Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2015, 05:39 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 01:04 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 01:02 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Because god/gods is an idea. When one is first born, one is unaware of a god or religion until told so. Until educated and indoctrinated into a particular religion, such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc.

Religions of all stripes through the ages have been ideas. Religion began thousands of years ago. Most gods have been forgotten because they existed before the written word. Take a god like Zeus. Zeus was worshipped for many thousands of years until that god became unfashionable. Just as others before him.

Nowadays humanity has advanced far beyond the words in, for example the bible, that tell us the second coming will be foreshadowed by stars falling upon the earth. Now we know what stars are and how huge and far away they are. It is impossible for a star to fall upon the earth.

That said, it is now the responsibility of those who assert the existence of something, to prove it exists. It is not for an atheist, for example to disprove something that they never asserted to existing in the first place. As a believer, that is your task.

Now, this thread is devoted to physics. Not basic, and this is extremely basic, questions which have nothing to do with physics.

Rather than derail this physics thread, perhaps open your own thread and prove to us the existence of whichever of the many thousands of gods it is in which you believe.

I hope this is clear?

You're making very good points. However, atheism is still contradictory. If atheism is contradictory, God must exist.

Now you are simply desperate. You have demonstrated no contradiction in atheism.

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
08-07-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 12:49 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Why is atheism the "default position"?

You know why. Don't be obtuse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 05:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So far, Bucky Ball has outed himself as irrelevant to the thread. Diddo is just retarded.
And Szuchow, Banjo and TheInquisition like when Bucky Ball is a douche cannon.
Dually noted.

In any case, I'll get back to responding to other posts that are actually on topic.

In any case, he'll get back to responding to posts he thinks he's up to, and finds convenient.

Fixt

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-07-2015, 06:17 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
As dismissive as your response is, ZoraPrime, I still appreciate that you're actually on topic.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  1.) Local Realism Doesn't Exist

In context with other parts of your response, I'm not sure what you're implying. I never said anything about Local Realism existing or not existing. As far as I know (and I haven't gone back to check), I have only pointed out that Local Realism has been falsified.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  What exactly is local realism anyway? What about reality requires determinism at all levels?

You may have to elaborate on this a bit more. I'm not sure how you're tying the two together.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Saying that 'matter isn't as stable as we once thought' is misleading.

Actually, I made that statement in context with Newtonian Physics to bring in the introduction of Quantum Physics - The new realm of Physics that destroyed our notion that everything in our reality is as predictable as is in Classical Newtonian Physics.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Yes, the observer effect is a thing, but scientists aren't even sure why observations "collapse" a wavefunction must less what an observation even is.

Experimental and Theoretical Physicists generally define 'observation' in the context of Quantum Mechanics as knowledge of which-path information.
So in the Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure Experiment, the detectors being removed takes away one possible item that causes problems with wave functions and simply has different paths for the particles to take. Some of which are absolute, and some of which are probabilistic.
As you may know, the results show that simply knowing which path the particles take causes the particles to go through that path as a particle. The paths which were probabilistic, the particles went through as waves.


(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  It's either that nature just works that way, or it's a result of a physical process that necessarily occurs whenever we take a practical measurement. Quantum decoherence (which is an explanation to wavefunction collapse) essentially takes the latter view, wherein it's the coupling of a quantum system with the apparatus itself (which, after all, is made of matter) that results in an apparent wavefunction collapse.

I don't know of any studies showing the apparatus that the particles are being used in causing wave function collapse. If you know of any, I wouldn't mind looking at them.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Yes, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive. I don't see why God necessarily follows nor do I understand why counterintuition is tantamount to lack of reality. Just to be clear, I am not arguing that any of the scientific results are false; rather, I am arguing that they do nothing to support your thesis.

I argue that reality is observer dependent, not that it is not there. I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Not that you implied I was saying otherwise, but still.
So far, the information you've brought up is certainly not enough to support my thesis. I also argue that our universe is made of information - a specific type of error correcting information.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Local realism, as it's being used in the phys.org (which explicitly sues the phrase local realism), is referring to the fact that EPR's paradox was in fact a valid analysis that was confirmed by experiment. The important consequence of the EPR paradox is that a.) quantum entanglement is a thing, b.) quantum mechanics cannot be explained by a local hidden variable theory. What bothered Einstein about the EPR paradox is that it seemed to contradict relativity by allowing information to go faster than light. There are various explanation on how quantum mechanics does not violate special relativity, but the main point is usually that even if you can cause quantum particles to change state instantaneously across great distances, you cannot actually give some useful information (e.g. a message) using this technique. There are more sophisticated explanations, but that's good enough for this rebuttal. For that reason, the EPR paradox does not provide a fundamental issue to physics nor is the fact there is no local hidden variable theory to make nature fundamentally deterministic (instead of probabilistic) an issue. The lack of local realism, as its defined in that phys.org article, is simply not an issue for physics nor evidence for God's existence.

The implications of Quantum Entanglement are huge in Physics, especially if QM is a complete description of reality.
Quantum Entanglement implies that the distance between objects is an illusion and that space is a construct that projects that illusion.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  2.) Yes, no one is doubting that quantum mechanics is fundamental. We often don't observe probabilistic phenomena at the macroscopic level because everything we deal is on the order of micromoles or higher, at which point variance away from the standard behavior is practically negligible.

note that I did not say we do not observe quantum behavior at the macroscopic level; rather, just the probabilistic part is obscured.

I actually agree with you here. Not sure if that was intended or not.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  3.) Do you even understand why Bell's Inequality is so important? Quantum entanglement measurements whose experimental validity is premised on Bell's Inequality help show us that quantum mechanics is probabilistic as well as the validation for the EPR paradox being an actual physical phenomenon. See point 1 for why EPR paradox is important, etc.

Bell's Inequality is so important because Einstein saw the absurd notion of the moon being in a state of probability, dependent on observation.
Bell's Theorem showed that Einstein's "proof by contradiction" was in fact proven. Einstein believed that it was impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light.
If things traveled faster than the speed of light, all sorts of strange things would happen. For example - if you were to send a letter to someone and it showed up faster than the speed of light, it's possible to receive a response to the letter before you've actually written anything.. which is ridiculous.
This is why Einstein and his Colleagues proposed the EPR Paradox. They "knew" this couldn't be the case. So just saying "it's not a problem for physics" is also making a premature assumption.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  4.) Possibly. This is where we're entering the 'speculative physics' The details don't matter (all what the holographic principle says is that our universe is equivalent to a 2-D manifold); what is important is understanding the context where the theory arose. The theory arose in examining black holes, which is already a red flag. We do not understand black holes because they require both general relativity and quantum mechanics to describe; however, we have no theory that successfully merges both. As such, the area of physics loosely called "quantum theory" is a clusterfuck of many different, often exclusives, 'theories' that are able to explain one or two problems each but together provide no coherent framework for tackling physics problems that necessitate both general relativity and quantum mechanics. in other words, physicists are just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks, and a lot of mud as been thrown and we're still not sure what sticks.

My fourth premise is incomplete because I copied it from my old essay that I had originally posted in order to present the argument on The Atheist Analysis.
I have since updated the premise, and should have done so here.
The update basically makes no mention of holograms or simulations. I don't actually believe our reality is a simulation or even a hologram (at least not in the sense that we normally use the word 'hologram'). Rather, I try to show how our universe is made of information and is projected a bit like hologram but more in the way a Black Hole projects information - at a cosmic scale.
I understand the Holographic Principle, and I also don't need to use the principle itself in argument for a computable universe. So it's not necessary in my argument.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  This isn't even discussing more specific issues, such as how having information encoded in a boundary isn't as impressive as it sounds (all of Maxwell's equations, for example, are basically equating information at the boundary to information throughout the area/volume enclosed by the boundary).

Explain further, please. I'm not sure what you're implying.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  5.) So much woo.

What the first experiment is showing, is again, quantum entanglement is a thing. There's no disagreement with the premise, but no argument for how we get to "ergo God."

I don't go from Entanglement to "ergo God".

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  The second link doesn't work; you had one parenthesis too many. But that blunder aside, I found the PDF, and... wow. Where the hell do I begin with this? At best, the article is trying to argue that we must deeply consider the implications that cognition can affect the external world, although is trying to act that this is somehow a more impressive statement than saying cognition can melt an ice cube if placed on my forehead. Which is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean cognition ('consciousness') somehow transcends the law of physics; rather, it just means oh god my brains produces too much damn heat

I didn't know that Wigner's paper states we can consciously affect the external world. At least not in the sense you're implying. I'm going to have to read over that paper again and see if I misread it.
As far as I know, this paper was implying that the mind was shown to be separate by the way reality behaves upon observation.


(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Anyway, I'm done.

bye.

Hope you come back to continue the discussion. I have a few questions here.

“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
08-07-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 05:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Also, Bucky, your quoting of Epicurus is entirely irrelevant to this thread as I've pointed out in plain English that I am not referring to a religious "God" of any kind. My lack of response should have hinted at that. Instead you took that as a victory of some sort.
Strange.

It is not "irrelevant". YOU defined YOUR god. Epicurus' argument STANDS, UNLESS you come up with a coherent definition of a god. YOUR OP has the word "god" in it. WHY DID YOU put the word "god" in it ? There is NOTHING about Physics that "leads" to ANY of the gods ... yours, or anyone else's.

See this : "Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God"
YOU must defend YOUR OP by defining your terms coherently. So far, you have been utterly NOT up to the task. Nor have you explained why one leads to the other.

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
08-07-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
No, Bucky Balls, I am allowed to stay on topic. My topic, not what you think my topic should be. Thumbsup

“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
08-07-2015, 06:24 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 06:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  No, Bucky Balls, I am allowed to stay on topic. My topic, not what you think my topic should be. Thumbsup

You HAVE no "topic" the way it is. I do get you want to control your garbage as that's the ONLY way it makes any sense, and answer ONLY what's convenient ... if that's what you wanted, WTF did you even come HERE ?

YOu have NO coherent definitions so far.

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
08-07-2015, 06:37 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 06:17 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The new realm of Physics that destroyed our notion that everything in our reality is

It's not "new" any more. It's obviously your new toy, which you can ONLY think about in tired old "proves god" (YOUR THREAD TITLE) knee-jerk way.

(07-07-2015 09:39 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Yes, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive. I don't see why God necessarily follows nor do I understand why counterintuition is tantamount to lack of reality. Just to be clear, I am not arguing that any of the scientific results are false; rather, I am arguing that they do nothing to support your thesis.

Quote:I argue that reality is observer dependent, not that it is not there. I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Not that you implied I was saying otherwise, but still.
So far, the information you've brought up is certainly not enough to support my thesis. I also argue that our universe is made of information - a specific type of error correcting information.

You didn't answer his question. You ignored it, as it was inconvenient.

Quote:The implications of Quantum Entanglement are huge in Physics, especially if QM is a complete description of reality.
Quantum Entanglement implies that the distance between objects is an illusion and that space is a construct that projects that illusion.

Lovely. You FAILED to answer his question about god.

Quote:I don't go from Entanglement to "ergo God".

Yes you do. You FAILED in every way to even begin to explain how you get from one to the other.

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
08-07-2015, 06:59 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Got a negative from me, Bucky Balls. I don't know why you bother hanging around here anymore. You're just blowing off steam and not really contributing to this conversation so far.

“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
08-07-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 06:59 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Got a negative from me, Bucky Balls. I don't know why you bother hanging around here anymore. You're just blowing off steam and not really contributing to this conversation so far.

Poor widdow baby. Can't take the heat. Any heat.
YOU are gone for years. You come back with crap. And YOU talk about what I'm doing here ? hahahaha

YOU can't answer the questions posed to you. I could care less. Look at the people that neg repped me. You see what company you put yourself in ? I get that you don't want to, and CAN'T answer any relevant questions. When and IF you write even one relevant intelligent paper here, then someone may take you seriously.

Nice try at deflection. Fail again.

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A GOD ? The god YOU posited in YOUR OP ?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: