God for scientists

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
God for scientists

 Hi All  
Long time no see.
Here is my late "gift" for all atheists.
A little long but worth reading.

--

I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named "matter" in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.

When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said - “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”
Now we have the answer for Einstein. The moon is still there as pattern from wave interference but it becomes the moon Einstein knows only when observed by Einstein.
To simplify it in simplified scientific language I’d say that by observing we make the wave function to collapse, making it possible for as to see the particle behavior exhibited in what we call matter.

Since the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation, we don’t have mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory but that doesn’t stop science using this explanation for the creation of the universe.
I’ll use part of the Big Bang theory to make my point.
Science doesn’t have explanation for the first moments of the Big Bang but at one point all that Universe was is put in two words – photons and neutrons (wave-particles) and to be more scientifically precise I’ll add space and time.. 
Note that some of you can be deceived from the “particle” part in the “wave-particle” name.
That entity is not particle. It is entity said to behave either as wave or as particle, but behavior is not consistence. 
Therefore, it would be safer to think of it as wave. 

Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference

I can imagine the difficulties many of you would have comprehending my idea.
It is not that difficult to understand that your observation makes the things appear in their sensible nature. Your minds are like medium, in which the wave turns into particle and becomes interactive sensible part of your surrounding.
The mind as part of the “awareness-wave” (God) can observe its own interference thus creating delusion about existence out of the self.

From this point on, the science can be right in most of its conclusions, but also very wrong in some of its bases.

Religious people BELIEVE that God created the world.
Creation implies deliberate action, intention. 
The world wasn’t intentionally created therefore we can not call it creation.
It is appearance.
God, which I already explained as “awareness-wave”, is not even aware of its “creation”, but we as part of the “awareness-wave” can become aware of the “fact” that we observe pattern of our self-interference and this state is known as “awaken”.
You read about many such awakened people who brought the knowledge for God in this world.
That knowledge was given in different times to people with different intellectual levels and the explanations about God had to mach the intellectual capability of the auditory.

People with low intellectuality tend to accept old explanation without questioning and become blind religious followers.
The need for salvation brings obedience to rules, which was (and still is) used by the church for self-interests.

Possible argument:

- We may not hear the sound but it is still there. We can not say that only what is heard is sound.

Answer to the above:

The “sound” word has no absolute value because it describes our perception for certain vibration frequency.
That is valid for any word, which describes our perceptions.

Why our senses have no absolute value?
Lets take “red” (the color) for example.
It is word for color.
We named a range of light spectrum with the name “red”.
We agree on the fact that most humans can recognize that certain range, but we can not know how each of us see the color with that name.
Therefore, we conclude that perceptions have no absolute value.

In other words, one must not put absolute value for what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell.
It is only our perception of the wave interference, which we call Universe.
To make it even more clearer I’ll reverse it: The Universe is wave interference and our senses are making us see it the way we see it.
And now to make it complete: The Universe is wave interference + conscious observation 
We can not apply noise, and light as property of the Universe, because for sentient being without the ability to see and hear it is not noisy and visible.
To say that the noise and the light are still there is illogical knowing that we are using not absolute values.

The absolute values are in the length and the phase of the interfering waves not in our perception of those values.

Another possible argument:

- Do you know what “wave function collapse” is?

Answer to the above:

Yes I know.
In not simplified language, I mean that we as measuring (observing) tools are defining the value to which the set of calculated probabilities will collapse. All around us is set of systems interfering with each other and us. We are defining the values for the wave function collapse of all that systems.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
If Helen Keller fell over in

If Helen Keller fell over in the woods...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

If Helen Keller fell over in the woods...

 

Not a good argument.

Her interpretations of the surrounding were different than ours, but still completely matching in three interaction points.

This topic is about the nature of the surrounding and our interpretation about it. How different the interpretation is from the real values.

I'm trying to point at humans delusional understanding about the Universe and I'd be gald to hear some comments on that..


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
If you think you can find

If you think you can find god in quantum mechanics then it isnt the god of any holy book (or any book pre about 1920).

Some people might say you were better calling this god err physics


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Answers in Gene

Truden wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

If Helen Keller fell over in the woods...

 

Not a good argument.

 

It was not supposed to be.  Neither is yours.  Try harder.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:If you think

mrjonno wrote:

If you think you can find god in quantum mechanics then it isnt the god of any holy book (or any book pre about 1920).

Some people might say you were better calling this god err physics

 

It is exactly the same God, but explained with physics.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
If God can exist without a

If God can exist without a source, why can't the universe and it's waves exist without a source?

Perhaps there can be a mathematical explanation for the singularity. And perhaps during the singularity waves didn't need a source. This should not be difficult for you to believe since you believe God always existenced without a source. Why do you have one set of rules for the waves of the universe, but 'God' can be the exception.

 

If a tree falls in the forest on no one is there to see it, but an audio recording device records the sound and gives it time stamp, does the forest wait until the someone plays the recoding device to make a sound? Does a sound processing computer that interprets the sound as that of a tree falling have a conscience?

 

If you want to push this theory, why must you use the term 'God'? Since this "missing source in the scientific theories" has been misinterpreted throughout history. I think you should create a new term for this and a new symbol, then some logical/mathematical reasoning and explain exactly how this theory works. Then make predictions on how experiments will result based on your theory.

Otherwise this theory is just wild speculation.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
If a tree falls in the

If a tree falls in the woods, and the air vibrations trigger an avalanche which takes out several *other* trees, and a person comes by later and cuts up several cord of firewood, and the creosote in his chimney (which he hasn't cleaned in a while) catches fire and burns his house down killing him before he can tell anyone about the all the fallen timber free for the taking, did the first tree make a sound?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Seriously dude, did you

Seriously dude, did you miss the memo?

 

The Earth is flat, it stands on four pillars which stand on the back of giant world supporting elephants and the elephants stand on a gigantic turtle. You need not worry about what the turtle stands on. It is turtles all the way down.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If God can exist

EXC wrote:

If God can exist without a source, why can't the universe and it's waves exist without a source?

 

Because the sciense needs emission sourse.

 

EXC wrote:

Perhaps there can be a mathematical explanation for the singularity. And perhaps during the singularity waves didn't need a source. This should not be difficult for you to believe since you believe God always existenced without a source.  

 

You are not saing that PERHAPS God exists, are you.

Or in this case we forgot that sciense does not explain things with "perhaps".

Why God does not need source?

Because logic leads to the conclusion that to have a beginning you need source.

The source is The Beginning.

My question is why contrary to the scientific need the Universe has no source?

 

EXC wrote:

If a tree falls in the forest on no one is there to see it, but an audio recording device records the sound and gives it time stamp, does the forest wait until the someone plays the recoding device to make a sound? Does a sound processing computer that interprets the sound as that of a tree falling have a conscience?

 

You guys are missing the point.
The aparatus record waves and vibrations.
Human interpret them as light and sound.

 

EXC wrote:

If you want to push this theory, why must you use the term 'God'? Since this "missing source in the scientific theories" has been misinterpreted throughout history. I think you should create a new term for this and a new symbol, then some logical/mathematical reasoning and explain exactly how this theory works. Then make predictions on how experiments will result based on your theory.

 

If you are afriad that the "God" word is making you look stupid, use any convinient word you preffer.

Call it The Source.

 

EXC wrote:

Otherwise this theory is just wild speculation.

 

 

Point at the speculations, please.

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Call it The

Truden wrote:
Call it The Source.

Call it The Universe, and be done with it.

If waves only collapse when they consciousness observes them, and we are also vibrating waves, then all you are really saying is that waves interacting with other waves causes collapse. And that is all QM says. Consciousness is not special or magical. If a sound recorder records a sound, guess what!, the wave collapsed! Two waves interacted, and the wave collapsed.

All you are saying is that perception is not the same as reality. Duh! No f'ing kidding. When Einstein looks at the moon, he sees the moon as he sees it. You think this is evidence of God? All it is evidence of is that consciousness resides in the brain, and each human brain is different than each other. Waves have been collapsing for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene. We are just one more waveform among countless others that cause wave collapse. We are not magical or special.

And if you call the universe god, why not just call it the universe? What value does the god label add to it?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Call it The

natural wrote:

Call it The Universe, and be done with it.

And atheists won't feel losers 

 

natural wrote:

If waves only collapse when they consciousness observes them, and we are also vibrating waves, then all you are really saying is that waves interacting with other waves causes collapse. And that is all QM says.

You have problem comprehending the idea, my friend.

As wave, observing your own interference is like observing your dream.

But the dream is not, if there is no conscious observation.
Put in childish words, you have to be in the dream for it to happen.
You have to observe it.
Didn't you read the line about the dream as mind self-interference?
I put it to answer this specific question.

I guess it is not clear enough for you.
OK, your body is pattern from your interference.
Your mind is observing it and causes the wave function to collapse.
Since the real value of the awareness-wave is present as your mind, it can not be present elsewhere, to cause the collapse.
Now refer it to all minds. 

natural wrote:

Consciousness is not special or magical. If a sound recorder records a sound, guess what!, the wave collapsed! Two waves interacted, and the wave collapsed.

Exactly my point.

If a sound recorder records a sound, guess what!, our conscious interaction (creating and placing the recorder) collapsed the wave.

Don't we make the same in the experiments that show wave collapse?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I happen to be a lucid

Well, I happen to be a lucid dreamer.  So yah, I can observe the dreams that I am participating in whilr they are happening.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:I’ll

Truden wrote:


I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.

Actually, the answer is YES. That there was measurable vibration and that the location was in a forest, which is full of life, proves it. 

Truden wrote:

Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.

And a great many beings that we don't consider sentient can also detect these vibrations. Some of them hear them like we do, some of them do not. A forest is mostly populated with beings that can detect sound as sound. Therefore the old adage is answered with a Yes, not a No.

Truden wrote:

The same explanation stands for all observations we do.

Not anymore. A hundred years ago you may have been right, but we now can perceive things that our senses cannot detect. Thank you technology.

Truden wrote:

We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.

Ridiculous. I observe matter every waking moment of every day of my life. Energy too.

Truden wrote:

Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named "matter" in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.

Yay quantum physics. I'll leave that shit for someone else. Suffice to say that utilizing quantum physics isn't going to get anyone anywhere in standard day to day living. Assuming a door doesn't exist until it's observed means you're going to walk into a door.

Truden wrote:

My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference

The problem here is that you're assuming what dreams are, when the medical and larger scientific communities havn't quite figured it out yet.

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

If God can exist without a source, why can't the universe and it's waves exist without a source?

Because the sciense needs emission sourse.

Why? And why doesn't god?

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

Perhaps there can be a mathematical explanation for the singularity. And perhaps during the singularity waves didn't need a source. This should not be difficult for you to believe since you believe God always existenced without a source.  

You are not saing that PERHAPS God exists, are you.

Or in this case we forgot that sciense does not explain things with "perhaps".

Why God does not need source?

Because logic leads to the conclusion that to have a beginning you need source.

Actually, logic suggests that every beginning needs a beginning. Therefore if god exists, it began. And therefore something had to begin god. You have not dodged your way out of the logic feedback loop.

Truden wrote:

The source is The Beginning.

My question is why contrary to the scientific need the Universe has no source?

Where is the source of the source? Every source needs a source.

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

If a tree falls in the forest on no one is there to see it, but an audio recording device records the sound and gives it time stamp, does the forest wait until the someone plays the recoding device to make a sound? Does a sound processing computer that interprets the sound as that of a tree falling have a conscience?

 

You guys are missing the point.
The aparatus record waves and vibrations.
Human interpret them as light and sound.

So do other animals and even plants. And a properly equipped computer.

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

If you want to push this theory, why must you use the term 'God'? Since this "missing source in the scientific theories" has been misinterpreted throughout history. I think you should create a new term for this and a new symbol, then some logical/mathematical reasoning and explain exactly how this theory works. Then make predictions on how experiments will result based on your theory.

 

If you are afriad that the "God" word is making you look stupid, use any convinient word you preffer.

Call it The Source.

Call it a wild imagination for all the good it does you.

 

Truden wrote:
 

Point at the speculations, please.

That would be most of it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet, your comments are

 Vastet, your comments are completely irelevant.
Most of them have their answers in my expose and the comments.
The rest are lacking basic logic.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden, your comments are

Truden, your comments are completely irelevant.
Most of them have their answers in my expose and the comments.
The rest are lacking basic logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I'll say the same thing here

I'll say the same thing here that I said to Paisley a while ago:

'Observer' does not mean 'person.' We don't get a special status in the universe for observation. Even a tiny electronic device that is not operated by a person and has no consciousness whatsoever counts as an observer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

You don't even need consciousness to be an oberver. This isn't some spiritual thing, unless you think that tiny electronic devices get to subjectively observe electrons using some sort of non-physical mind.

 

 

Quote:

When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said - “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”

To bad consciousness does not cause the wave function to collapse and non-concious recording devices cause wave functions to collapse. Consciousness does not get a special status in being able to collapse wave functions. People like to pretend that it does because that idea allows them to cram a lot of spiritual nonsense into an otherwise mechanical system.

 

Quote:

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

Uh, oh. It looks like unthinking and unconscious electronics are observers. I would think a bit on this before trying to wrongly tie wave collapse to consciousness or minds.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Because the

Truden wrote:

Because the sciense needs emission sourse.

 

Actually creationists have a psychological need for a father figure to comfort them. That is the source of God.

Truden wrote:

If you are afriad that the "God" word is making you look stupid, use any convinient word you preffer.

 

Remember, I'm the one tell you not to use the word 'God' because it represents the imaginary character in ancient Jewish folklore. So you wll look stupid if you use this term.

Truden wrote:

Point at the speculations, please.

 

Your whole argument is making assumptions that have no basis for accepting. You're just giving us the God of the Gaps argument. 'God' is whatever science can not yet explain as a natural phenomena. As science advances, your 'God' will be responsible for less and less.

200 years ago, god was the source of the earth and sky since there was no scientific explanation of their existence. Now 'God' is the source of the big bang. When the big bang is explained, God will be shrunk down to something else. So just invent a symbol for 'God' and define it as that which science does not yet explain.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 EXC wrote:it represents

 

EXC wrote:
it represents the imaginary character in ancient Jewish folklore

You know very little about God, my friend. It is imaginery for you, but people created the letters and simbols to write about God.
You don't probably know that the first known written scriptures were about God.

 

EXC wrote:
Your whole argument is making assumptions that have no basis for accepting.

Which is that "assumption"?

 

EXC wrote:
200 years ago, god was the source of the earth and sky since there was no scientific explanation of their existence. Now 'God' is the source of the big bang. When the big bang is explained, God will be shrunk down to something else. So just invent a symbol for 'God' and define it as that which science does not yet explain.

Now you are talking like religious person who does not accept other understanding about God than the one given 2000 years ago.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 Jormungander, every

 Jormungander, every conscious interaction is observation.
Avery tool placed to interact with the system is "consious interaction" therefore it is conscious observation.

And there is something that you guys don't quite unerstand.
An hour ago I had to explain to another man the wrong understanding for "consciousness causes wave function to collapse".

Here it is:

For me it is more than obvious that even quantum physicists don’t understand the real meaning of the wave function collapse.
It has nothing to do with CHANGING the way things happen.
It is about the involvement in the happening.

We don’t change with our observation a galaxy which is million light ears away from us.
We are involved in the happening, which shows the waves from that galaxy as light.
If I have to be clearer, we are collapsing the wave function to the value, which shows to as an EXISTENCE.
Without us, that EXISTENCE is impossible.
It is set of probabilities as the one for the single photon.
Can we say that it EXISTS?
It has no mass and observable properties.
According to all physical laws, it is nonexistent.
We make it existent when we want to detect (observe) its path.

All wave-particles are theorized.
They don’t exist in the traditional meaning of the word, but they create the traditional existence known as matter.
We are involved in this “creation”.
Without us, the universe will be wave-particles.
We are collapsing the wave function, defining the values needed for the Universe to appear the way we know it.

Another sentient being may not have the same observable abilities and tools.

That being, will not be able to collapse the wave function to the same value and the Universe can be completely different than what we know.  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: EXC wrote:it

Truden wrote:

 

EXC wrote:
it represents the imaginary character in ancient Jewish folklore

You know very little about God, my friend. It is imaginery for you, but people created the letters and simbols to write about God.
You don't probably know that the first known written scriptures were about God.

You probably don't know that the first writings by man had nothing to do with your fictional god.

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:
Your whole argument is making assumptions that have no basis for accepting.

Which is that "assumption"?

The existence of god for one.

 

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:
200 years ago, god was the source of the earth and sky since there was no scientific explanation of their existence. Now 'God' is the source of the big bang. When the big bang is explained, God will be shrunk down to something else. So just invent a symbol for 'God' and define it as that which science does not yet explain.

Now you are talking like religious person who does not accept other understanding about God than the one given 2000 years ago.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term

You're going to have to read that. Then you're going to have to back all the way up and redefine "god" for your argument. Then you're going to have to start over, trying logic this time around.

I predict, instead, a smartass quip and/or vanishing act.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: You don't

Truden wrote:

 You don't probably know that the first known written scriptures were about God.

 

About some gods, explaining the origin of things in the world. All of these explanations have been proven wrong. Just shows it's the product of primitive thinking.


Truden wrote:

Which is that "assumption"?

 

 

That the universe must have source. But some entity you call 'God' doesn't need a source.

EXC wrote:
200 years ago, god was the source of the earth and sky since there was no scientific explanation of their existence. Now 'God' is the source of the big bang. When the big bang is explained, God will be shrunk down to something else. So just invent a symbol for 'God' and define it as that which science does not yet explain.


Truden wrote:

Now you are talking like religious person who does not accept other understanding about God than the one given 2000 years ago.

You use the term 'God', which to most people has meaning associated with the bible. Then if you want to have a version of 'God', define it for us.

Right now, your definition seems to be an entity which doesn't follow the rules for logic or physics. Then were supposed to think that belief in God can be logical and scientific.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:You know very

Truden wrote:

You know very little about God, my friend.

Of course we know very little about God. His characteristics make him unknowable by definition.

Quote:
It is imaginery for you, but people created the letters and simbols to write about God.
You don't probably know that the first known written scriptures were about God.

That's news to me as well. Would you care to expand on that?

EXC wrote:
200 years ago, god was the source of the earth and sky since there was no scientific explanation of their existence. Now 'God' is the source of the big bang. When the big bang is explained, God will be shrunk down to something else. So just invent a symbol for 'God' and define it as that which science does not yet explain.

Quote:
Now you are talking like religious person who does not accept other understanding about God than the one given 2000 years ago.

You dodged that argument and responded with an ad hominem. Well done. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
So what you're saying is

So what you're saying is that what we perceive as red light is simply electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength. If, hypothetically, we perceived these waves differently, then the conception of what is currently known as red would cease to exist. I'll grant you that. As Natural already stated, perception based on our senses is obviously different from the objective reality of the source of the stimuli. However, what I don't understand is your first cause and pseudo-pantheism-butchering-game or whatever it is that you're doing.

Quote:
Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference

Quote:
God, which I already explained as “awareness-wave”, is not even aware of its “creation”, but we as part of the “awareness-wave” can become aware of the “fact” that we observe pattern of our self-interference and this state is known as “awaken”.

I mean, could you be any more confusing?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: It is exactly

Truden wrote:

 

It is exactly the same God, but explained with physics.

 

We've all heard this one before.

If you could successfully explain God with [insert field of scientific study here], you would have received a Nobel prize a long time ago.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Truden, your

Vastet wrote:

Truden, your comments are completely irelevant.
Most of them have their answers in my expose and the comments.
The rest are lacking basic logic.

Classic Vastet debating right here: Pitifully mocking Truden instead of making an argument. Good work

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Classic

Christos wrote:

Classic Vastet debating right here: Pitifully mocking Truden instead of making an argument. Good work

There seems little point. How, for instance, would you argue with me if I claimed that I knew all about God, and that he was made of cheese, and lived in Switzerland?

So how is one to react to someone misrepresenting physics so profoundly that one is left staggering for a place to start a critique?

If physics can be a fanciful pseudoscience, then God can be made of cheese. And I know that because I read it somewhere.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:There

HisWillness wrote:

There seems little point. How, for instance, would you argue with me if I claimed that I knew all about God, and that he was made of cheese, and lived in Switzerland?

 

I would just like to point out that your argument is full of holes.  [/rimshot]

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Vastet

Christos wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Truden, your comments are completely irelevant.
Most of them have their answers in my expose and the comments.
The rest are lacking basic logic.

Classic Vastet debating right here: Pitifully mocking Truden instead of making an argument. Good work

What are you talking about? Vastet just copied Truden's attempt to mock Vastet and threw it back at Truden. Read the thread before posting.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 The first known written

 The first known written story is in Egypt. It is about God.
Thoth is known as the god who first gave the writing symbols to the humans.

The scriptures are actually explaining the nature of God, not the origin of the things in the world. It is wrong urban understanding that God explained the origin of the things.
People and old scientist were explaining those things, not God.

Another thing, when counting the number of the explanation about God, you must also count all scientific explanations, proven wrong later. And remember that we are dealing with understanding. There are wrong understanding about God and such about natural phenomenons subject of scientific research.

@EXC, my “assumption” that God does not need source does not affect in any way the subject of this discussion. You can dismiss it.
But how do you dismiss this: science needs source for everything because is based on the materialistic understanding that “something” comes from “something” but when it comes to the Universe, it comes from NOTHING?

How is that more INTELIGENT than God not having source?

If you noticed, God is spirit (awareness, mind) and it does not need to have its nature in the dust(matter), like you claim that your mind comes from.

And OK, I’ll restrain from using the “God” word.
I’ll use “The Source” if that does not depress you that much.

 

@butterbattle,

What is confusing for you?
Read and follow.
I suppose that you have some knowledge about physics and you know what interference pattern is.
Connect it to my explanation.
Think, analyze, ask.

 

@HisWillnes and all who like riding macaroni monster in their battles with theists,

You cannot expect to win all battles riding macaroni monster.
That is for children.
Grown people use intelligence and logic.

Where did you see such claim, made by me!?
Do you even understand what am I saying in this topic?
What did you understand?  

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: The first

Truden wrote:

 The first known written story is in Egypt. It is about God.
Thoth is known as the god who first gave the writing symbols to the humans.

Nope. The oldest story ever written is the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is Babalonian. It is a mythological story about an ancient king. Where are you getting this Egypt BS from?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Vastet

Christos wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Truden, your comments are completely irelevant.
Most of them have their answers in my expose and the comments.
The rest are lacking basic logic.

Classic Vastet debating right here: Pitifully mocking Truden instead of making an argument. Good work

Self owned. Congratulations Christos, you've made a fool of yourself again. In one sentence no less. Progress I suppose.

Truden wrote:

 The first known written story is in Egypt. It is about God.

Not even close. It's in Africa. On a cave wall.

Truden wrote:

Thoth is known as the god who first gave the writing symbols to the humans.

Ridiculous. Writing stems from farming and the need to keep records. Not some invisible friend.

Truden wrote:

The scriptures are actually explaining the nature of God, not the origin of the things in the world.

The scriptures were written by delusional crack heads. There's nothing in them that is real.

Truden wrote:
  It is wrong urban understanding that God explained the origin of the things.
People and old scientist were explaining those things, not God.

Half right. People explained them. But they were deluded, and the explanation is nothing more than a delusion itself.

Truden wrote:
Another thing, when counting the number of the explanation about God, you must also count all scientific explanations, proven wrong later.

The ultimate difference between science and religion is:

Science can change with greater understanding and knowledge. In fact, it must.

Religion stays the same despite being proven wrong time and again. In fact, it must.

Truden wrote:
  And remember that we are dealing with understanding. There are wrong understanding about God and such about natural phenomenons subject of scientific research.

There is no such thing as god. I guess you didn't read the link I gave you. But that's hardly a surprise.

 

The rest of your post was directed at specific individuals, so I'll let them roast you personally.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


DanMullin
DanMullin's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:...science

Truden wrote:

...science needs source for everything because is based on the materialistic understanding that “something” comes from “something” but when it comes to the Universe, it comes from NOTHING?

How is that more INTELIGENT than God not having source?

 

Everything we know about matter and energy says that they can only change forms.  They can't be created or destroyed.

 

Given this information, I think that it's reasonable to conclude that they may have always existed.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5909
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
All ideas, concepts,

All ideas, concepts, originate in our observations of the world, other people, plus new thoughts originating from largely random shuffling of the basic elements of thought, interacting with those external inputs, within our minds.

It doesn't become worth calling 'knowledge' until it has had some minimum level of verification. The highest level of verification is represented by the processes of science, such as testing against experiment and observation, cross-checking with other people who can provide independent verification, and so on.

Ideas which can't meet these standards cannot be treated with the same degree of confidence. There is therefore a gradation, from empirically and/or scientifically tested concepts, all the way down to individual personal views about the world, supported purely by personal internal thought processes and experiences, such as ideas of God, the soul, etc, which have negligible epistemological status.

Any 'theory' of the nature of existence which attempts to 'explain' significant entities as being 'created' by more powerful, higher-level entities, such as man or life in general being 'created' by God, or the Universe being bought into existence by the will of an super-powerful sentient being are inherently illogical fallacies, since they lead inevitably to an open-ended infinite regress of ever greater creators creating creators. The attempt to short-circuit such problems by assuming that some super-powerful creator entity somehow doesn't require a creator themselves, is in turn an explicit contradiction of the starting assumption that complex entities can only be 'created' by other, more powerful entities.

Since there is ample evidence from observation and science that complexity can and does arise and grow 'spontaneously', subject only to the availability of a flow of energy, in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics, the 'creator' theory is not only logically problematic, it addresses a non-problem, attempting to 'explain' existence by introducing bigger and more inexplicable entities.

Once you allow a sequence of causality where the 'causes' are on average LESS than the effects, even a conceptually infinite sequence can fit into a finite extent, in the same way that the sum of the infinite sequence of numbers: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ....  is finite, ie 2.0.

So the 'first cause' may be literally infinitesimal in power, ie, as close to zero as you can imagine without actually being zero.

'Something from nothing' is a problem for ANY concpt of origin of the Universe, or the Metaverse from which our Big Bang may have emerged. At least the scientific approach presupposes nothing more than some utterly mimimal, randomly or quasi-randomly 'twitching' field of featureless energy or 'potentiality' to have existed 'before', maybe indefinitely. IOW something infinitely simpler than an omni- God, therefore far easier to envisage.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:For me it is

Truden wrote:

For me it is more than obvious that even quantum physicists don’t understand the real meaning of the wave function collapse.
It has nothing to do with CHANGING the way things happen.
It is about the involvement in the happening.

This is very true. Even quantum physicists don't understand what's going on with wave function collapse, as "wave function collapse" is a mathematical model of the results of observation. It isn't a model of actual quantum processes. We have no model of what's actually going on at the quantum level. We have several hypotheses: string theory (and the related M theory), causal dynamical triangulation, and so on.

Quantum wave collapse does not require conscioussness. The universe would exist without conscioussness; this is evident by the fact that the universe pre-exists conscioussness, as conscioussness did not exist at the initial expansion event.

It's been well-established that non-consciouss interaction is what causes quantum wave function collapse. So your whole premise breaks down completely.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 @DanMullinThat is not what

 @DanMullin

That is not what the Big Bang theory say.
Remember? - singularity (no matter, no space, no time) NOTHING.

But if matter and energy are ever existent for you, why The Source can not be eternal. It is kind of mind after all?
Do you know by the way the the string theory is referring to mind (brain) in the multydimesional models.
Oh, yah, that is science. Science can do it.
 

@BobSpence1


This is not the right place for your interesting and intelectual writing.
We are not discussing God as creator and the Universe as creation.
Here God is The Source, self-interfering wave (I named it "awareness wave" )
The Universe it the pattern from that self-interference - appearance, not creation.
This God does not RULE and that gives me hard time with religious people 

Do you have something to say on that?


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Quantum

nigelTheBold wrote:

Quantum wave collapse does not require conscioussness. The universe would exist without conscioussness; this is evident by the fact that the universe pre-exists conscioussness, as conscioussness did not exist at the initial expansion event.

O my Go-o-o-d!
Do you guys read and follow my explanations here???
Read few comments up, my friend.
It is not about the EXISTENCE of the Universe.
It is about your understanding for the existence.
What exists?
Your interpreted value of the wave, or the wave?
Sound, matter, light and so on are your intepretations.
They have no absolute value
The real value is in the lenght and the phase of the wave which you observe and intepret as light or whatever you see there.

So if the Universe EXIST as you know it, the Universe needs you to make it the way you know it.

But if we are not here, the Universe will be wave-particles or perhaps the form given by other sentient being with seven senses living in eleven-dimensional world. Then the light might be music, the sounbd three-dimensional appearance and the matter might not be existent.


 

nigelTheBold wrote:

It's been well-established that non-consciouss interaction is what causes quantum wave function collapse. So your whole premise breaks down completely.



Where, when, how?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:nigelTheBold

Truden wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
It's been well-established that non-consciouss interaction is what causes quantum wave function collapse. So your whole premise breaks down completely.

Where, when, how?

 

And now we're done here. You just irrevocably proved that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Truden

Vastet wrote:

Truden wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
It's been well-established that non-consciouss interaction is what causes quantum wave function collapse. So your whole premise breaks down completely.

Where, when, how? 

And now we're done here. You just irrevocably proved that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

I’m discussing this with physicists.
The “proofs”(they are not really proofs) are about “conscious observation” but the term is wrong.
It is “conscious interaction”.

@All users taking part in this discussion,

 I apologize that I’ll not be able to answer all unimportant and “no-sense” comments. However I’ll try to keep an eye on the topic for the questions with sense.
The idea is self-explanatory.
Read carefully and you’ll understand it. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: I’m

Truden wrote:

 

I’m discussing this with physicists.

Who will tell you what I just did.

Truden wrote:

The “proofs”(they are not really proofs) are about “conscious observation” but the term is wrong.
It is “conscious interaction”.


The result is the same. Consciousness is not required for existence to exist. You will have to prove that it is required for existence to exist in order to continue.

Truden wrote:
@All users taking part in this discussion,

 I apologize that I’ll not be able to answer all unimportant and “no-sense” comments. However I’ll try to keep an eye on the topic for the questions with sense.
The idea is self-explanatory.
Read carefully and you’ll understand it. 

 

In other words, you'll ignore any post that blows apart everything you say. But then you already proved this, so stating it is hardly going to change anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


DanMullin
DanMullin's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:That is not

Truden wrote:

That is not what the Big Bang theory say.
Remember? - singularity (no matter, no space, no time) NOTHING.

But if matter and energy are ever existent for you, why The Source can not be eternal. It is kind of mind after all?
Do you know by the way the the string theory is referring to mind (brain) in the multydimesional models.
Oh, yah, that is science. Science can do it. 

 

I grant that what I said is speculation.  However, there is no evidence that refutes the first law of thermodynamics.  If the total amount of matter and energy is constant, what reason do we have to think that it was ever any different?

 

The Big Bang theory does very well explaining how our universe got to it's current state, but it can only go so far.  We have no idea what happens in the very first moment of the expansion for the simple reason that we can't get past Planck time.  To explain what happens before, we must, at least,  understand how gravity works on the quantum scale.

 

I agree that the question of it's origin is very seductive, but naked assertions about an undefined source get us nowhere.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:What is

Truden wrote:

What is confusing for you?

All of it.

Quote:
Read and follow.

Easier said than done.

Quote:
I suppose that you have some knowledge about physics and you know what interference pattern is.

My knowledge of physics is minimal. I'm a physics student, but I haven't even progressed beyond 100 level classes yet.

However, at this point, somehow, I'm starting to get the feeling that I could have Ph.D. in physics and still not understand what you're saying.

Quote:
Connect it to my explanation.
Think, analyze, ask.

I'll give it shot.

Quote:
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named "matter" in all its observable variations.

At the very least, I know you're not a physicist. A physicist wouldn't use ridiculously vague terms like the ones that you've been using, simply begging to be misread.

No, what we named "matter" is the source of these waves. For example, "laptop" is not referring to the process of perceiving it, but to a hypothetical entity or phenomena that is the source of these perceptions. As Descartes described, a candle made of wax may move, change shape, go out, etc., but we know that it's still the same matter as it was before based on reason and experience that this candle may not spontaneously morph into something else.

Quote:
If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.

What? No. Everything is exactly as it was. If I suddenly cease to exist, nothing real about the laptop has disapeared, only my perception of it.

Quote:
When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said - “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”
Now we have the answer for Einstein. The moon is still there as pattern from wave interference but it becomes the moon Einstein knows only when observed by Einstein.
To simplify it in simplified scientific language I’d say that by observing we make the wave function to collapse, making it possible for as to see the particle behavior exhibited in what we call matter.

Okay, as long as you add my corrections, assuming that I correctly interpreted what you were trying to say.

Quote:
Since the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation, we don’t have mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory but that doesn’t stop science using this explanation for the creation of the universe.

Sure, but, technically, the Big Bang isn't a "creation" theory.

Quote:
Science doesn’t have explanation for the first moments of the Big Bang but at one point all that Universe was is put in two words – photons and neutrons (wave-particles) and to be more scientifically precise I’ll add space and time..

Pretty much.

Quote:
Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference

So....you picked an unknown reaction at the earliest stage of the Big Bang and called it God?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5909
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:natural

Truden wrote:

natural wrote:

Consciousness is not special or magical. If a sound recorder records a sound, guess what!, the wave collapsed! Two waves interacted, and the wave collapsed.

Exactly my point.

If a sound recorder records a sound, guess what!, our conscious interaction (creating and placing the recorder) collapsed the wave.

Don't we make the same in the experiments that show wave collapse?

But many processes, in principle,  can record the effect of air vibrations. Heck, even the traces of an ancient avalanche, maybe triggerred by the sound of a tree falling on a nearby montainside, can be preserved in the rock strata - no consciousness required... way too late to collapse the wave functions millennia after the event, unless you want to twist time around as well.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I'll say

Jormungander wrote:
I'll say the same thing here that I said to Paisley a while ago:

'Observer' does not mean 'person.' We don't get a special status in the universe for observation. Even a tiny electronic device that is not operated by a person and has no consciousness whatsoever counts as an observer.

And I will quote Eugene Wigner once more.

Quote:
In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections - Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."

(source: Wikipedia: Eugene Wigner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:@HisWillnes and

Truden wrote:

@HisWillnes and all who like riding macaroni monster in their battles with theists,

You cannot expect to win all battles riding macaroni monster.

That is for children.
Grown people use intelligence and logic.

I don't know what a macaroni monster is, I'm sorry. I did, however, study only two years of physics, and it seems I have a better grasp of it than you do. Mathematics is the foundation of physics, not speculative café table philosophy.

Truden wrote:
Do you even understand what am I saying in this topic?

Yes, I understand. I also understand that five (or so) people just corrected you, and you ignored them. Maybe the language barrier is causing a problem, and we should slow down. Not that your English is bad--I'm sure it's far better than I can speak your native tongue--but saying that consciousness and the wave function have some fundamental mystical interaction is plain ignorance.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:It's been

nigelTheBold wrote:
It's been well-established that non-consciouss interaction is what causes quantum wave function collapse. So your whole premise breaks down completely.

It has? Please cite your source for this assertion.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Normal 0

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4



st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Paisley wrote:

Jormungander wrote:
I'll say the same thing here that I said to Paisley a while ago:

'Observer' does not mean 'person.' We don't get a special status in the universe for observation. Even a tiny electronic device that is not operated by a person and has no consciousness whatsoever counts as an observer.

And I will quote Eugene Wigner once more.

Quote:
In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections - Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."

(source: Wikipedia: Eugene Wigner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner

That is not a response to the fact that non-conscious electronics are observers. You can keep quoting people who think that consciousness is required for QM to make sense, but that doesn't change the fact that a tiny electronic device can collapse wave functions all by itself. So either those few microscopic pieces of metal were conscious or consciousness is not required for quantum mechanics to work.

What I am confused about is why you think that quote negates actual evidence that demonstrates that consciousness is not required to collapse wave functions. Did you think that I would say: "Well, Eugene Wigner thinks something that is in direct contradiction with the available evidence, so the evidence is wrong." Throwing quotes out to try and overcome evidence isn't going to work. Evidence>philosophical opinions of some physicists.

But please Paisley, throw out some more quotes that back up your position. Don't bother finding evidence that supports your claims; oh no. Just find quotes that agree with you. What is it you said in another thread? Something about scientific evidence just being dogma that you aren't going to buy into. But the philosophical opinions of some scientists on the other hand, is sure to beat out evidence.

Also I get this weird feeling that there are a lot of different threads that we have this same discussion on. Maybe we should pick a thread and stick to it, rather than have this conversation all over the site.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
It's been well-established that non-consciouss interaction is what causes quantum wave function collapse. So your whole premise breaks down completely.

It has? Please cite your source for this assertion.

Now you are just playing stupid. For the THIRD TIME:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

This is an example of the kind of research that demonstrates how non-conscious observation collapses wave functions. Now I'm wondering if you are sincere in your arguments or if you are just playing stupid. This is getting a bit unbelievable. Any time you want to give us links to research showing how non-conscious observers are unable to collapse wave functions, go for it. Please post links to research backing your claims up. Doing that would transform your baseless claims into arguments.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Now you

Jormungander wrote:
Now you are just playing stupid. For the THIRD TIME:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

This is an example of the kind of research that demonstrates how non-conscious observation collapses wave functions. Now I'm wondering if you are sincere in your arguments or if you are just playing stupid. This is getting a bit unbelievable. Any time you want to give us links to research showing how non-conscious observers are unable to collapse wave functions, go for it. Please post links to research backing your claims up. Doing that would transform your baseless claims into arguments.

How exactly does this solve the measurement problem?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
What is conscious observation?

 What is conscious observation?

 

 

Conscious observation is to interact with the system in order to record its behavior or any observable result.
In that sense, all observable equipment is considered conscious interaction and therefore it is conscious observervation.
Do not mix the terms OBSERVER and OBSERVATION.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Right over your head.So then

Right over your head.

So then machines have consciousness. As do plants. And the truly surprising one: rocks. Well that's special.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.