Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2015, 04:39 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015 04:43 AM by ideasonscribe.)
Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I'm not sure if many of you remember me. I used to post quite a bit on here a couple years ago.
At the time, I was a devout Christian. However, since I've been gone, I've actually been an atheist for a good while, and then started studying Quantum Physics and Superstring Theory. After a good amount of research, I realized my materialistic stance was no longer tenable. Shortly after, I then realized my atheistic stance was untenable as well.
I am a Philosophical Theist. I believe in the probable existence of what can be defined as 'god'. I am not religious, so whatever it is I believe in, I have attributed no doctrine or dogma to. There are also no religious characteristics to associate with this being as I don't find it necessary.
I actually came on here not too long ago and shared something similar to this a while back. That was during the beginning of my Philosophical Theism. Since then, I have done a lot more research and have found myself even more convinced of it's validity.

During my research, I had a massive compilation of notes and relevant papers collected. I eventually found some time to organize them all into a shorter argument.
NOTE: This argument/essay has been intentionally articulated to beg more questions while simultaneously providing the necessary substance for it's validity. This is so that people are encouraged to ask the right questions in order to continue the conversation at the lay level.
This information can get a bit technical, and I don't want to scare anyone away from joining the conversation.
I am willing to answer any and all questions, and to elaborate further on any point, paper or concept.

Keep in mind that this argument is also designed to demonstrate two main points:
1.) That Local Realism has been experimental falsified - consequently, so has Materialism.
2.) The existence of Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness (AKA - IPIC [Cosmic])

On the existence of IPIC, I will also demonstrate how this being can be comfortably defined as 'god' in a more religiously-neutral sense.

So without further ado, I present -
The Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of god:

What I want to demonstrate in my argument is this:

1.) Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this.
2.) Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything.
3.) There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated.
4.) The universe is likely a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this.
5.) The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer.

“Quantum experiments hint at a worldview that has not yet been grasped. The existence of something beyond what we usually consider physics – beyond what we usually consider the “physical world”.
- The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

------> Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this. <------
Quantum mechanics began it's tests with particles (i.e. electrons, protons, etc.)
The particles (or matter) behaved like waves of probability when not being measured, and like balls of matter while being measured.
(http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys2...tExpt.pdf)
(http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/...eslit.htm)
(http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/v...ide14.pdf)
This implied either that the detectors were screwing up the results, or that matter is not really as stable as we originally thought it was.
The results of experiments seemed to show that matter is dependent on observation, or 'measurement', to exist in any defined location.

We also found that two particles connected by Entanglement can somehow communicate with each other instantaneously at any distance in space. This phenomena was called "spooky action at a distance" by Albert Einstein.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (Later known as the EPR Paradox) came together to find a 'local hidden variable'. This hidden variable is something that would connect the particles somehow to show that reality wasn't as "spooky" or strange as the experiments were implying.
(http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)


Other experiments were devised to remove the problem of the detectors in order to show that it wasn't the detectors causing the problem.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure proposed by Scully and Dr ̈uhl in 1982 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf) (http://einstein.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPape...ayed.pdf), was the experiment that drove us further down the rabbit hole.
The experiment succeeded in showing that the detectors played no role in the interference and clump patterns shown by the particles.


However, local realism has been violated:
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-...alism.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/46/19708.full

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10....ett.37.465


------> Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything. <------

The data has been done for large enough objects to see with the naked eye. As the experiments use larger and larger subjects, physicists no longer doubt the results will be the same.
Time moves along less like an analog clock and more like a digital clock with individual, computable states. Each state containing a specific amount of information

As the experiment is scaled up in size, at some point quantum behavior (interference) should give way to classical behavior (no interference). But how big can the particles be before that happens?

Quantum Mechanics shows that not only particles are defined by interference, but much larger objects as well. The results repeat no matter how large the object being used in the experiments.

Quantum Interference is shown in large organic molecules -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104521/

Imaging of the experiment, as well as the equipment used:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.201...chnica.com


------> There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated. <------

If you can show that Bell's Inequality has not been violated, you will win a Nobel Prize:

The Quantum Randi Challenge: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294

Bell’s Inequality:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v40...9791a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v39...189a0.html

Leggits Inequality:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5133


------> The universe is possibly a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this. <------

Physicists such as Yoshifumi Hyakutake and colleagues of Ibaraki University in Japan have previously provided convincing evidence for the idea of holographic universes:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5607v1.pdf
"In this article we provide the first quantitative evidence for the gauge/gravity duality at the level of quantum gravity. We perform Monte Carlo simulation of the dual gauge theory in the parameter regime that corresponds to a quantum black hole. Our results agree precisely with a prediction for an evaporating black hole including quantum gravity corrections. Thus we find that the dual gauge theory indeed provides a complete description of the quantum nature of the evaporating black hole."
The evidence provided by the Physicists at Ibaraki University of Japan show that the information that is projected into a black hole by information at the edge or the "event horizon", actually occurs at a cosmic scale.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7526v3.pdf

- Yoshifumi Hyakutake

Is this concept testable?
Absolutely. The concept is currently being experimentally tested at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_...40826.html

I've sent an email to FNAL with a request for the results of the experiment. The data is expected to be reviewed this year.

The experiment is searching for "holographic noise" at the fundamental level.
“If we find a noise we can’t get rid of, we might be detecting something fundamental about nature – a noise that is intrinsic to space-time,” - Fermilab physicist Aaron Chou
The noise is found by using two separate interferometers situated on top of one other. Each interferometer sends a one-kilowatt laser beam (the equivalent of 200,000 laser pointers) at a beam splitter. Then, once the light beams are split, they travel down two perpendicular 40 metre arms. Next, the light is reflected off a mirror back to the beam splitter, where the two beams finally recombine. However, during this journey, even the tiniest vibrations can interfere with the light's frequency, causing fluctuations in the brightness of light.
The analysis of the light fluctuations is critical to the results of the experiment. It enables them to discover whether space itself is vibrating.
These vibrations will be the "holographic noise".

Other experiments are being done by a group of Physicists at the University of Washington looking for "signatures" that would indicate our universe is graph-like, much like you would use in a 3-dimensional world in a virtual system.
(http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf)
And here's the laymen presentation of the PDF:
(http://www.int.washington.edu/users/mjs5...Universe/)


------> The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer. <------

If the cosmos is a hologram, where is the information coming from?
We know that simulations of virtual realities can be processed via computers. However, in order to build a computer to process every qubit of our universe, one would need to create a computer larger than the universe itself. It's not practical and largely unnecessary to postulate.
However we do know that our brains can process information much more smoothly and compactly into platonic information.
The above science has shown, however, that the brain is also a part of the hologram. Therefore, the matter that makes the brain is also observer dependent.
That means that the mind is fundamental and can be a separate entity. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20...MvW5NB-FA)
(http://www.projects.science.uu.nl/igg/jo...igner.pdf)
If this is true, then our universe can more simply be explained by inferring a mind processing the universe through platonic information processing.
This mind would be a cosmic mind that envelopes all of space-time in our four dimensions.


"What I mean by 'consciousness' is, consciousness is the one thing that cannot be an illusion."
- Sam Harris

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 05:04 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
You have merely traded one set of crazy ideas for another set of crazy ideas. Drinking Beverage

"Intelligent Platonic Information-Processing Consciousness" Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
05-07-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I'm waiting in excitement for the responses to this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Typho2k's post
05-07-2015, 05:10 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Please also note that any unrelated comments or responses will be ignored.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 05:24 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015 05:51 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
It's a crap idea. Theists, painted into a corner of desperation, have this one last "gap" to hide their nonsense in. It's the same idea that the author (a good scientist actually, and Professor at Brown I think) ) of "Finding Darwin's God" proposes, in his book.

It's not an "argument".
1. There is no coherent definition of the word "god", nor does this idea support any of the gods that humans have ever cooked up.
2. There is no evidence for a god. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Many logical systems are 100 % correct, but do not obtain in reality.

"The universe is likely a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this." Great. A simulation of what, and you can kiss "free will" good-bye.
"The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer." --- No evidence. At all.
We know that "minds" arise ONLY from brain systems (so far). There is no brain for this system to arise from.

You've gone off the deep end. Ideasonscribe. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", (and you have a good one).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-07-2015, 06:03 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
As I stated in my original post, this argument is intended to beg more questions for the purpose of elaboration.
No need to be presumptuous.

I'm going to take a shower and finish responding.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:50 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Weird stuff happens on small scales. Nothing new......

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 07:00 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015 07:03 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
TheInquisition, refer to point 2 - Quantum Mechanics actually applies on the classical scale as well. This has been experimentally verified.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015 07:05 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(05-07-2015 05:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not an "argument".
1. There is no coherent definition of the word "god", nor does this idea support any of the gods that humans have ever cooked up.

This argument supports several characteristics of a general definition of 'god'.

1.) God is generally defined as the intelligent causal agent of our reality.
The being in this argument is intelligent, as intelligence is required to process platonic (coherent) information.
2.) God is generally defined as omnipresent.
The being in this argument would be outside our four dimensions.
Being that technically anyone in the fifth dimension is no longer bound to where you are in time, you would have access to the dimension of time at will. You would appear to be omnipresent as a result.
3.) God is generally defined as omnipotent.
This is compatible with something that processes the information that our universe is made of. If you were processing all the information that makes up our universe, you would be capable of altering any information at will. You would technically be "omnipotent".
4.) This obviously applies to omniscience as well since the being processing the information needs to know what they are processing.

(05-07-2015 05:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  2. There is no evidence for a god. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Many logical systems are 100 % correct, but do not obtain in reality.

If there's also no evidence for multiple untestable universes, then yes, this argument is not evidence. I am completely open to discussing the "evidences" for the Many-worlds hypothesis - for which many physicists and theorists are famous for adhering so closely to.

(05-07-2015 05:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "The universe is likely a hologram or virtual simulation and we can test this." Great. A simulation of what, and you can kiss "free will" good-bye.

In premise four, I use the term "hologram" because a hologram is something to compare the way information behaves in order to create a virtual reality. It's basically another way of saying "our universe is made of pure information, and that information is structured enough to project what we perceive as reality".


(05-07-2015 05:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "The information processing the hologram is coming from a mind - rather than a highly advanced computer." --- No evidence. At all.
We know that "minds" arise ONLY from brain systems (so far). There is no brain for this system to arise from.

We know that minds arise only from brain systems? Who's "we"?
So if you've read my argument, then you might have noticed that I pointed out that not only is matter observer-dependent at the quantum level, but also the classical - as the Legget-Garg Inequality has been violated, and is continuously so:

Here's a more exhaustive explanation of the Legget-Garg test:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/...s1614.html

And here are some examples of larger items used in the experiments:

C60

"60-Atom Carbon Molecules"

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/f...1.210.html

Phthalocyanine Molecules

"masses of 514 AMU and 1,298 AMU respectively."

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/n...12.34.html

Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator

"A Mechanical Resonator consisting of trillions of atoms visible with the naked eye."

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/f...0.130.html

A conscious mind is required for the results of the experiments.

The Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure experiment has shown that detectors play no role in the interference patterns aside from gathering data.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf

The Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure experiment basically removes the initial detectors and leaves the results purely to the which-path knowledge of the observer - observing after the particles have passed through the slits. The particles that took a path that was known produced "clump" patterns like particles of matter. The particles that took unknown paths produced "interference" patterns like waves.
The result - simply knowing which path the particles are going to travel causes them to travel through one or the other. The detectors/observers play no role in this experiment.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Couple of observations.

1) Bucky pointed out that based on all of the definitions for "god" you need to define your terms first, he's right. That is akin to saying "I am looking for a particle." Sooooooo what are the properties of that particle you are looking for?

2) In a more general note. I fail to see how you made the leap to a god for any of this. You did reference some interesting studies/results, but you never tied it to any conscious higher being. Unless you are going to do that in a subsequent post. While I understand that you were trying to keep it out of the TL/DR realm, I think you may have missed your mark as I really didn't see you actually argue for either of your 2 points. Bucky sort of pointed that out already.

3) I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion for a conscious being with Bell's inequality considering there have been no loophole-free experiments done yet (to my knowledge). That is drawing a conclusion with insufficient data.

4) You seem to be drawing a conclusion in your mind before we have a good understanding of what we are even looking at. When I was doing quantum mechanics in grad school (several ears ago BTW, I know it has progressed some), the problem was very easy to see (i.e. where classical mechanics fail for particle physics) but in spite of many, many great physicists, we still don't understand why. You seem to be trying to draw a conclusion from a poorly understood relationship although you never really stated how this points to a deity. Logically, the quantum world must apply to large objects in some way but we just don't understand the relationship. Yet. Yeah, QM describes the atoms of a spoon but can't describe the spoon itself. This still does not mean there was a conscious superbeing.

5) Is the universe a hologram or simulation? This entire section was about experiments that are being run and only 1 that had some data. Don't you think that this is a little early to be drawing a conclusion? I also read Hanada's paper. While the results are interesting, I still fail to see how this even begins to describe a god in any sense. This brings me to my final point about your last section.

6) You said that IF the cosmos is a hologram, where is the information coming from........ stop right there. NO. NO. NO. They did NOT even insinuate that in their article and the other references you cite were not complete yet. I know how you made that leap and I see why but that is rather premature to go there just yet.

You also cite arXiv which is a moderated publication but it is not peer reviewed. Therefore, these ideas need to go through the wringer of peer review first before you can really take stock in them. Some of these may have been ideas that were in development at the time but the researcher has since discarded the idea. It's not to say that they are wrong, but they may just be that, ideas. Something to keep in mind.


Edit: I was typing this as you posted your response to Inquisition.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: