storm]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Discuss or debate? I'm certain of God's existence, but not delusional about evidence.

 

[apophenia]

I see now. Thank you. This is what I was looking for. You admit that what you experience was not scientific, and so it cannot considered for scientific fact. That's the distinction I've been trying to make this whole time.
....

But I still have no problem with what you believe. I still think you may be looking at awareness the wrong way, but I do not know quite how and have nothing to truly back it up, so I'll just leave it at that and hope you will consider it.

Thank you, Apophenia. This has been incredibly fun

No worries.

 

[Daviso452]

So, does anyone wish to present an argument of theirs for the existence of God? I would love to hear it!