God for scientists

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
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.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Hi

Truden wrote:

 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.

Soz, but despite the length of the thread-post, it's still
silly.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:...Every wave

Truden wrote:
...Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, ...

Your references to Einstein, and Quantum mechanics have been considered obsolete by by astrophysicists for the past 20 years.

String theories, and now M-theory is and has been at the cutting edge of understanding the essential topic you are attempting to talk about.

In short, the origins of the Universe, as far back as scientists have theorized was a collection of a bunch of "strings", not waves, as you stated.

Refer to Nova Science String Theory 3 part series, and M-theory playable via utube. Each of the episodes is 1 hour long.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But whatever the ultimate nature of whatever preceded the Universe as we know it, it can only be pretty much pure speculation, AKA guesswork.

We use Logic and intelligence.
Use them without prejudice.
If there is knowledge about The Source, study it.
It can be known as experience or as knowledge from logic.

Excuse me for the poor example, but only the travelers can know more than one world.
The citizens can know the other world by thrust and logic.

And if there is no firm knowledge about this Source, logic and other forms of reasoning will not give rise to any.

Logic can show whether your speculations are consistent, ie, not internally contradictory, but not whether they are true.

IOW logic can disprove an set of assumptions, but not prove them, or any conclusions derived from them, merely that your conclusions are consistent with your assumptions.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it can't be investigated by any scientific technique, you are saying that there are no consistent, observable consequences that can be shown to be logically due to this proposed 'Source', and consistently pointing to a particular form of such a thing. So there is no coherent way it can inform real knowledge, ie the current conclusions and theories generated by systematic investigation, AKA 'The Scientific Method'.



Isn't this topic about science and God (The Source)?
We came down to one simple interpretation - wave-particle is awareness-wave.
Can we prove which interpretation is right?
Can science take your side and prove my interpretation wrong?

You don't even know how fragile science is.

You came down to an 'interpretation' that "wave-particle is awareness-wave", and have yet to clearly justify it.

We cannot prove which interpretation is right, but we can point out weaknesses in either interpretation, such as unjustified assumptions, and how well they predict other aspects of the world, whether simpler interpretations or theories equally well address the observations, etc.

It is not a question of "Science taking my side", it's how well each side stands up to careful, systematic, disciplined investigation.

Whatever the 'fragility' of knowledge gained thru the application of the scientific method, any other knowledge is even more so.

Referencing your own arguments in a marginally expanded form demonstrates nothing except the size of your own ego.

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


lostinjuarez (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The allegation that all

The allegation that all sense phenomena has no "absolute value" is equivalent to saying that the tree falling in the woods most certainly does make a sound (if you choose to believe it did)....even if there is no sentient being there to hear it. Unless, of course, you want to redefine ""sound", "absolute" and "value" to accommodate your argument. Actually though, the question is flawed, a word game. Can god build a wall.... Does the pope poop in the woods....? Etc. Actually, the nature of sentience itself is more interesting. If a tree changes positions (falls e.g.) in the woods and there is nobody there to see it, did it change positions? I choose [ X ] "Yes" [   ] "No".


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate that 'tree falling in

I hate that 'tree falling in a forest' thing - it is based on ignorance or blatant conflation of alternative meanings of the word 'sound'. I lose respect for anyone using that argument seriously.

A tree falling in a forest generates the same pattern of pressure waves in the air, which is one modern meaning of the word 'sound', whether or not there is anyone there to hear them.

Those pressure variations will only cause the sensation of 'sound' in a brain if there is one around with functioning ears connected

 

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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Truden

treat2 wrote:
Truden wrote:
...Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, ...
Your references to Einstein, and Quantum mechanics have been considered obsolete by by astrophysicists for the past 20 years. String theories, and now M-theory is and has been at the cutting edge of understanding the essential topic you are attempting to talk about. In short, the origins of the Universe, as far back as scientists have theorized was a collection of a bunch of "strings", not waves, as you stated. Refer to Nova Science String Theory 3 part series, and M-theory playable via utube. Each of the episodes is 1 hour long.

I don't know that "String Theory" or "M-Theory" have completely displaced anything yet at this point.  String Theory, and especially the "branes" in String Theory, are widely criticized by many within the fields.  Anything that posits a parallel universe, that we cannot access at all, as a solution is going to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."